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


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2012-0153 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb9c84878d8e9998898e998c8e99c58883998298ab8e9b8ac58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abdcc4c7cdced9d8c9ced9ccced985c8c3d9c2d8ebcedbca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: 913-551-7884 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments.
    4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours 
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2012-0153. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or

[[Page 11959]]

viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a7d65666c6f7879686f786d6f782469627863794a6f7a6b246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afd8c0c3c9cadddccdcaddc8cadd81ccc7ddc6dcefcadfce81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. What action is EPA proposing?

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

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

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

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 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. PM<INF>2.5</INF> can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 11960]]

results from man-made air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

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

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11961]]

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent 
least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') 
visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I 
areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural 
visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the 
national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the 
natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment 
and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. 
EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate 
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in documents 
titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions 
under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located 
at 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow 
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. EPA has stated that States should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a

[[Page 11962]]

BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying 
circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider 
the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and 
the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption 
threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows States to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 revising 
the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for CAIR. 
70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that States 
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 
pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the 
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not 
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain 
BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in the 
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the 
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in 
the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards 
the national goal than would BART in the States in which the Transport 
Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also 
proposed to revise the RHR to allow States to substitute participation 
in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific 
BART. EPA has not taken final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 
2011, the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the 
Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous 
parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. 
In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the 
court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME 
Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The 
court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the 
CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review 
of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

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

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

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

[[Page 11963]]

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

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 
ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d), with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

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

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

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

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

A. Affected Class I Areas

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

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

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

[[Page 11964]]

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

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

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

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Missouri Regional Haze submittal 
and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and 
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. 
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 11965]]

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

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

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

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

    In establishing the RPGs for Missouri's Class I areas, the State 
took into consideration the four statutory factors identified from 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time 
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life 
of any potentially affected sources. Missouri demonstrates that these 
four factors were applied in determining control strategy options for 
all source categories including point sources, area sources, on-road 
mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources, which are also included in 
the State's Long-Term Strategy analysis described in section IV. E of 
this notice. That section identifies the control measures Missouri is 
relying upon to achieve the RPGs. In addition to these four factors, 
other related CAA related programs were evaluated to determine what 
effect these programs have had or will have on existing and future 
sources, and if any other control strategies would be reasonable in 
terms of the four factors described above. For most sources, the State 
determined that CAA programs or rules such as NSR permitting, NSPS 
standards, MACT standards, on-road and off-road engine standards, Clean 
Air Interstate Rule, fuel standards, and various State rules were 
reasonable, and for these sources no other measures were deemed 
appropriate based on the four factors. In addition, if other reasonable 
control strategies are identified for these sources that contribute to 
visibility impairment, beyond those implemented through this plan, the 
State has committed to incorporate such strategies into future SIP 
revisions to be considered along with the five-year progress reports.
    To demonstrate that it properly analyzed the four factors, Missouri 
relies upon the following: (1) An independent analysis completed by 
Missouri; (2) a cost analysis by CENRAP; (3) a published report by the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and (4) a description of the cost-
effectiveness and visibility impacts from the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
on Missouri's Class I areas. Further detailed information is provided 
in the TSD for today's action, as well as in the State's SIP.
    Missouri's independent analysis primarily discusses the adequacy of 
its current New Source Review permitting process in addressing 
visibility impacts of new sources, and also provides a statewide point 
source emissions analysis in consideration of the four factors. 
Missouri describes that when the State performs a BACT analyses for

[[Page 11966]]

new sources, the State takes into account the same four factors that 
are required for developing control strategies under a Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plan. Additionally, all new stationary emission 
sources are required to obtain a construction permit prior to 
commencing construction and must ensure that no significant degradation 
to visibility in Class I areas will occur. For EGU sources, Missouri 
relies upon CAIR as part of its four factor analysis to demonstrate 
that ongoing air pollution control programs are sufficient to meet the 
2018 Uniform Rate of Progress for the Missouri Class I areas. For 
existing non Electric Generating Units (non-EGU) sources, the State 
demonstrates through a four factor analysis that existing SIP 
requirements that cover broad non-EGU emission source categories 
adequately address visibility impacts in Missouri's Class I areas. 
Missouri reached this conclusion by analyzing non-EGU point sources 
emitting greater than 50 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>. Missouri removed from 
consideration sources that had already undergone a refined modeling 
BART analysis or were located in the St. Louis PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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:
    <bullet> Proposed controls are not cost effective
    <bullet> Emissions from sources within the source category are 
below a threshold limit of 100 tons
    <bullet> Sources passed the BART screening analysis
    <bullet> Sources already installed controls required by the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call.
    In addition to the CENRAP analyses, the MRPO and the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency published a report on the four-factor analysis 
(referred to as the ``4-factor report'' in the docket). The report 
examined the factors in a nine-state area (Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota.). The 4-factor report primarily reviewed controls on EGUs; ICI 
boilers; reciprocating engines and turbines, and mobile sources. 
Missouri has determined based on the cost of compliance and remaining 
useful life of these sources, that additional controls are not 
reasonably available for non-EGU sources in the development of RPGs in 
Missouri. Missouri specifically concludes from the report that 
additional controls from ICI boilers, reciprocating engines, combustion 
turbines and other point sources are not warranted based on cost of 
controls and visibility improvement. Missouri determined that for EGUs, 
emission reductions predicted to result from CAIR would be sufficient 
for ensuring reasonable progress during the first implementation period 
(between baseline and 2018).
    EPA proposes to find that Missouri has appropriately established 
goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural 
visibility conditions. The goals provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the plan and 
ensure no degradation in visibility over the same period. In addition, 
the State has demonstrated consideration of the four statutory factors, 
consistent with EPA guidance, in developing the RPGs.

