
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58410-58417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24461]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0581; FRL-9934-69-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Missouri; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation 
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the State of Missouri on August 5, 2014. Missouri's SIP 
submission (``progress report SIP'') addresses requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to 
submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress 
goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze 
(``regional haze SIP''). EPA is proposing approval of Missouri's 
progress report SIP submission on the basis that it addresses the 
progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first 
implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0581 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: krabbe.stephen@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: Stephen Krabbe, Air Planning 
and Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0581. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your

[[Page 58411]]

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 
66219. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The 
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an 
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Krabbe, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7483 or by email at 
krabbe.stephen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by 
addressing the following:

I. What is the background for EPA's Proposed action?
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze progress report 
SIPs and adequacy determinations?
    A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
    B. Adequacy Determination of the Current Regional Haze SIP
III. What is EPA's analysis of Missouri's progress report SIP and 
adequacy determination?
    A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs
    1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)
    2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2)
    3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)
    4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4)
    5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
    6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6)
    7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7)
    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
IV. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on Missouri's Progress Report
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

I. What is the background for EPA's Proposed action?

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress toward the RPGs 
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected 
by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also 
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a 
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze 
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. The Missouri 
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted the state's first 
regional haze SIP on August 5, 2009, and supplemented on January 30, 
2012, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 26, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of 
Missouri's August 5, 2009, regional haze SIP to address the first 
implementation period for regional haze (77 FR 38007). In a separate 
action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a 
limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of the 
State's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet certain 
regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in August 2011 with 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 
2011)). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri to replace the 
State's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Following these EPA 
actions, the D.C.h Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (``EME Homer City''), 696 F. 3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 
2012), vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place pending the 
promulgation of a valid replacement rule. On April 29, 2014, the 
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit opinion vacating CSAPR, 
and remanded the case for further proceedings. EME Homer City, 572 
U.S. 134 S. Ct. 1584. In the interim, CAIR remained in place. On 
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion to lift the 
stay on CSAPR. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer City, D.C. 
Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how 
EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order. 
79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). 
Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began implementation 
of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. Section IV of this notice addresses the 
impact of CAIR and CSAPR on Missouri's progress toward RPGs for this 
five year progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2014, MDNR provided to the Federal Land Managers a 
revision to Missouri's SIP reporting on progress made during the first 
implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas in the state and 
Class I areas outside the state that are affected by Missouri sources. 
Missouri has two Class I areas, Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (Mingo) 
and Hercules Glades Wilderness Area (Hercules Glades). Missouri also 
hosts an additional Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring site, located at El Dorado 
Springs.\2\ Notification was published on MDNR's Air Pollution Control 
Program Web site on April 28, 2014. A public hearing was held on held 
at the St. Louis Regional Office on Thursday, May 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The El Dorado Springs IMPROVE monitoring site is a Protocol 
monitoring site that is maintained by MDNR to also measure 
visibility impairment in Missouri, but it is not located in a 
Federal Class I area. It was established to aid in determining 
impacts to portions of the country where no Class I areas exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted the five year progress report SIP 
to EPA. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also 
included a determination that the state's existing regional haze SIP 
requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional 
haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA 
is proposing to approve Missouri's progress report SIP on the basis 
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze progress report 
SIPs and adequacy determinations?

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress 
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a 
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in 
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires a 
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze 
SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of 
visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; an analysis 
of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; 
an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions 
within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in 
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the 
sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a review of the 
state's visibility monitoring strategy.

B. Adequacy Determinations of the Current Regional Haze SIP

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same 
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of 
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible 
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in 
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states 
to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA

[[Page 58412]]

that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional 
haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other 
states(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the 
state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be 
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas 
due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in 
the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other 
state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 
provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state 
determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate 
to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to 
emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional 
haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the state 
determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate 
to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to 
emissions from sources within the state.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Missouri's regional haze progress report 
and adequacy determination?

