58410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

PART 39—RULES CONCERNING 

CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTRIC 

RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION; AND 

PROCEDURES FOR THE 

ESTABLISHMENT, APPROVAL, AND 

ENFORCEMENT OF ELECTRIC 

RELIABILITY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

■ 2. Amend § 39.11 by adding paragraph 

(c) as follows: 

§ 39.11 Reliability reports. 

* * * * * 

(c) The Electric Reliability 

Organization shall make available to the 

Commission, on a non-public and 

ongoing basis, access to the 

Transmission Availability Data System, 

Generating Availability Data System, 

and protection system misoperations 

databases, or any successor databases 

thereto. 

Note: The following text will not appear in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Availability of Certain North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation 

Databases to the Commission 

(Issued September 17, 2015) 

LaFLEUR, Commissioner, concurring: 

Today’s order proposes to revise the 

Commission’s regulations to provide the 

Commission and its staff with access, on 

a non-public and ongoing basis, to three 

databases maintained by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC): (1) The 

Transmission Availability Data System 

(TADS), (2) the Generating Availability 

Data System (GADS), and (3) the 

protection system misoperations 

database. As explained in the order, the 

Commission concludes that access to 

these databases would support its work 

under section 215(d)(5) of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA) to monitor reliability 

trends and issues that may warrant the 

development of new or modified 

reliability standards. 

On rare occasions, the Commission 

has exercised its authority to direct 

NERC to develop new standards to 

address reliability risks not covered in 

existing standards, such as geomagnetic 

disturbances and physical security. 

While I do not expect the Commission 

to frequently invoke that authority going 

forward, I agree that the information in 

these databases would assist the 

Commission with its responsibilities 

under section 215(d)(5), as well as its 

understanding of NERC’s assessments 

under section 215(g). Access to these 

databases could therefore support the 

Commission’s oversight of several steps 

of the reliability cycle, including event 

analysis, establishment of metrics, 

setting reliability priorities, and 

improving the standards development 

and review process. 

I recognize, however, that under 

section 215 of the FPA, NERC and the 

Commission have a unique relationship, 

since Congress vested a significant 

amount of authority over the standards 

process in the Electric Reliability 

Organization (i.e., NERC) and clearly 

prescribed the Commission’s oversight 

role. It is important that we recognize 

the distinction between that oversight 

role and NERC’s primary responsibility 

to monitor reliability issues and propose 

standards to address them. Ultimately, I 

believe our efforts to sustain and 

improve the reliability of the bulk 

electric system are furthered by mutual 

trust and shared priorities between the 

Commission and NERC. 

I understand that today’s proposal 

might be controversial within the NERC 

community. I therefore welcome 

comment on the proposal, including any 

potential issues or concerns not 

identified in the NOPR, to provide a full 

record for the Commission to consider 

in deciding whether to proceed to a 

final rule. 

Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 

Cheryl A. LaFleur 

Commissioner 

[FR Doc. 2015–24282 Filed 9–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0581; FRL–9934–69– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Missouri; Regional Haze Five-Year 

Progress Report State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri on August 5, 2014. 

Missouri’s SIP submission (‘‘progress 

report SIP’’) addresses requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

EPA’s rules that require states to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing SIP addressing regional 

haze (‘‘regional haze SIP’’). EPA is 

proposing approval of Missouri’s 

progress report SIP submission on the 

basis that it addresses the progress 

report and adequacy determination 

requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0581 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Stephen Krabbe, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0581. EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 58411 

1On June 26, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

approval of Missouri’s August 5, 2009, regional 

haze SIP to address the first implementation period 

for regional haze (77 FR 38007). In a separate 

action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), 

EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Missouri 

regional haze SIP because of the State’s reliance on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet certain 

regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in 

August 2011 with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) (76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011)). In the 

aforementioned June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri to 

replace the State’s reliance on CAIR with reliance 

on CSAPR. Following these EPA actions, the D.C.h 

Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (‘‘EME Homer City’’), 696 

F. 3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and 

keeping CAIR in place pending the promulgation of 

a valid replacement rule. On April 29, 2014, the 

U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit 

opinion vacating CSAPR, and remanded the case for 

further proceedings. EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 134 

S. Ct. 1584. In the interim, CAIR remained in place. 

On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s 

motion to lift the stay on CSAPR. Order of October 

23, 2014, in EME Homer City, D.C. Cir. No. 11– 

1302. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify 

how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with 

the D.C. Circuit’s order. 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 

2014) (interim final rulemaking). Subsequent to the 

interim final rulemaking, EPA began 

implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 

Section IV of this notice addresses the impact of 

CAIR and CSAPR on Missouri’s progress toward 

RPGs for this five year progress report SIP. 