D. BART

    BART is an element of Missouri's LTS for the first implementation 
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) 
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (b) an assessment 
of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) a 
determination of the BART controls. These components as addressed by 
Missouri and Missouri's findings are discussed as follows.
1. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. Missouri identified its 
BART-eligible sources by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in 
the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 CFR 
51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emission 
unit(s) was construction on or after August 6, 1962, and was in 
existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any 
visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more 
per year.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and direct PM (including both PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 
NH<INF>3</INF> during their emission inventory review and determined 
that these pollutants from the State's point sources are not 
anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes. 
Missouri listed the following reasons for not performing a further 
analysis on these pollutants after the emission inventory review: (1) 
The majority of VOC emissions in Missouri are biogenic in nature and 
specifically the areas near Mingo and Hercules Glades are very rich in 
biogenic emissions (limited ability to reduce organic concentrations at 
the Class I areas); (2) the largest areas of anthropogenic VOC 
emissions in Missouri exist in the metropolitan areas (St. Louis and 
Kansas City) where VOC emission control has been undertaken to address 
ozone attainment issues

[[Page 11967]]

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

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

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

[[Page 11968]]

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

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

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that States develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The CENRAP States, including Missouri, developed a 
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.'' 
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, 
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development 
and review of the CENRAP protocol.
    Missouri performed an initial screening CALPUFF analysis for the 
BART-eligible sources on the two Class I area's within the State along 
with Upper Buffalo in Arkansas and Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, depending 
on the individual source location. The screening runs took the maximum 
visibility impacts and compared them to the contribution threshold 
discussed below. Those sources with a maximum impact below the 
contribution threshold were excluded from additional BART analysis 
based on their minimal visibility impacts.
b. Contribution Threshold
    For States using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``A single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 dv change or more should be considered to 
`cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 dv.'' The BART Guidelines affirm that 
States are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    Missouri used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining 
which sources are subject to BART as there are a limited number of 
BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of the State's Class I 
areas. EPA agrees with the State's rationale for choosing this 
threshold value. For the Missouri sources that were shown to be 
impacting the Class I areas, Missouri demonstrated that they were 
located far from the Class I area and that the majority of the 
individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 
d.
c. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    Missouri initially identified twenty seven facilities with BART-
eligible sources. Missouri chose to use multiple methods to exclude 
sources from a full BART demonstration. Missouri grouped their sources 
into four categories. The first category included the EGU sources that 
relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Prior to the 
CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>, these facilities were only 
required to evaluate PM emissions in their BART determinations. These 
sources were modeled collectively for PM only and the modeling 
demonstrated that the group of EGU sources as a whole contributed less 
than the 0.5 dv contribution threshold for PM. Based on this analysis 
the State excluded this group of sources from being BART-subject for 
PM.
    The second group of sources was those where the BART unit was 
permanently shut down or where the source no longer had an operating 
permit for the BART unit. These sources were excluded from further BART 
analysis because the units in question would have to perform a BACT 
analysis before resuming operations. The third group consisted of a 
single source that had undergone a recent permit that required a BACT 
review. Missouri performed a refined CALPUFF demonstration eliminating 
this source from further BART analysis based on modeled visibility 
impacts less than the 0.5 dv threshold. Missouri conducted a refined 
BART modeling analysis using CALPUFF for the fourth group of sources 
made up of the eight remaining sources. The sources are University of 
Missouri-Columbia, Noranda, BASF Corporation-Palmyra, Independence 
Power and Light-Blue Valley, Columbia Municipal Power Plant, Marshall 
Municipal Utilities, Doe Run Buick, and Holcim-Clarksville. Using the 
modeling methodology described above, Missouri excluded all but one 
source, Holcim-Clarksville, from being BART-subject based on modeled 
visibility impacts below 0.5 dv. The full description of the process 
Missouri used to identify BART-subject sources is included in section K 
of the TSD.
    After review of the State's method for determining BART-subject 
sources and the refined analysis of those sources, EPA is proposing to 
find that the State appropriately identified all of the sources in the 
State that are BART-subject in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) 
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
3. BART Determinations
    In making BART determinations, CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that States consider the following factors: 
(1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control 
technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the 
source, and (5) the degree of