    On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted a revision to Missouri's regional 
haze SIP to address progress made toward RPGs of Class I areas in the 
state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected by 
emissions from Missouri's sources. This progress report SIP also 
included a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze SIP. Missouri has two Class I areas within its borders, 
and maintains an additional IMPROVE monitoring site. MDNR utilized 
particulate matter source apportionment (PSAT) techniques for 
photochemical modeling conducted by the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association (CENRAP) to identify two Class I areas in nearby Arkansas 
potentially impacted by Missouri sources: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 
(UBWA) and Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CCWA). 77 FR 38007.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements 
that must be addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); 
(2) how Missouri's progress report SIP addressed each element; and (3) 
EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the state 
satisfied each element.
1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of 
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for 
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
    Missouri evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2009 
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, 
in its progress report SIP, Missouri summarizes the status of the 
emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration 
of the CENRAP regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling. Such 
control measures included the CAIR, BART, Tier 2 Federal emissions 
standards for passenger vehicles, EPA's Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule 
(Tier 4), and the NOX SIP Call. Missouri found that these 
ongoing air pollution control programs are sufficient to meet the 2018 
RPGs for Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas, and that programs 
such as CAIR, CSAPR, and BART were very cost-effective in reducing 
visibility impairment at Missouri's Class I areas.
    Missouri also discusses the status of those measures that were not 
included in the final CENRAP emissions inventory and were not relied 
upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The state notes 
that the emissions reductions from these measures could aid in reducing 
visibility impairment and in achieving the RPGs in Missouri's Class I 
areas. The measures include the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Attainment 
Demonstrations, Illinois Multi-Pollutant Regulation, Federal Tier 3 
vehicle emission and fuel standards, and the 2007 Federal Heavy-Duty 
Highway Rule.
    In addition, Missouri addressed facilities with expected emission 
changes to occur between 2012 and 2017. These changes were not included 
in the 2009 initial regional haze SIP modeling, as they are not yet 
permanent and enforceable.
    EPA proposes to find that Missouri's analysis adequately addresses 
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The state documents the implementation status of 
measures from its regional haze SIP and describes significant measures 
resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as 
they pertain to the state's sources. The progress report SIP highlights 
the effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and in 
the CENRAP region, and when possible, in the state.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control 
requirements for sources in the state, Missouri's progress report SIP 
notes that of the twenty-six potential BART sources identified, only 
one source was subject to BART. This remaining source, Holcim (US) Inc. 
(Holcim-Clarksville), located in Clarksville, Missouri, entered into a 
consent agreement with MDNR, and set emissions limits for 
SO2 and NOX to be met as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than four years after approval of Missouri's 
regional haze plan. EPA approved their regional haze plan on June 26, 
2012 (77 FR 38007), including the consent agreement with Holcim-
Clarksville, therefore compliance must be achieved no later than June 
26, 2016. Since the consent agreement was signed and initial regional 
haze plan approved, Holcim-Clarksville discontinued Portland cement 
manufacturing and hazardous waste fuel burning operations. Remaining 
operations at the facility include receiving, storing, and shipping. 
Thus the facility's new SO2 and NOX potential 
emissions are both zero tons per year, which is included in the state-
issued operating permit. Because no other sources were found to be 
subject to BART, the state found that other emission controls or 
alternative measures in place of BART were not necessary, and no 
further discussion of the status of controls was necessary in the 
progress report SIP.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed the 
status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as required by 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(1). Missouri describes the implementation status of 
measures from its regional haze SIP, including the status of control 
measures to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements, the status 
of significant measures resulting from EPA regulations, as well as 
measures that came into effect since the CENRAP analyses for the 
regional haze SIP were completed.
2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions 
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1).
    In its regional haze SIP and progress report SIP, Missouri focuses 
its assessment on NOX and SO2 emissions from 
electric generating units (EGUs) because available information from 
multiple sources (CENRAP, EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD), 
etc.) determined that these compounds accounted for the majority of the 
visibility-impairing pollution in the Central Region.
    During the period from 2007-2012, SO2 emissions 
decreased by 45.6% as a result of several factors, including 
installation of controls, units switching to cleaner fuels, load 
shifting from dirtier units to cleaner units, and an overall decrease 
in demand for