2The El Dorado Springs IMPROVE monitoring 

site is a Protocol monitoring site that is maintained 

by MDNR to also measure visibility impairment in 

Missouri, but it is not located in a Federal Class I 

area. It was established to aid in determining 

impacts to portions of the country where no Class 

I areas exist. 

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. 

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, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

at the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Krabbe, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7483 

or by email at krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is the background for EPA’s Proposed 

action? 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze progress report SIPs and adequacy 

determinations? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

B. Adequacy Determination of the Current 

Regional Haze SIP 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

progress report SIP and adequacy 

determination? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) 

3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) 

4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) 

5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) 

6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) 

7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) 

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Regional Haze Plan 

IV. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on Missouri’s 

Progress Report 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

Proposed action? 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress toward the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

States are also required to submit, at the 

same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. 40 

CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report 

SIP is due five years after submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. The 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) submitted the state’s 

first regional haze SIP on August 5, 

2009, and supplemented on January 30, 

2012, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b).1

On February 14, 2014, MDNR 

provided to the Federal Land Managers 

a revision to Missouri’s SIP reporting on 

progress made during the first 

implementation period toward RPGs for 

Class I areas in the state and Class I 

areas outside the state that are affected 

by Missouri sources. Missouri has two 

Class I areas, Mingo National Wildlife 

Refuge (Mingo) and Hercules Glades 

Wilderness Area (Hercules Glades). 

Missouri also hosts an additional 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring site, located at El Dorado 

Springs.2 Notification was published on 

MDNR’s Air Pollution Control Program 

Web site on April 28, 2014. A public 

hearing was held on held at the St. 

Louis Regional Office on Thursday, May 

29, 2014. 

On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted 

the five year progress report SIP to EPA. 

This progress report SIP and 

accompanying cover letter also included 

a determination that the state’s existing 

regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to 

approve Missouri’s progress report SIP 

on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze progress report SIPs and 

adequacy determinations? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires a 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze SIP; a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

that have limited or impeded progress 

in Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources; an assessment of the 

sufficiency of the approved regional 

haze SIP; and a review of the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy. 

B. Adequacy Determinations of the 

Current Regional Haze SIP 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

regional haze SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III below, 40 

CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: 

(1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing regional haze SIP is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and other states(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that its existing 

regional haze SIP is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze SIP to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

regional haze progress report and 

adequacy determination? 

On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted 

a revision to Missouri’s regional haze 

SIP to address progress made toward 

RPGs of Class I areas in the state and 

Class I areas outside the state that are 

affected by emissions from Missouri’s 

sources. This progress report SIP also 

included a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing regional 

haze SIP. Missouri has two Class I areas 

within its borders, and maintains an 

additional IMPROVE monitoring site. 

MDNR utilized particulate matter source 

apportionment (PSAT) techniques for 

photochemical modeling conducted by 

the Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP) to identify two 

Class I areas in nearby Arkansas 

potentially impacted by Missouri 

sources: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

(UBWA) and Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area (CCWA). 77 FR 38007. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

The following sections summarize: (1) 

Each of the seven elements that must be 

addressed by the progress report under 

40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) how Missouri’s 

progress report SIP addressed each 

element; and (3) EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination as to whether 

the state satisfied each element. 

1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

Missouri evaluated the status of all 

measures included in its 2009 regional 

haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress 

report SIP, Missouri summarizes the 

status of the emissions reduction 

measures that were included in the final 

iteration of the CENRAP regional haze 

emissions inventory and RPG modeling. 

Such control measures included the 

CAIR, BART, Tier 2 Federal emissions 

standards for passenger vehicles, EPA’s 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (Tier 4), 

and the NOX SIP Call. Missouri found 

that these ongoing air pollution control 

programs are sufficient to meet the 2018 

RPGs for Mingo and Hercules Glades 

Class I areas, and that programs such as 

CAIR, CSAPR, and BART were very 

cost-effective in reducing visibility 

impairment at Missouri’s Class I areas. 

Missouri also discusses the status of 

those measures that were not included 

in the final CENRAP emissions 

inventory and were not relied upon in 

the initial regional haze SIP to meet 

RPGs. The state notes that the emissions 

reductions from these measures could 

aid in reducing visibility impairment 

and in achieving the RPGs in Missouri’s 

Class I areas. The measures include the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS Attainment 

Demonstrations, Illinois Multi-Pollutant 

Regulation, Federal Tier 3 vehicle 

emission and fuel standards, and the 

2007 Federal Heavy-Duty Highway 

Rule. 

In addition, Missouri addressed 

facilities with expected emission 

changes to occur between 2012 and 

2017. These changes were not included 

in the 2009 initial regional haze SIP 

modeling, as they are not yet permanent 

and enforceable. 