[[Page 11969]]

improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result 
from the use of such technology. This five step analysis is commonly 
referred to as a ``five factor analysis.''
    As stated above, Missouri only had one BART source, Holcim-
Clarksville, that required a full five factor analysis. As described 
above and in detail in the TSD, the remaining subject to BART sources 
were either included in CAIR or have been exempted from a BART analysis 
due to lack of visibility impacts above the contribution threshold, 
eligible units were shutdown, or BACT had been applied.
    For Holcim-Clarksville, Missouri required the source to submit a 
full BART analysis which considered the five factors. Holcim submitted 
three separate BART analyses, the first in April 2008 with revised 
submittals in June and July 2008. The submittals addressed the five 
factors including looking at the various available control options for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> control. For SO<INF>2,</INF> three 
technically feasible options were identified, wet lime scrubbing, fuel 
substitution and dry lime scrubbing. For NO<INF>X</INF>, two feasible 
control technologies were identified: mid-kiln firing and selective 
noncatalytic reduction.
    For SO<INF>2</INF>, wet lime scrubbing could provide reductions of 
95 percent resulting in actual SO<INF>2</INF> reductions of 10,326 
tons/yr at a cost of $2,428/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions between 2,641 
tons and 5,741 tons could be achieved at a cost of $1,489/ton to 
$4,741/ton SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> both mid-kiln firing and selective noncatalytic 
reduction were identified as viable control options. Low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> reductions of 1,283 
tons/yr. The mid-kiln firing was estimated to cost $464/ton while 
selective noncatalytic reduction was estimated to cost approximately 
$2,200/ton. With identical control efficiencies both options result in 
modeled visibility improvements of 0.01-0.09 dv at the three Class I 
areas evaluated.
    Missouri comprehensively reviewed the source's three BART analyses 
and determined that the mid-kiln firing of tires (using 12 percent 
total heat input substitution) and a switch from petroleum coke as the 
primary kiln fuel to 3 percent sulfur coal (along with the tire derived 
fuel for NO<INF>X</INF> control) would constitute BART for this source. 
For the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
reductions was calculated at $1,148/ton or about $3/ton cement 
produced. For NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and a 27 percent reduction of 
SO<INF>2</INF> from the maximum thirty-day average emissions using the 
CEM data. The full description of the BART analysis for Holcim-
Clarksville is included in the TSD accompanying this notice.
    To incorporate the emission rates, compliance schedule, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and enforceability requirements, as defined 
by the CAA and Federal regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines, the State 
entered into a Consent Agreement with Holcim-Clarksville on April 19, 
2009. The Consent Agreement was submitted to EPA for SIP approval as 
part of the State's RH SIP submittal (Appendix S), which EPA is 
proposing to approve in this notice. The Consent Agreement is 
enforceable by the State, and upon approval into the State's SIP, is 
enforceable by EPA. The emission rates, or work practices, included in 
the Consent Agreement are summarized below. The Consent Agreement 
requires the Holcim-Clarksville Plant kiln system (Emission Point ID 
EP-14 main kiln stack) to meet the following rates, or work practices, 
within four years after the EPA approves the State's RH SIP or 
expeditiously as practicable:
    (1) NO<INF>X</INF>--42,287 lb/day using a thirty day rolling 
average.
    (2) SO<INF>2</INF>--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 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates must be submitted to 
Missouri starting 1 year and 60 days after EPA SIP approval.
    Missouri documented, via CALPUFF modeling, an improvement in 
visibility at affected Class I areas using the BART emissions limits 
for Holcim-Clarksville. While post-BART control modeled impacts at 
Mingo are still slightly above 0.5 dv, the overall modeled impairment 
has significantly improved with the proposed BART controls.
    EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the requirements 
for establishing BART emission limitations and schedules for compliance 
with those emission limitations for each BART-eligible source that may 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 
visibility in any Class I area, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 
the BART Guidelines. EPA is proposing to approve all required elements 
of Missouri's Regional Haze SIP related to BART for non-EGU sources, 
including, specifically, the BART emission rates, compliance schedules, 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e) 
and the BART Guidelines, and the Consent Agreement for Holcim-
Clarksville.