[[Page 58413]]

generation.\3\ Missouri noted that the downward trend continued, even 
though demand increased during the period from 2009 through 2011. 
Additionally, there was a 43.4 percent decrease in pounds of 
SO2 generated per MMBtu of energy produced. Missouri stated 
this decrease in emissions, while demand remained relatively steady, 
indicates that the reductions reflect cleaner generation and not 
decreased electricity demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    During that same period, NOX emissions generally 
decreased, as did the generation rate of NOX. However, 
neither NOX emissions nor NOX generation trended 
downward every year.
    Missouri noted that as additional controls are installed to meet 
the stringent requirements of CSAPR, the Industrial Boiler Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulation, and the Mercury and 
Air Toxics Standard (MATS),\4\ emission rates are expected to decrease 
even further. Missouri asserts that the current downward trend, 
particularly for SO2 as the species of predominant concern 
to visibility impairment at Mingo and Hercules Glades, plus the 
imminent implementation of additional federal regulations, reinforces 
their determination that Missouri's Class I areas will meet the 
established RPGs in the required timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Since the submission of the Regional Haze Progress SIP, the 
MATS rule was remanded to the D.C. Circuit by the Supreme Court on 
June 29, 2015, in Michigan et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency 
et al. (Slip. Op. 14-46, ___ U.S.___(2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(2). The state provides actual emissions reductions of 
NOX and SO2 from EGUs in Missouri that have 
occurred since Missouri submitted its regional haze SIP. Missouri 
appropriately focused on SO2, and to a lesser extent, 
NOX, emissions from its EGUs in its progress report SIP 
because it previously identified these emissions as the most 
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Missouri's Class I 
areas. Given the large SO2 and NOX reductions at 
EGUs that have actually occurred, further analysis of emissions from 
other sources or other pollutants was ultimately unnecessary in this 
first implementation period. Because no additional controls were found 
to be needed for reasonable progress for the first implementation 
period for evaluated sources in Missouri, EPA proposes to find that no 
further discussion of emissions reductions from controls was necessary 
in this progress report SIP.
3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide 
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days 
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of 
these annual values: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in 
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR 
51.301.

    (i) Current visibility conditions;
    (ii) the difference between current visibility conditions and 
baseline visibility conditions; and
    (iii) the change in visibility impairment over the past five 
years.

    Missouri provides figures with the latest supporting data available 
at the time that it developed the progress report SIP that address the 
three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for Mingo and Hercules 
Glades. For the first regional haze SIPs, baseline conditions were 
represented by the 2000-2004 time period. 64 FR 35730. Baseline 
visibility conditions at Mingo are 28.02 deciviews (dv) for the most 
impaired (20 percent worst) days and 14.3 dv for the least impaired (20 
percent best) days. Current visibility conditions (for the five year 
period from 2008-2012) are 25.7 dv for the 20 percent worst days and 
13.1 dv for the 20 percent best days. The difference between current 
visibility and baseline visibility for the 20 percent worst days is 2.3 
dv of improvement (i.e., 28.0-25.7 dv). The difference between current 
visibility and baseline visibility conditions for the 20 percent best 
days is 1.2 dv of improvement (i.e., 14.3-13.1 dv). Further, visibility 
impairment due to SO2 has shown a downward trend (improved 
visibility) in terms of the 5-year rolling average for the worst 20 
percent days for each of the five-year progress periods evaluated by 
Missouri. Visibility has also improved in nearly all of the five-year 
progress periods for SO2 for the best 20 percent days. 
Missouri noted that the goal for the 20 percent best sampling days is 
to show no degradation in visibility conditions from the baseline; and 
available monitored data for the first planning period showed no 
degradation, and in fact showed improvement. Missouri noted that for 
the worst 20 percent days, the established 2018 RPG is 23.71 dv, and 
that based on the current rate of improvement, it is expected that this 
RPG will be met.
    Hercules Glades has an established baseline condition of 26.75 dv 
for the most impaired days. Current visibility conditions (for the five 
year period from 2008-2012) are 23.5 dv for the 20 percent worst days, 
showing 3.25 dv of improvement. Baseline conditions for the least 
impaired days are 12.8 dv. Current visibility conditions are 11.3 dv 
for the 20 percent best days, showing 1.5 dv of improvement. Further, 
for both the most impaired days and the least impaired days, there has 
been a steady downward trend in the rolling average visibility, meaning 
visibility has improved since the baseline for both the worst and the 
best days. Looking at SO2, there has been a steady downward 
trend in visibility impairment since the baseline for the worst 20 
percent days, and a general downward trend in visibility impairment 
since the baseline for the best 20 percent days. Missouri noted that 
the goal was to show improvement in the worst visibility days, and show 
no further degradation on the best days; in fact, monitored data showed 
improvement in both. Missouri also noted that for the worst 20 percent 
days, the established 2018 RPG is 23.06 dv, and that based on the 
current rate of improvement, it is expected that this RPG will be met.
    Missouri also has an IMPROVE Protocol monitoring site located in El 
Dorado Springs. This is not a Class I area, but does provide a more 
comprehensive data set in areas where Class I areas are spread out. 
Missouri established a baseline condition for the period from 2005-
2007, with 26.97 dv for the 20 percent worst days. Missouri stated that 
the analysis and trends at El Dorado Springs help strengthen the 
argument that visibility conditions across the entire state, not just 
at the Class I areas, are improving and are expected to achieve the 
2018 RPGs.
    Nearby Class I areas in Arkansas were also reviewed in Missouri's 
progress report SIP. Upper Buffalo Wildlife Area and Caney Creek 
Wildlife Area both show a downward trend in visibility impairment for 
the worst 20 percent days. This downward trend is also seen in 
SO2 measurements and total light extinction. Missouri notes 
that this trend at the Class I areas outside the state that are 
affected by Missouri's sources supports the claim that Missouri's 
current strategy is still adequate and that reductions achieved in 
Missouri have benefited areas both in and outside the state.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(3). The state provides the information regarding 
visibility conditions and notes that no changes