EPA proposes to find that Missouri’s 

analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). The state documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP and describes 

significant measures resulting from EPA 

regulations other than the regional haze 

program as they pertain to the state’s 

sources. The progress report SIP 

highlights the effect of several Federal 

control measures both nationally and in 

the CENRAP region, and when possible, 

in the state. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for sources in the state, 

Missouri’s progress report SIP notes that 

of the twenty-six potential BART 

sources identified, only one source was 

subject to BART. This remaining source, 

Holcim (US) Inc. (Holcim-Clarksville), 

located in Clarksville, Missouri, entered 

into a consent agreement with MDNR, 

and set emissions limits for SO2 and 

NOX to be met as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than four years 

after approval of Missouri’s regional 

haze plan. EPA approved their regional 

haze plan on June 26, 2012 (77 FR 

38007), including the consent agreement 

with Holcim-Clarksville, therefore 

compliance must be achieved no later 

than June 26, 2016. Since the consent 

agreement was signed and initial 

regional haze plan approved, HolcimClarksville discontinued Portland 

cement manufacturing and hazardous 

waste fuel burning operations. 

Remaining operations at the facility 

include receiving, storing, and shipping. 

Thus the facility’s new SO2 and NOX

potential emissions are both zero tons 

per year, which is included in the stateissued operating permit. Because no 

other sources were found to be subject 

to BART, the state found that other 

emission controls or alternative 

measures in place of BART were not 

necessary, and no further discussion of 

the status of controls was necessary in 

the progress report SIP. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed the 

status of control measures in its regional 

haze SIP as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Missouri describes the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP, including the 

status of control measures to meet BART 

and reasonable progress requirements, 

the status of significant measures 

resulting from EPA regulations, as well 

as measures that came into effect since 

the CENRAP analyses for the regional 

haze SIP were completed. 

2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through the 

measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze SIP and progress 

report SIP, Missouri focuses its 

assessment on NOX and SO2 emissions 

from electric generating units (EGUs) 

because available information from 

multiple sources (CENRAP, EPA’s Clean 

Air Markets Division (CAMD), etc.) 

determined that these compounds 

accounted for the majority of the 

visibility-impairing pollution in the 

Central Region. 

During the period from 2007–2012, 

SO2 emissions decreased by 45.6% as a 

result of several factors, including 

installation of controls, units switching 

to cleaner fuels, load shifting from 

dirtier units to cleaner units, and an 

overall decrease in demand for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 58413 

3See also sections III.A.4 and III.A.6 of this 

action. 

4Since the submission of the Regional Haze 

Progress SIP, the MATS rule was remanded to the 

D.C. Circuit by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2015, 

in Michigan et al. v. Environmental Protection 

Agency et al. (Slip. Op. 14–46, lll 

U.S.lll(2015)). 

5The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the highest and lowest amount of 

visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a 

five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301. 

generation.3 Missouri noted that the 

downward trend continued, even 

though demand increased during the 

period from 2009 through 2011. 

Additionally, there was a 43.4 percent 

decrease in pounds of SO2 generated per 

MMBtu of energy produced. Missouri 

stated this decrease in emissions, while 

demand remained relatively steady, 

indicates that the reductions reflect 

cleaner generation and not decreased 

electricity demand. 

During that same period, NOX

emissions generally decreased, as did 

the generation rate of NOX. However, 

neither NOX emissions nor NOX

generation trended downward every 

year. 

Missouri noted that as additional 

controls are installed to meet the 

stringent requirements of CSAPR, the 

Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) regulation, 

and the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standard (MATS),4 emission rates are 

expected to decrease even further. 

Missouri asserts that the current 

downward trend, particularly for SO2 as 

the species of predominant concern to 

visibility impairment at Mingo and 

Hercules Glades, plus the imminent 

implementation of additional federal 

regulations, reinforces their 

determination that Missouri’s Class I 

areas will meet the established RPGs in 

the required timeframe. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). The state provides 

actual emissions reductions of NOX and 

SO2 from EGUs in Missouri that have 

occurred since Missouri submitted its 

regional haze SIP. Missouri 

appropriately focused on SO2, and to a 

lesser extent, NOX, emissions from its 

EGUs in its progress report SIP because 

it previously identified these emissions 

as the most significant contributors to 

visibility impairment at Missouri’s Class 

I areas. Given the large SO2 and NOX

reductions at EGUs that have actually 

occurred, further analysis of emissions 

from other sources or other pollutants 

was ultimately unnecessary in this first 

implementation period. Because no 

additional controls were found to be 

needed for reasonable progress for the 

first implementation period for 

evaluated sources in Missouri, EPA 

proposes to find that no further 

discussion of emissions reductions from 

controls was necessary in this progress 

report SIP. 

