[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 187 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54872-54875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19120]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0943; FRL-8473-9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Clean Air Mercury Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

[[Page 54873]]

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by 
Missouri on May 18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6, 2007. 
The plan addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule 
(CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on June 
9, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the submitted State Plan 
fully meets the CAMR requirements for Missouri.
    CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury (Hg) from 
large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes 
State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit 
State Plans to ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the 
applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which 
control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including 
participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In 
the State Plan that EPA is proposing to approve Missouri would meet 
CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA trading program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0943, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning 
and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Michael Jay, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101. 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 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0943. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 and any form of encryption and should be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 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. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at (913) 551-7460 or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?
IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?
V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal
    A. State Budgets
    B. CAMR State Plan
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by Missouri on 
May 18, 2007, and revisions submitted on September 6, 2007. In its 
State Plan, Missouri would meet CAMR by requiring certain coal-fired 
EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program 
addressing Hg emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the State 
Plan meets the applicable requirements of CAMR.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?

    CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, ``Standards 
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 
Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule''). In this rule, acting 
pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States and the District 
of Columbia (all of which are referred to herein as States) meet 
Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from coal-fired EGUs (as 
defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)) under CAA section 111(d). EPA required 
all States to submit State Plans with control measures that ensure that 
total, annual Hg emissions from the coal-fired EGUs located in the 
respective States do not exceed the applicable statewide annual EGU 
mercury budget. Under CAMR, States may implement and enforce these 
reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-
and-trade program or by adopting any other effective and enforceable 
control measures.
    CAA section 111(d) requires States, and along with CAA section 
301(d) and the Tribal Air Rule (40 CFR part 49) allows Tribes granted 
treatment as States (TAS), to submit State Plans to EPA that implement 
and enforce the standards of performance. CAMR explains what must be 
included in State Plans to address the requirements of CAA section 
111(d). The State Plans were due to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40 
CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator will approve or disapprove the State 
Plans.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?

    CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets and is to 
be implemented in two phases. The first phase of reductions starts in 
2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase of reductions starts 
in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the 
budgets by

[[Page 54874]]

either: (1) Requiring coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade program; or (2) adopting other coal-fired 
EGU control measures of the respective State's choosing and 
demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with 
the applicable State annual EGU Hg budget.
    Each State Plan must require coal-fired EGUs to comply with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 
concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the 
State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and 
compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the 
State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of 
coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75.

IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?

    Each State Plan must impose control requirements that the State 
demonstrates will limit Statewide annual Hg emissions from new and 
existing coal-fired EGUs to the amount of the State's applicable annual 
EGU Hg budget. States have the flexibility to choose the type of EGU 
control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAMR. EPA 
anticipates that many States will choose to meet the CAMR requirements 
by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-
administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. EPA also anticipates that many 
States may chose to control Statewide annual Hg emissions for new and 
existing coal-fired EGUs through an alternative mechanism other than 
the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Each State that 
chooses an alternative mechanism must include with its plan a 
demonstration that the State Plan will ensure that the State will meet 
its assigned State annual EGU Hg emission budget.
    A State submitting a State Plan that requires coal-fired EGUs to 
participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program may 
either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the EPA 
model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) or incorporate by 
reference the model rule. CAMR provides that States may only make 
limited changes to the model rule if the States want to participate in 
the EPA-administered trading program. A State Plan may change the model 
rule only by altering the allowance allocation provisions to provide 
for State-specific allocation of Hg allowances using a methodology 
chosen by the State. A State's alternative allowance allocation 
provisions must meet certain allocation timing requirements and must 
ensure that total allocations for each calendar year will not exceed 
the State's annual EGU Hg budget for that year.

V. Analysis of Missouri's CAMR State Plan Submittal

A. State Budgets

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's State Plan 
that adopts the annual EGU Hg budgets established for the State in 
CAMR, i.e., 1.393 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2010-2017 and 0.55 tons 
for EGU Hg emissions in 2018 and thereafter. Missouri's State Plan sets 
these budgets as the total amount of allowances available for 
allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade 
program.

B. CAMR State Plan

    The Missouri State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in 
the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. The State Plan 
incorporates by reference the EPA model Hg trading rule but has adopted 
an alternative allowance allocation methodology. Under the Hg allowance 
allocation methodology in the model rule, Hg allowances are allocated 
to units that have operated for 5 years, based on heat input data from 
a 3-year period that are adjusted for coal rank by using coal factors 
of 3.0 for the lignite combusted by the unit, 1.25 for the 
subbituminous combusted by the unit, and 1 for other coal ranks 
combusted by the unit. The model rule also provides a new unit set-
aside from which units without 5 years of operation are allocated 
allowances based on the units' prior year emissions.
    States may establish in their State Plan submissions a different Hg 
allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate 
allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met 
concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the 
Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances 
allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative Hg allowance 
allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be 
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, 
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal 
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    In Missouri's alternative allowance methodology, Missouri has 
chosen to distribute Hg allowances directly based upon Table I in 10 
CFR 10-6.368. The table permanently allocates to designated units the 
entirety of Missouri's mercury allowances for both phases of the 
program. Accordingly, Missouri has not provided allowances for the 
establishment of set-aside accounts.
    Missouri's State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to comply with the 
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 
concerning Hg mass emissions. Missouri's State Plan also demonstrates 
that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and 
compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the 
State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of 
coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, record keeping, 
and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Missouri cites Section 
643.050 and 643.055 of the Missouri Air Conservation Law, as containing 
the legal authority for the Missouri Air Conservation Commission to 
adopt the State's rule that allows for Missouri's participation in the 
nationwide cap and trade program.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements 
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under State law and would not impose any additional 
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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).

[[Page 54875]]

    This proposal also does not have Tribal implications because it 
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications 
because it would 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 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule 
implementing a Federal standard. It does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to approve a 
State rule implementing a Federal standard.
    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' requires 
Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. EPA 
guidance \1\ states that EPA is to assess whether minority or low-
income populations face risk or a rate of exposure to hazards that is 
significant and that ``appreciably exceed[s] or is likely to 
appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the 
appropriate comparison group.'' (EPA, 1998) Because this rule merely 
proposes to approve a state rule implementing the Federal standard 
established by CAMR, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify 
today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice 
considerations. However, EPA has already considered the impact of CAMR, 
including this Federal standard, on minority and low-income 
populations. In the context of EPA's CAMR published in the Federal 
Register on May 18, 2005, in accordance with Executive Order 12898, the 
Agency has considered whether CAMR may have disproportionate negative 
impacts on minority or low income populations and determined it would 
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for 
Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA 
Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, 
April, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing State Plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a State Plan for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State Plan 
submission, to use VCS in place of a State Plan submission that 
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric 
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Mercury, Reporting and 
recordkeeping.

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. E7-19120 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P