[[Page 58414]]

are needed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The 
progress report SIP includes current conditions based on the latest 
available IMPROVE monitoring data for the years 2008-2012, the 
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline 
visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the 
most recent five-year period for which data were available at the time 
of the progress report SIP development (i.e., 2008-2012).
4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes 
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or 
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated 
emissions inventory.
    In its progress report SIP, Missouri presents data from a statewide 
emissions inventories conducted in 2005, 2008, and 2011. This data was 
reported in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for each of those 
years. Pollutants inventoried include carbon oxides, ammonia, 
NOX, coarse particulate matter, fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), SO2, and volatile organic compounds. The 
emissions inventories from all three datasets include the following 
sources: Nonpoint, non-road/area, on-road, point, and biogenic sources. 
Missouri noted that changes in how data is reported under the NEI may 
impact certain species.
    Missouri examined primarily point-source emissions, because control 
of point sources provides a higher level of reduction certainty than 
other source sectors, and therefore is the most relevant to visibility 
improvement. The state noted that the decreasing trend in point source 
emissions of SO2 and NOX are of greatest 
significance to visibility improvement. Other changes in emission 
levels that were noted include increases in CO levels and increases in 
PM2.5. Missouri noted that increases in PM2.5 
emissions are due to updated stack test emission factors and increased 
activity at several sources. Missouri also noted that fire source 
emissions increased for all pollutants between 2008 and 2011, as 
explained in EPA's 2011 NEIv1 Technical Support Document (November 
2013.) This document estimates about 30 percent more acres burned in 
2011 than in 2008 due to several forest fires of over 1,000 acres 
within the Mark Twain National Forest in southern Missouri.
    Biogenic emissions also changed between 2008 and 2011, with some 
pollutants increasing and some decreasing. Missouri notes that the 
Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS) version 3.14, developed by 
EPA to model the biogenic emissions for the NEI, did not address 
changes to vegetation or other factors between years, so the state 
cannot specifically address why some pollutants increased.
    Missouri noted that the purpose at this point is to evaluate the 
paramount pollutants to visibility improvement, SO2 and 
NOX, and notes that both show a steady downward trend over 
the last five years, which can be linked to steadily improving 
visibility conditions.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for 
emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current 
regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in 
developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once quality-
assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes there 
is some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can 
select, Missouri tracked changes in emissions of visibility-impairing 
pollutants using the 2005, 2008, and 2011 National Emissions Inventory, 
the latter of which was the most recent updated inventory of actual 
emissions for the state at the time that it developed the progress 
report SIP. EPA believes that Missouri's use of the seven-year period 
from 2005-2011 reflects a conservative picture of the actual emissions 
realized between 2005-2014, because there is a general downward trend 
in both SO2 and NOX emissions.
5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that 
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded 
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in 
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
    In its progress report SIP, Missouri indicates that visibility and 
pollutant trends from the three monitoring sites have an overall 
downward trend in visibility impairment. The state noted that an 
anomalous peak appears in the data for 2010, especially at the El 
Dorado protocol site. Missouri notes that this can most likely be 
attributed to a fire event that occurred that year. Missouri State 
University in Springfield, Missouri, monitored an exceedance of 
PM2.5 on March 6, 2010. Prior to March 6, 2010, there was a 
prescribed agricultural burn in the region. The state's current Smoke 
Management Plan (SMP) establishes a basic framework of procedures and 
requirements for managing smoke from fires managed for resource 