3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: 5

(i) Current visibility conditions; 

(ii) the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions; and 

(iii) the change in visibility impairment 

over the past five years. 

Missouri provides figures with the 

latest supporting data available at the 

time that it developed the progress 

report SIP that address the three 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for 

Mingo and Hercules Glades. For the first 

regional haze SIPs, baseline conditions 

were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. 64 FR 35730. Baseline visibility 

conditions at Mingo are 28.02 deciviews 

(dv) for the most impaired (20 percent 

worst) days and 14.3 dv for the least 

impaired (20 percent best) days. Current 

visibility conditions (for the five year 

period from 2008–2012) are 25.7 dv for 

the 20 percent worst days and 13.1 dv 

for the 20 percent best days. The 

difference between current visibility 

and baseline visibility for the 20 percent 

worst days is 2.3 dv of improvement 

(i.e., 28.0–25.7 dv). The difference 

between current visibility and baseline 

visibility conditions for the 20 percent 

best days is 1.2 dv of improvement (i.e., 

14.3–13.1 dv). Further, visibility 

impairment due to SO2 has shown a 

downward trend (improved visibility) in 

terms of the 5-year rolling average for 

the worst 20 percent days for each of the 

five-year progress periods evaluated by 

Missouri. Visibility has also improved 

in nearly all of the five-year progress 

periods for SO2 for the best 20 percent 

days. Missouri noted that the goal for 

the 20 percent best sampling days is to 

show no degradation in visibility 

conditions from the baseline; and 

available monitored data for the first 

planning period showed no degradation, 

and in fact showed improvement. 

Missouri noted that for the worst 20 

percent days, the established 2018 RPG 

is 23.71 dv, and that based on the 

current rate of improvement, it is 

expected that this RPG will be met. 

Hercules Glades has an established 

baseline condition of 26.75 dv for the 

most impaired days. Current visibility 

conditions (for the five year period from 

2008–2012) are 23.5 dv for the 20 

percent worst days, showing 3.25 dv of 

improvement. Baseline conditions for 

the least impaired days are 12.8 dv. 

Current visibility conditions are 11.3 dv 

for the 20 percent best days, showing 

1.5 dv of improvement. Further, for both 

the most impaired days and the least 

impaired days, there has been a steady 

downward trend in the rolling average 

visibility, meaning visibility has 

improved since the baseline for both the 

worst and the best days. Looking at SO2, 

there has been a steady downward trend 

in visibility impairment since the 

baseline for the worst 20 percent days, 

and a general downward trend in 

visibility impairment since the baseline 

for the best 20 percent days. Missouri 

noted that the goal was to show 

improvement in the worst visibility 

days, and show no further degradation 

on the best days; in fact, monitored data 

showed improvement in both. Missouri 

also noted that for the worst 20 percent 

days, the established 2018 RPG is 23.06 

dv, and that based on the current rate of 

improvement, it is expected that this 

RPG will be met. 

Missouri also has an IMPROVE 

Protocol monitoring site located in El 

Dorado Springs. This is not a Class I 

area, but does provide a more 

comprehensive data set in areas where 

Class I areas are spread out. Missouri 

established a baseline condition for the 

period from 2005–2007, with 26.97 dv 

for the 20 percent worst days. Missouri 

stated that the analysis and trends at El 

Dorado Springs help strengthen the 

argument that visibility conditions 

across the entire state, not just at the 

Class I areas, are improving and are 

expected to achieve the 2018 RPGs. 

Nearby Class I areas in Arkansas were 

also reviewed in Missouri’s progress 

report SIP. Upper Buffalo Wildlife Area 

and Caney Creek Wildlife Area both 

show a downward trend in visibility 

impairment for the worst 20 percent 

days. This downward trend is also seen 

in SO2 measurements and total light 

extinction. Missouri notes that this 

trend at the Class I areas outside the 

state that are affected by Missouri’s 

sources supports the claim that 

Missouri’s current strategy is still 

adequate and that reductions achieved 

in Missouri have benefited areas both in 

and outside the state. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3). The state provides the 

information regarding visibility 

conditions and notes that no changes 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

are needed to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The progress report 

SIP includes current conditions based 

on the latest available IMPROVE 

monitoring data for the years 2008– 

2012, the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline 

visibility conditions, and the change in 

visibility impairment over the most 

recent five-year period for which data 

were available at the time of the 

progress report SIP development (i.e., 

2008–2012). 

4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emissions changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. 

In its progress report SIP, Missouri 

presents data from a statewide 

emissions inventories conducted in 

2005, 2008, and 2011. This data was 

reported in the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) for each of those years. 