E. Long-Term Strategy

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

[[Page 11970]]

coordination with the CENRAP RPO, through an evaluation of the 
following components: (1) Identification of the emission units within 
Missouri and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts 
currently on visibility at the State's two Class I areas; (2) 
estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls 
required or expected under Federal and state regulations for the 2004-
2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility 
improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I 
areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the 
reasonable progress analysis for the identified emission units to 
determine if additional reasonable controls were required. In this 
analysis the State demonstrates that the compilation of State-specific 
control measures relied on by the State achieves its RPGs.
    The CENRAP applied the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 
extensions (CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) models in 
the modeling simulation. CAMx is a computer modeling system for the 
integrated assessment of photochemical and particulate air pollution. 
CAMx incorporates all of the technical attributes demanded of state-of-
the-art photochemical grid models, including two-way grid nesting, a 
subgrid-scale Plume-in-Grid module to treat early dispersion of 
chemistry of point source NO<INF>X</INF> plumes, and a fast chemistry 
solver. The CMAQ model is an eulerian model that simulates the 
atmospheric surface processes affecting the transport, transformation 
and deposition of air pollutants and their precursors. An eulerian 
model computes the numerical solution of partial differential equations 
of plumes on a fixed grid. The use of these models to determine impacts 
from emissions within state on visibility impairment is approved by 
EPA. Missouri documented and EPA has reviewed the selection of the 
episodes, modeling domain, emissions inventories, emissions modeling, 
meteorological inputs, and model performance evaluation. More detailed 
information on methodologies is provided in Appendix F of the state's 
submittal.
2. Identification of Sources and Factors to be Considered
    Missouri has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv-v). The 
State is required to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility 
impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS. The State 
should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and 
area sources. The State must consider, at a minimum, the following 
factors in developing its long-term strategy: (1) Emission reductions 
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to 
address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable 
progress goal; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) 
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management 
purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these 
purposes; (6) enforceability of emission limitations and control 
measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
period.
    The State's technical analysis identifies all anthropogenic sources 
of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS. 
In this analysis, the State considered the impacts from major and minor 
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The State 
documents the ``on the books'' ongoing emissions control strategies 
considered in the modeling that includes the following:
    <bullet> Clean Air Interstate Rule
    <bullet> Best Available Control Technology
    <bullet> Tier 2 Federal Mobile Source Emission Standards
    <bullet> Tier 4 Nonroad Emission Standards
    <bullet> NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call
    <bullet> St. Louis PM<INF>2.5</INF> SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
    <bullet> Illinois Multi-Pollutant Regulation
    In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of States, EPA noted that these States relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the State-adopted 
reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011). In that 
notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Missouri's LTS insofar as 
it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action on that 
aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on that 
proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729.
    In development of the LTS, Missouri also took into account measures 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the 
implementation of the NSR permitting program. Source retirement and 
replacement schedules of sources were included in the development of 
the future year inventory modeling scenario. Missouri has documented 
that emissions limitations and control measures utilized in the 
modeling are enforceable by Missouri law through section 643 of the 
Revised Statutes of Missouri. These rules can be found in Appendix V of 
the State's submittal.
    The emission inventory utilized for Missouri takes into account the 
net effect on visibility resulting from projected changes to emissions 
including changes to point, area and mobile source inventories by the 
end of the first implementation period resulting from population 
growth; industrial, energy and natural resources development; land 
management; and air pollution control. The net effect on visibility in 
Missouri Class I areas resulting from these emission differences is 
discussed in the CENRAP Technical Support Document (Appendix F of the 
State's submittal).
    Missouri has also met the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) 
to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of 
agricultural and forestry management in developing the LTS. The purpose 
of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) adopted by Missouri is to identify 
the responsibilities of MDNR, FLMs, and state land managers to 
coordinate procedures that mitigate the impacts on public health, 
safety, and visibility of prescribed fire and wildland fire used for 
resource benefits. This plan is designed to meet the policies of the 
EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires 
(April 1998) and addresses smoke management through various procedures 
and requirements in place at various agencies throughout the State.

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

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

[[Page 11971]]

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

G. Emissions Inventory

    Missouri was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include 
baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data 
is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State 
provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. As required, the inventory includes emissions for a 
baseline year (2002), the most recent year for which data are available 
at the time, and estimates of future year (2018) projected emissions 
along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
    As specified in the EPA guidance document, Emissions Inventory 
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations 
(August 2005), Missouri's regional haze emissions inventory includes 
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>), coarse particulate (PM<INF>10</INF>), and ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>). Missouri used the CENRAP Base G emissions inventory 
for both the baseline year of 2002 and future year of 2018 as described 
in Table 4 below. Missouri has committed to periodic updates to the 
emissions inventory and EPA believes that the State has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). More detailed information 
regarding the methodologies used in the current emissions estimates 
including the future year projections are further described in Chapter 
7.0 and Appendix H 1-8 of the State's plan.

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

H. Monitoring Strategy

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

I. Consultation

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

[[Page 11972]]

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

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

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

[[Page 11973]]

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

VI. What action is EPA proposing?

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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

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

[[Page 11974]]

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

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>