benefits. The intent is to mitigate nuisance and public safety hazards; 
to prevent deterioration of air quality and NAAQS violations; and to 
address visibility impacts in mandatory federal Class I areas. Missouri 
noted that if in the future there is a fire event that results in a 
NAAQS violation or other extreme case, the SMP may be re-evaluated.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(5). Missouri demonstrated that there are no significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions that have impeded progress in 
reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted 
by Missouri's sources. The state referenced its analyses in the 
progress report SIP identifying an overall downward trend from 2007 to 
2012. Further, the progress report SIP shows that Missouri is on track 
to meet its 2018 emissions projections. Lastly, Missouri acknowledges 
that plans may be revised as necessary.
6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current 
regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable Missouri, or other states, to 
meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state.
    In its progress report, Missouri states that it believes that the 
elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are 
sufficient to enable Missouri and other neighboring states to meet all 
the established RPGs. To support this, Missouri notes that based on 
available monitored data, the current trendline is below the glidepath 
from baseline conditions to the 2018 RPGs. Visibility is improving at 
both Class I areas in Missouri, at the El Dorado Springs IMPROVE 
protocol site, and at the two Class I areas in Arkansas affected by 
Missouri sources. Thus, Missouri concludes that the realized and 
planned controls and reductions that form the current strategy for this 
first implementation period are sufficient to meet the established 
RPGs.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative 
assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and 
other readily available information, including expected emissions 
reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not 
yet become effective. Missouri referenced the improving visibility 
trends at affected Class I areas and the downward

[[Page 58415]]

emissions trends in the state, with a focus on SO2 and 
NOX emissions from Missouri's EGUs that support Missouri's 
determination that its regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet RPGs for 
Class I areas in Missouri and outside of Missouri impacted by Missouri 
sources. EPA believes that Missouri's conclusion regarding the 
sufficiency of the regional haze SIP is appropriate because of the 
calculated visibility improvement using the latest available data and 
the downward trend in SO2 and NOX emissions from 
EGUs in Missouri.
7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility 
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to 
the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, 
Missouri summarizes the existing IMPROVE monitoring network and its 
intended continued reliance on IMPROVE for visibility planning. 
Missouri notes that it will continue IMPROVE monitoring at Hercules 
Glades and Mingo, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4)(iv). Missouri also notes that IMPROVE protocol monitoring 
will continue at El Dorado Springs, since the data can supplement 
potential data analysis projects which may be needed to address 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Missouri has adequately addressed the 
sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(7). Missouri reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the 
IMPROVE monitoring network.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four 
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made 
in the progress report SIP.
    In its progress report SIP, Missouri took the action provided for 
by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative 
declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional 
haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to 
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The 
basis for Missouri's negative declaration is the findings from the 
progress report (as discussed in section III.A of this action), 
including the findings that: SO2 and NOX 
emissions from Missouri's sources have decreased below original 
projections, that visibility has improved at both Class I areas in 
Missouri, both Class I areas in Arkansas affected by Missouri's 
sources, and at the IMPROVE protocol site in Missouri, and that 
emissions reductions and visibility improvement are expected to 
continue over the next five years. Based on these findings, EPA 
proposes to agree with Missouri's conclusion under 40 CFR 51.308(h) 
that no further substantive changes to its regional haze SIP are 
required at this time.