Pollutants inventoried include carbon 

oxides, ammonia, NOX, coarse 

particulate matter, fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), SO2, and volatile organic 

compounds. The emissions inventories 

from all three datasets include the 

following sources: Nonpoint, non-road/ 

area, on-road, point, and biogenic 

sources. Missouri noted that changes in 

how data is reported under the NEI may 

impact certain species. 

Missouri examined primarily pointsource emissions, because control of 

point sources provides a higher level of 

reduction certainty than other source 

sectors, and therefore is the most 

relevant to visibility improvement. The 

state noted that the decreasing trend in 

point source emissions of SO2 and NOX

are of greatest significance to visibility 

improvement. Other changes in 

emission levels that were noted include 

increases in CO levels and increases in 

PM2.5. Missouri noted that increases in 

PM2.5 emissions are due to updated 

stack test emission factors and increased 

activity at several sources. Missouri also 

noted that fire source emissions 

increased for all pollutants between 

2008 and 2011, as explained in EPA’s 

2011 NEIv1 Technical Support 

Document (November 2013.) This 

document estimates about 30 percent 

more acres burned in 2011 than in 2008 

due to several forest fires of over 1,000 

acres within the Mark Twain National 

Forest in southern Missouri. 

Biogenic emissions also changed 

between 2008 and 2011, with some 

pollutants increasing and some 

decreasing. Missouri notes that the 

Biogenic Emissions Inventory System 

(BEIS) version 3.14, developed by EPA 

to model the biogenic emissions for the 

NEI, did not address changes to 

vegetation or other factors between 

years, so the state cannot specifically 

address why some pollutants increased. 

Missouri noted that the purpose at 

this point is to evaluate the paramount 

pollutants to visibility improvement, 

SO2 and NOX, and notes that both show 

a steady downward trend over the last 

five years, which can be linked to 

steadily improving visibility conditions. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the fiveyear period to be analyzed for emissions 

inventory changes is the time period 

since the current regional haze SIP was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

quality-assured emissions data becomes 

available. Therefore, EPA believes there 

is some flexibility in the five-year time 

period that states can select, Missouri 

tracked changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants using the 

2005, 2008, and 2011 National 

Emissions Inventory, the latter of which 

was the most recent updated inventory 

of actual emissions for the state at the 

time that it developed the progress 

report SIP. EPA believes that Missouri’s 

use of the seven-year period from 2005– 

2011 reflects a conservative picture of 

the actual emissions realized between 

2005–2014, because there is a general 

downward trend in both SO2 and NOX

emissions. 

5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

In its progress report SIP, Missouri 

indicates that visibility and pollutant 

trends from the three monitoring sites 

have an overall downward trend in 

visibility impairment. The state noted 

that an anomalous peak appears in the 

data for 2010, especially at the El 

Dorado protocol site. Missouri notes 

that this can most likely be attributed to 

a fire event that occurred that year. 

Missouri State University in Springfield, 

Missouri, monitored an exceedance of 

PM2.5 on March 6, 2010. Prior to March 

6, 2010, there was a prescribed 

agricultural burn in the region. The 

state’s current Smoke Management Plan 

(SMP) establishes a basic framework of 

procedures and requirements for 

managing smoke from fires managed for 

resource benefits. The intent is to 

mitigate nuisance and public safety 

hazards; to prevent deterioration of air 

quality and NAAQS violations; and to 

address visibility impacts in mandatory 

federal Class I areas. Missouri noted that 

if in the future there is a fire event that 

results in a NAAQS violation or other 

extreme case, the SMP may be reevaluated. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(5). Missouri 

demonstrated that there are no 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions that have impeded progress 

in reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

Missouri’s sources. The state referenced 

its analyses in the progress report SIP 

identifying an overall downward trend 

from 2007 to 2012. Further, the progress 

report SIP shows that Missouri is on 

track to meet its 2018 emissions 

projections. Lastly, Missouri 

acknowledges that plans may be revised 

as necessary. 

6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

Missouri, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. 

In its progress report, Missouri states 

that it believes that the elements and 

strategies outlined in its original 

regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 

Missouri and other neighboring states to 

meet all the established RPGs. To 

support this, Missouri notes that based 

on available monitored data, the current 

trendline is below the glidepath from 

baseline conditions to the 2018 RPGs. 

Visibility is improving at both Class I 

areas in Missouri, at the El Dorado 

Springs IMPROVE protocol site, and at 

the two Class I areas in Arkansas 

affected by Missouri sources. Thus, 

Missouri concludes that the realized 

and planned controls and reductions 

that form the current strategy for this 

first implementation period are 

sufficient to meet the established RPGs. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. Missouri referenced 

the improving visibility trends at 

affected Class I areas and the downward 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 58415 

6CAIR required certain states like Missouri to 

reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen odixes (NOX) that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). 7CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and 

to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA 

standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA 

began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. 

emissions trends in the state, with a 

focus on SO2 and NOX emissions from 

Missouri’s EGUs that support Missouri’s 

determination that its regional haze SIP 

is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I 

areas in Missouri and outside of 

Missouri impacted by Missouri sources. 

EPA believes that Missouri’s conclusion 

regarding the sufficiency of the regional 

haze SIP is appropriate because of the 

calculated visibility improvement using 

the latest available data and the 

downward trend in SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs in Missouri. 

7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. In its progress 

report SIP, Missouri summarizes the 

existing IMPROVE monitoring network 

and its intended continued reliance on 

IMPROVE for visibility planning. 

Missouri notes that it will continue 

IMPROVE monitoring at Hercules 

Glades and Mingo, consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv). 

Missouri also notes that IMPROVE 

protocol monitoring will continue at El 

Dorado Springs, since the data can 

supplement potential data analysis 

projects which may be needed to 

address PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Missouri has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). 

Missouri reaffirmed its continued 

reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring 

network. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report SIP. 

In its progress report SIP, Missouri 

took the action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze SIP requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for Missouri’s negative declaration is the 

findings from the progress report (as 

discussed in section III.A of this action), 

including the findings that: SO2 and 

NOX emissions from Missouri’s sources 

have decreased below original 

projections, that visibility has improved 

at both Class I areas in Missouri, both 

Class I areas in Arkansas affected by 

Missouri’s sources, and at the IMPROVE 

protocol site in Missouri, and that 

emissions reductions and visibility 

improvement are expected to continue 

over the next five years. Based on these 

findings, EPA proposes to agree with 

Missouri’s conclusion under 40 CFR 

51.308(h) that no further substantive 

changes to its regional haze SIP are 

required at this time. 

IV. What is the impact of CAIR and 

CSAPR on Missouri’s progress report? 

Decisions by the Courts regarding 

EPA rules addressing interstate 

transport of pollutants have had a 

substantial impact on EPA’s review of 

the regional haze SIPs of many states. In 

2005, EPA issued regulations allowing 

states to rely on the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) to meet certain 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).6 A 

number of states, including Missouri, 

submitted regional haze SIPs consistent 

with these regulatory provisions. CAIR, 

however, was remanded to EPA in 2008, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F. 3d 1176, 

1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and replaced by 

CSAPR.7 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. However, numerous 

parties filed petitions for review of 

CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. 

EPA finalized a limited approval of 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP on June 26, 

2012. 77 FR 38007. In a separate action, 

published on June 7, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval of the 

Missouri regional haze SIP because of 

the state’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements, and 

issued a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) to address the deficiencies 

identified in the limited disapproval of 

Missouri and other states’ regional haze 

plans. 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). In 

our FIP, we relied on CSAPR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements 

notwithstanding that it was stayed at the 

time. As we explained, the 

determination that CSAPR will provide 

for greater reasonable progress than 

BART is based on a forward-looking 

projection of emissions and any year up 

to 2018 would have been an acceptable 

point of comparison. Id. At 33647. 

When we issued this FIP, we 

anticipated that the requirements of 

CSAPR would be implemented prior to 

2018. Id. Following these EPA actions, 

however, the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision in EME Homer City (696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)), vacating CSAPR and 

ordering EPA to continue administering 

CAIR pending the promulgation of a 

valid replacement. On April 28, 2014, 

the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision on CSAPR and 

remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014). After the Supreme Court 

decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the 

stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years, so that the 

Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 

budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion. Order of October 

23, 2014, in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 

11–1302. EPA issued an interim final 

rule to clarify how EPA will implement 

CSAPR consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s order granting EPA’s motion 

requesting lifting the stay and tolling the 

rule’s deadlines. 79 FR 71663 

(December 3, 2014) (interim final 

rulemaking).8

Throughout the litigation described 

above, EPA has continued to implement 

CAIR. Thus, at the time that Missouri 

submitted its progress report SIP 

revision, CAIR was in effect, and the 

State included an assessment of the 

emission reductions from the 

implementation of CAIR in its report. 

The progress report discussed the status 

of litigation concerning CAIR and 

CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at 

that time in effect, Missouri did not take 

emissions reductions from CSAPR into 

account in assessing its regional haze 

implementation plan. For the same 

reason, EPA is not assessing at this time 

the impact of CSAPR on our FIP on the 

ability of Missouri and its neighbors to 

meet their reasonable progress goals. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9EPA discussed earlier in this notice the 

significance of reductions in SO2 and NOX, as 

Missouri and the Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP) identified SO2 and NOX as 

the largest contributor pollutants to visibility 

impairment at Missouri’s Class I areas, as well as 

those Class I areas affected by Missouri’s sources, 

specifically, and in the CENRAP region generally. 