IV. What is the impact of CAIR and CSAPR on Missouri's progress report?

    Decisions by the Courts regarding EPA rules addressing interstate 
transport of pollutants have had a substantial impact on EPA's review 
of the regional haze SIPs of many states. In 2005, EPA issued 
regulations allowing states to rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR) to meet certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. See 70 
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).\6\ A number of states, including Missouri, 
submitted regional haze SIPs consistent with these regulatory 
provisions. CAIR, however, was remanded to EPA in 2008, North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F. 3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and replaced by 
CSAPR.\7\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Implementation of CSAPR was 
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded 
the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review 
of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order 
staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to 
continue to administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAIR required certain states like Missouri to reduce 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen odixes 
(NOX) that significantly contribute to downwind 
nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. 
See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \7\ CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and to help states 
reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011) (final rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions 
of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 
states in the Eastern United States that significantly contribute to 
downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finalized a limited approval of Missouri's regional haze SIP on 
June 26, 2012. 77 FR 38007. In a separate action, published on June 7, 
2012, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze 
SIP because of the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional 
haze requirements, and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 
address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of 
Missouri and other states' regional haze plans. 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 
2012). In our FIP, we relied on CSAPR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements notwithstanding that it was stayed at the time. As we 
explained, the determination that CSAPR will provide for greater 
reasonable progress than BART is based on a forward-looking projection 
of emissions and any year up to 2018 would have been an acceptable 
point of comparison. Id. At 33647. When we issued this FIP, we 
anticipated that the requirements of CSAPR would be implemented prior 
to 2018. Id. Following these EPA actions, however, the D.C. Circuit 
issued a decision in EME Homer City (696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)), 
vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to continue administering CAIR pending 
the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 28, 2014, the Supreme 
Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR and remanded the 
case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). After the Supreme Court 
decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the 
D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so 
that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 
2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and 
beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. 
Circuit granted EPA's motion. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA issued an 
interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent 
with the D.C. Circuit's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting 
the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 
2014) (interim final rulemaking).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began 
implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the litigation described above, EPA has continued to 
implement CAIR. Thus, at the time that Missouri submitted its progress 
report SIP revision, CAIR was in effect, and the State included an 
assessment of the emission reductions from the implementation of CAIR 
in its report. The progress report discussed the status of litigation 
concerning CAIR and CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at that time in 
effect, Missouri did not take emissions reductions from CSAPR into 
account in assessing its regional haze implementation plan. For the 
same reason, EPA is not assessing at this time the impact of CSAPR on 
our FIP on the ability of Missouri and its neighbors to meet their 
reasonable progress goals.


[[Page 58416]]

Given the complex background summarized above, EPA is proposing to 
determine that Missouri appropriately took CAIR into account in its 
progress report SIP in describing the status of the implementation of 
measures included in its regional haze SIP and in summarizing the 
emissions reductions achieved. CAIR was in effect during the 2008-2014 
period addressed by Missouri's progress report. EPA approved Missouri's 
regulations implementing CAIR as part of the Missouri SIP in 2009, and 
neither Missouri nor EPA has taken any action to remove CAIR from the 
Missouri SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2520(c). Therefore, Missouri appropriately 
evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions to demonstrate the State's 
progress toward meeting its reasonable progress goals.\9\ The State's 
progress report also demonstrated Class I areas in other states 
impacted by Missouri sources were on track to meet their reasonable 
progress goals. EPA's intention in requiring the progress reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) was to ensure that emission management 
measures in the regional haze SIPs are being implemented on schedule 
and that visibility improvement appears to be consistent with the 
reasonable progress goals. 64 FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). As the 
D.C. Circuit only recently lifted the stay on CSAPR, CAIR was in effect 
in Missouri through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon 
in Missouri's regional haze SIP. Thus, Missouri appropriately took into 
account CAIR reductions in assessing the implementation of measures in 
the regional haze SIP for the 2008-2014 timeframe, and EPA believes 
that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes 
of assessing the adequacy of Missouri's progress report demonstrating 
progress up to the end of 2014 as CAIR remained effective until that 
date, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA discussed earlier in this notice the significance of 
reductions in SO2 and NOX, as Missouri and the 
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) identified 
SO2 and NOX as the largest contributor 
pollutants to visibility impairment at Missouri's Class I areas, as 
well as those Class I areas affected by Missouri's sources, 
specifically, and in the CENRAP region generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA also believes reliance upon CAIR reductions to 
show Missouri's progress toward meeting its RPGs from 2008-2014 is 
consistent with our prior actions. During the continued implementation 
of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit through October 2014, EPA 
has approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in which states relied on CAIR as an 
``enforceable measure.'' See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) 
(redesignation of Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia); and similar 
examples. While EPA did previously state in a rulemaking action on the 
Florida regional haze SIP that a five year progress report may be the 
appropriate time to address changes, if necessary, for reasonable 
progress goal demonstrations and long term strategies, EPA does not 
believe the remanded status of CAIR or the implementation of its 
replacement CSAPR at this time impacts the adequacy of the Missouri 
regional haze SIP to address reasonable progress from 2008 through 2014 
to meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was 
implemented during the time period evaluated by Missouri for its 
progress report. See generally 77 FR 73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012) 
(proposed action on Florida haze SIP).
    EPA's December 3, 2014, interim final rule sunsets CAIR compliance 
requirements on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR 
compliance requirements. 79 FR at 71655. As noted above, EPA's June 7, 
2012, FIP replaced Missouri's reliance upon CAIR for regional haze 
requirements with reliance on CSAPR to meet those requirements for the 
long-term. Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions reductions 
of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the affected 
region, including in Missouri and neighboring states, EPA expects 
Missouri to maintain and continue its progress toward its reasonable 
progress goals for 2018 through continued and additional SO2 
and NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 (promulgating 
CSAPR).
    At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in 
Missouri under the terms of a FIP, because Missouri to date has not 
incorporated the CSAPR requirements into its SIP. The Regional Haze 
Rule requires an assessment of whether the current ``implementation 
plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established 
reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The term 
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze 
Rule to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' 40 
CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that we may 
consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's 
regional haze SIP in assessing the adequacy of the ``existing 
implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR 
will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX emissions 
reductions relied upon by Missouri and other states in setting their 
reasonable progress goals beginning in January 2015 at least through 
the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is 
proposing to approve Missouri's finding that there is no need for 
revision of the existing implementation plan for Missouri to achieve 
the reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas in Missouri and for 
Class I areas in nearby states impacted by Missouri sources.
    We note that the Regional Haze Rule provides for periodic 
evaluation and assessment of a state's reasonable progress toward 
achieving the national goal of natural visibility conditions by 2064 
for CAA section 169A(b). The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 
required states to submit initial SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable 
progress toward the national goal for the first implementation period 
from 2008 through 2018. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), 
SIP revisions reassessing each state's reasonable progress toward the 
national goal are due every five years after that time. For such 
subsequent regional haze SIPs, 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires each state to 
reassess its reasonable progress and all the elements of its regional 
haze SIP required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into account improvements 
in monitors and control technology, assessing the state's actual 
progress and effectiveness of its long term strategy, and revising 
reasonable progress goals as necessary. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)-(3). 
Therefore, Missouri has the opportunity to reassess its reasonable 
progress goals and the adequacy of its regional haze SIP, including its 
reliance upon CAIR and CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it 
prepares and submits its second regional haze SIP to cover the 
implementation period from 2018 through 2028. As discussed previously 
in this notice, emissions of SO2 and NOX are 
below original trendline projections for the first implementation 
period, and in some cases, are below projections for 2018. In addition, 
the visibility data provided by Missouri shows that their Class I areas 
and Class I areas affected by Missouri sources are all currently on 
track to achieve their reasonable progress goals.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Missouri SIP, 
submitted by the State of Missouri on August 5, 2014, as meeting the 
applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 
and 51.308(h).

[[Page 58417]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to Missouri's regional 
haze progress report does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and 
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2015-24461 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