Given the complex background 

summarized above, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Missouri appropriately 

took CAIR into account in its progress 

report SIP in describing the status of the 

implementation of measures included in 

its regional haze SIP and in 

summarizing the emissions reductions 

achieved. CAIR was in effect during the 

2008–2014 period addressed by 

Missouri’s progress report. EPA 

approved Missouri’s regulations 

implementing CAIR as part of the 

Missouri SIP in 2009, and neither 

Missouri nor EPA has taken any action 

to remove CAIR from the Missouri SIP. 

See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). Therefore, 

Missouri appropriately evaluated and 

relied on CAIR reductions to 

demonstrate the State’s progress toward 

meeting its reasonable progress goals.9

The State’s progress report also 

demonstrated Class I areas in other 

states impacted by Missouri sources 

were on track to meet their reasonable 

progress goals. EPA’s intention in 

requiring the progress reports pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.308(g) was to ensure that 

emission management measures in the 

regional haze SIPs are being 

implemented on schedule and that 

visibility improvement appears to be 

consistent with the reasonable progress 

goals. 64 FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). 

As the D.C. Circuit only recently lifted 

the stay on CSAPR, CAIR was in effect 

in Missouri through 2014, providing the 

emission reductions relied upon in 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP. Thus, 

Missouri appropriately took into 

account CAIR reductions in assessing 

the implementation of measures in the 

regional haze SIP for the 2008–2014 

timeframe, and EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to rely on CAIR emission 

reductions for purposes of assessing the 

adequacy of Missouri’s progress report 

demonstrating progress up to the end of 

2014 as CAIR remained effective until 

that date, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

and (h). 

In addition, EPA also believes 

reliance upon CAIR reductions to show 

Missouri’s progress toward meeting its 

RPGs from 2008–2014 is consistent with 

our prior actions. During the continued 

implementation of CAIR per the 

direction of the D.C. Circuit through 

October 2014, EPA has approved 

redesignations of areas to attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states 

relied on CAIR as an ‘‘enforceable 

measure.’’ See 77 FR 76415 (December 

28, 2012) (redesignation of HuntingtonAshland, West Virginia); and similar 

examples. While EPA did previously 

state in a rulemaking action on the 

Florida regional haze SIP that a five year 

progress report may be the appropriate 

time to address changes, if necessary, 

for reasonable progress goal 

demonstrations and long term strategies, 

EPA does not believe the remanded 

status of CAIR or the implementation of 

its replacement CSAPR at this time 

impacts the adequacy of the Missouri 

regional haze SIP to address reasonable 

progress from 2008 through 2014 to 

meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

and (h) because CAIR was implemented 

during the time period evaluated by 

Missouri for its progress report. See 

generally 77 FR 73369, 73371 

(December 10, 2012) (proposed action 

on Florida haze SIP). 

EPA’s December 3, 2014, interim final 

rule sunsets CAIR compliance 

requirements on a schedule coordinated 

with the implementation of CSAPR 

compliance requirements. 79 FR at 

71655. As noted above, EPA’s June 7, 

2012, FIP replaced Missouri’s reliance 

upon CAIR for regional haze 

requirements with reliance on CSAPR to 

meet those requirements for the longterm. Because CSAPR should result in 

greater emissions reductions of SO2 and 

NOX than CAIR throughout the affected 

region, including in Missouri and 

neighboring states, EPA expects 

Missouri to maintain and continue its 

progress toward its reasonable progress 

goals for 2018 through continued and 

additional SO2 and NOX reductions. See 

generally 76 FR 48208 (promulgating 

CSAPR). 

At the present time, the requirements 

of CSAPR apply to sources in Missouri 

under the terms of a FIP, because 

Missouri to date has not incorporated 

the CSAPR requirements into its SIP. 

The Regional Haze Rule requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

‘‘implementation plan’’ is sufficient to 

enable the states to meet all established 

reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6). The term ‘‘implementation 

plan’’ is defined for purposes of the 

Regional Haze Rule to mean ‘‘any [SIP], 

[FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.’’ 

40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, 

proposing to determine that we may 

consider measures in any issued FIP as 

well as those in a state’s regional haze 

SIP in assessing the adequacy of the 

‘‘existing implementation plan’’ under 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because 

CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2

and NOX emissions reductions relied 

upon by Missouri and other states in 

setting their reasonable progress goals 

beginning in January 2015 at least 

through the remainder of the first 

implementation period in 2018, EPA is 

proposing to approve Missouri’s finding 

that there is no need for revision of the 

existing implementation plan for 

Missouri to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals for the Class I areas in 

Missouri and for Class I areas in nearby 

states impacted by Missouri sources. 

We note that the Regional Haze Rule 

provides for periodic evaluation and 

assessment of a state’s reasonable 

progress toward achieving the national 

goal of natural visibility conditions by 

2064 for CAA section 169A(b). The 

regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 

51.308 required states to submit initial 

SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable 

progress toward the national goal for the 

first implementation period from 2008 

through 2018. 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP 

revisions reassessing each state’s 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal are due every five years after that 

time. For such subsequent regional haze 

SIPs, 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires each 

state to reassess its reasonable progress 

and all the elements of its regional haze 

SIP required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

taking into account improvements in 

monitors and control technology, 

assessing the state’s actual progress and 

effectiveness of its long term strategy, 

and revising reasonable progress goals 

as necessary. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)–(3). 

Therefore, Missouri has the opportunity 

to reassess its reasonable progress goals 

and the adequacy of its regional haze 

SIP, including its reliance upon CAIR 

and CSAPR for emission reductions 

from EGUs, when it prepares and 

submits its second regional haze SIP to 

cover the implementation period from 

2018 through 2028. As discussed 

previously in this notice, emissions of 

SO2 and NOX are below original 

trendline projections for the first 

implementation period, and in some 

cases, are below projections for 2018. In 

addition, the visibility data provided by 

Missouri shows that their Class I areas 

and Class I areas affected by Missouri 

sources are all currently on track to 

achieve their reasonable progress goals. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of a 

revision to the Missouri SIP, submitted 

by the State of Missouri on August 5, 

2014, as meeting the applicable regional 

haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and 51.308(h). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 58417 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to Missouri’s regional haze 

progress report does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 14, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24461 Filed 9–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION COUNCIL 

40 CFR Part 1800 

[Docket Number: 109002015–1111–08] 

RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component 

Allocation 

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council (Council) is 

publishing for public and Tribal 

comment proposed regulations to 

implement the Spill Impact Component 

of the Resources and Ecosystems 

Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, 

and Revived Economies of the Gulf 

Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE 

Act). These regulations will establish 

the formula allocating funds made 

available from the Gulf Coast 

Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund) 

among the Gulf Coast States of Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and 

Texas (‘‘State’’ or ‘‘States’’) pursuant to 

Sec. 1603(3) of the RESTORE Act. 

DATES: Comments are due October 29, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through one of these 

methods: 

Electronic Submission of Comments: 

Interested persons may submit 

comments electronically by sending 

them to frcomments@restorethegulf.gov. 

Electronic submission of comments 

allows the commenter maximum time to 

prepare and submit a comment, ensures 

timely receipt, and enables the Council 

to make them available to the public. In 

general, the Council will make such 

comments available for public 

inspection and copying on its Web site, 

www.restorethegulf.gov, without change, 

including any business or personal 

information provided, such as names, 

addresses, email addresses, or telephone 

numbers. All comments received, 

including attachments and other 

supporting materials, will be part of the 

public record and subject to public 

disclosure. You should only submit 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. 

Mail: Send to Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council, 500 Poydras Street, 

Suite 1117, New Orleans, LA 70130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please send questions by email to 

frcomments@restorethegulf.gov, or 

contact Will Spoon at (504) 239–9814. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Effective Date 

This proposed rule, if and when final, 

would become effective on the date that 

the court enters a consent decree among 

the United States, the Gulf Coast States 

and BP with respect to the civil penalty 

and natural resource damages in MDL 

No. 2179 (United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana). 

Background 

The Gulf Coast region is vital to our 

nation and our economy, providing 

valuable energy resources, abundant 

seafood, extraordinary beaches and 

recreational activities, and a rich natural 

and cultural heritage. Its waters and 

coasts are home to one of the most 

diverse natural environments in the 

world—including over 15,000 species of 

sea life and millions of migratory birds. 

The Gulf has endured many 

catastrophes, including major 

hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita, Gustav 

and Ike in the last ten years alone. The 

region has also experienced the loss of 

critical wetland habitats, erosion of 

barrier islands, imperiled fisheries, 

water quality degradation and 

significant coastal land loss. More 

recently, the health of the region’s 

ecosystem was significantly affected by 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As a 

result of the oil spill, the Council has 

been given the great responsibility of 

helping to address ecosystem challenges 

across the Gulf. 

In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill caused extensive damage to the 

Gulf Coast’s natural resources, 

devastating the economies and 

communities that rely on it. In an effort 

to help the region rebuild in the wake 

of the spill, Congress passed and the 

President signed the RESTORE Act, 

Public Law 112–141, Sec. 1601–1608, 

126 Stat. 588 (Jul. 6, 2012), codified at 

33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note. The 

RESTORE Act created the Gulf Coast 

Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund) 

and dedicates to the Trust Fund eighty 

percent (80%) of any civil and 

administrative penalties paid under the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS