[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60151-60153]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0045]

International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic
Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ketamine and Nine
Other Substances; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential,
actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling
changes on availability for medical use of 10 drug substances. These
comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United
States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse
liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information
to consider whether to recommend that certain international
restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments
is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by October 15,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-N-0045 for International Drug Scheduling; Convention on
Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ketamine;
Phenazepam; Etizolam; 1-cyclohexyl-4-(1,2-diphenylethyl)-piperazine
(MT-45); N-(1-Phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide
(Acetylfentanyl); [alpha]-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone ([alpha]-PVP); 4-
Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA); para-Methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4'-DMAR);
para-Methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA); 2-(ethylamino)-2-(3-
methoxyphenyl)-cyclohexanone (Methoxetamine or MXE); Request for
Comments. Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hunter, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic
Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic
Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has
information about a substance, which in its opinion may require
international control or change in such control, it shall so notify the
Secretary-General of the United Nations (the U.N. Secretary-General)
and provide the U.N. Secretary-General with information in support of
its opinion.
    Section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) (Title II of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides
that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the
Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding
a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic
Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to
another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must
transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice
in the Federal Register and provide opportunity for interested persons
to submit comments that will be considered by HHS in its preparation of
the scientific and medical evaluations of the drug or substance.

II. WHO Notification

    The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO
(emphasis removed):

    Ref.: C.L.28.2015

    The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to
Member States and Associate Members and has the pleasure of
informing that the Thirty-sixth Expert Committee on Drug Dependence
(ECDD) will meet in Geneva from 16 to 20 November 2015 to review a
number of substances with potential for dependence, abuse and harm
to health, and will make recommendations to the U.N. Secretary-
General, on the need for and level of international control of these
substances.
    At its 126th session in January 2010, the Executive Board
approved the publication ``Guidance on the WHO review of
psychoactive substances for international control'' (EB126/2010/
REC1, Annex 6) which requires the Secretariat to request relevant
information from Ministers of Health in Member States to prepare a
report for submission to the ECDD. For this purpose, a questionnaire
was designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful
use, status of national control and potential impact of
international control for each substance under evaluation. Member
States are invited to collaborate, as in the past, in this process
by providing pertinent information as requested in the questionnaire
and concerning substances under review.
    It would be appreciated if a person from the Ministry of Health
could be designated as the focal point responsible for coordinating
and answering the questionnaire. It is requested that the focal
point's contact details (including email address) be emailed to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The designated focal point, and only this
person, should access and complete the questionnaires via these
links:

1. Ketamine INN--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/961512/lang-en
2. Phenazepam--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/482684/lang-en
3. Etizolam--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/278963/lang-en
4. MT-45--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/465468/lang-en
5. Acetylfentanyl--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/495475/lang-en
6. [alpha]-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone ([alpha]-PVP)--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/758275/lang-en
7. 4-Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA)--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/538126/lang-en
8. para-Methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4'-DMAR)--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/422472/lang-en
9. para-Methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA)--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/665818/lang-en
10. Methoxetamine (MXE)--https://extranet.who.int/dataform/266376/lang-en

    Upon accessing the links the focal point will be prompted for a
token (password) which is the country name in English, non-case
sensitive and without spaces.
    For ease of reference a PDF version of the questionnaire in
English, French and Spanish may be downloaded from the link http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/. Further
clarification regarding the questionnaire may be obtained from the
Secretariat by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Replies to the questionnaire must reach the Secretariat by 15
October 2015 in order to facilitate analyses and preparation of the
report before the planned meeting. Where there is a competent
National Authority under the International Drug Control Treaties, it
is kindly requested that the questionnaire be completed in
collaboration with such body.
    The summary information from the questionnaire will be published
online as part of the report on the Web site for the 37th ECDD
linked to the Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products
(EMP).
    The World Health Organization takes this opportunity to renew to
Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest
consideration.

GENEVA, 11 September 2015

    FDA has verified the Web site addresses contained in the WHO
notice, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register,
but Web sites are subject to change over time.

III. Substances Under WHO Review

    Ketamine is classified as a rapid-acting general anesthetic agent
used for short diagnostic and surgical procedures that do not require
skeletal muscle relaxation. It is marketed in the United States as an
injectable product for medical and veterinary use. Ketamine is
controlled in Schedule III of the CSA in the United States. It is not
controlled internationally under either the Psychotropic Convention or
the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The WHO Expert Committee on
Drug Dependence reviewed ketamine at its 34th, 35th, and 36th meetings.
On March 13, 2015, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided by
consensus to postpone the consideration of a proposal concerning the
recommendation to place ketamine in Schedule IV of the Psychotropic
Convention and to request additional information from the WHO.
    Phenazepam and Etizolam belong to a class of substances known as
benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines produce central nervous system
depression and are commonly used to treat insomnia, anxiety, and
seizure disorders. Phenazepam and Etizolam are currently prescribed in
some countries, but neither drug substance is approved for medical use
or controlled in the United States under the CSA.
    1-cyclohexyl-4-(1,2-diphenylethyl)-piperazine (MT-45) is a
synthetic opioid with potent analgesic activity comparable to morphine
despite being structurally unrelated to most other opioids. MT-45 use
has been associated with deaths in the United States and in other
countries. MT-45 is not currently controlled in the United States under
the CSA.
    Acetylfentanyl (N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide) is
a potent opioid analgesic in the phenylpiperidine class of synthetic
opioids. With the exception of its analgesic effects, this fentanyl-
like substance is similar to other opioid analgesics that produce a
variety of pharmacological effects, including alteration in mood,
euphoria, drowsiness, respiratory depression, constriction of pupils
(miosis), and impaired gastrointestinal motility. Acetylfentanyl has
been associated with

several confirmed deaths in the United States. On July 17, 2015,
Acetylfentanyl was temporarily placed into Schedule I of the CSA for 2
years upon finding that it posed an imminent hazard to the public
safety. The Attorney General, though, may extend this temporary
scheduling for up to 1 year.
    [alpha]-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone ([alpha]-PVP or alpha-PVP) is a
synthetic cathinone structurally and pharmacologically similar to
amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); cathinone; and
other related substances. Effects reported by abusers of synthetic
cathinone substances include euphoria; sense of well-being; and
increased sociability, energy, empathy, alertness, and concentration
and focus. Abusers also report experiencing unwanted effects such as
tremor, vomiting, agitation, sweating, fever, and chest pain. Other
adverse or toxic effects that have been reported with the abuse of
synthetic cathinones include tachycardia, hypertension, hyperthermia,
mydriasis, rhabdomyolysis, hyponatremia, seizures, altered mental
status (e.g., paranoia, hallucinations, or delusions), and even death.
On March 7, 2014, alpha-PVP was temporarily placed into Schedule I of
the CSA for 2 years upon finding that it posed an imminent hazard to
the public safety. The Attorney General, though, may extend this
temporary scheduling for up to 1 year.
    4-Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) is a psychoactive substance of the
phenethylamine and substituted amphetamine chemical classes and
produces stimulant effects. 4-FA is not currently controlled in the
United States under the CSA.
    Para-Methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4'-DMAR) is a derivative of the
stimulant drug 4-methylaminorex and has been involved in several deaths
in the United States. 4,4'-DMAR is not currently controlled in the
United States under the CSA.
    Para-Methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA) is a substituted amphetamine
of the phenethylamine class, as well as a structural analog of para-
methoxyamphetamine (PMA) which produces effects similar but not
identical to that of MDMA. PMMA is not currently controlled in the
United States under the CSA.
    2-(ethylamino)-2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-cyclohexanone (Methoxetamine or
MXE) is an arylcyclohexamine and is not currently controlled under the
CSA in the United States. At its 36th meeting, the WHO Expert Committee
on Drug Dependence noted the insufficiency of data regarding
dependence, abuse, and risks to the public health, thereby recommending
that Methoxetamine not be placed under international control but be
kept under international surveillance.

IV. Opportunity To Submit Domestic Information

    As required by section 201(d)(2)(A) of the CSA (21 U.S.C.
811(d)(2)(A)), FDA, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), invites interested persons to submit comments regarding
the 10 named drugs. Any comments received will be considered by HHS
when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation of these drugs.
HHS will forward a scientific and medical evaluation of these drugs to
WHO, through the Secretary of State, for WHO's consideration in
deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of
these drugs. Such control could limit, among other things, the
manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drugs and could
impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.
    Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from
interested persons which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an
evaluation of these drugs, HHS will not now make any recommendations to
WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to
international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration
until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in early 2016. Any HHS
position regarding international control of these drugs will be
preceded by another Federal Register notice soliciting public comments,
as required by section 201(d)(2)(B) of the CSA.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-25201 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3904-3906]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01250]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71329; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE MKT Rules 13--Equities, 70.25--
Equities, 107C--Equities and 1000--Equities To Adopt a New Order Type
Called a Midpoint Passive Liquidity Order

January 16, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On November 18, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend: (1) NYSE MKT Rules 13--Equities to adopt a new order type called
a Midpoint Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Order; (2) NYSE MKT Rule 1000--
Equities to specify that the proposed MPL Orders may interact with
Capital Commitment Schedule (``CCS'') interest; (3) NYSE MKT Rule
70.25--Equities to permit d-Quotes to be designated with a midpoint
modifier in order to set the discretionary price to the midpoint of the
protected best bid or best offer (``PBBO''); and (4) NYSE MKT Rule
107C--Equities to incorporate the proposed MPL Order into the Retail
Liquidity Program. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on December 4, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70955 (November 27,
2013), 78 FR 72965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Proposed MPL Order

    The Exchange proposes the MPL Order as an undisplayed limit order
that would automatically execute at the mid-point of the protected best
bid (``PBB'') and the protected best offer (``PBO''). An MPL Order
could interact with any incoming order, including another MPL Order,
and could execute at prices out to four decimal places.
    The proposed rule specifies certain limitations on the usage and
execution of an MPL Order. First, an MPL Order would not be eligible to
trade if it would trade at a price below $1.00 or if the execution
price would be out to five decimal places above $1.00. Second, an MPL
Order could not be designated as Good Till Cancelled. Finally, an MPL
Order would not execute if the market were locked or crossed. When a
market that had been locked or crossed becomes no longer locked or
crossed, the Exchange would execute all eligible MPL Orders and other
hidden interest eligible to execute at the midpoint of the PBBO.
    With regards to order allocation, MPL Orders would be allocated on
a parity-by-agent basis, consistent with NYSE MKT Rule 72--Equities.
Moreover, an MPL Order's time priority would be based on its time of
entry into Exchange systems and would not reset when an MPL Order's
price shifted due to changes in the PBBO.
    Under the proposal, an MPL Order could also include a Minimum
Triggering Volume (``MTV''), in which case the MPL Order would not be
eligible to trade unless the aggregated contra-side quantity of all
interest marketable at the midpoint of the PBBO were equal to or
greater than the MPL Order's MTV. There would be no guaranteed trade
size based on the MTV. Exchange systems would enforce an MTV
restriction even if the unexecuted portion of an MPL Order with an MTV
were less than the MTV.
    An MPL Order that included an MTV would be rejected if it also
included a Self Trade Prevention (``STP'') Modifier. As proposed, STP
Modifiers could be used with MPL Orders that do not include an MTV. An
MPL Order with an STP Modifier, however, might be cancelled depending
on the type of order on the contra-side. An MPL Order with an STP
Modifier would not execute against another MPL Order or against a non-
MPL Order with an STP Modifier with the same market participant
identifier (``MPID'').
    Further, under the proposal, users could designate an MPL Order
with an add-liquidity-only (``ALO'') modifier (``MPL-ALO Order''). An
MPL-ALO Order would not execute on arrival, even if marketable, but
would remain non-displayed in the book until triggered to trade by
arriving contra-side marketable interest. An incoming non-marketable
MPL-ALO Order, however, could trigger a discretionary trade.\4\ An MPL-
ALO Order would only be eligible to trade against incoming contra-side
interest and would not interact with contra-side interest resting in
the book. A resting MPL-ALO Order would not be eligible to trade when
arriving same-side interest triggered a trade with contra-side
interest. An MPL-ALO Order would have to be at least one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under the proposal, an MPL-ALO Order triggering a
discretionary trade would be the ``liquidity provider,'' and the
triggered discretionary order would be the ``liquidity taker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An MPL Order would not be eligible for manual executions, including
openings, re-openings, or closing transactions. As such, MPL Orders
would not be available to be designated as Limit ``On-the-Open''
(``LOO'') or Limit ``At-the-Close'' (``LOC'') Orders. As fully
undisplayed interest, MPL Orders would not be visible to the DMM on the
Floor under any circumstances.

B. MPL Order Interaction With CCS Interest

    The CCS is a liquidity schedule setting forth various price points
at which the DMM is willing to interact with incoming orders. CCS
interest will either execute at the price at which the full size of the
order can be satisfied (``completion price'') or at the next price that
is one minimum price variation (``MPV'') higher (in the case of an
order to sell) or lower (in the case of an order to buy). The Exchange
has stated that it believes that CCS interest cannot be designated as
an MPL Order because MPL Orders are priced at the midpoint of the PBBO
and could be priced less than one MPV above or below the completion
price.
    While, under the proposal, CCS interest cannot be designated as an
MPL

Order, CCS interest would be eligible to interact with MPL Orders.
Currently, CCS interest is eligible to trade inside the Exchange BBO at
a price representing (1) the non-displayable reserve interest of
Reserve Orders \5\ or (2) the reserve interest of Floor broker agency
interest files. The Exchange is proposing to expand this list by
amending NYSE MKT Rule 1000(f)(1)(B)--Equities to include MPL Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Reserve Order means a limit order entered into Exchange
systems that may contain displayable and non displayable interest.
See NYSE MKT Rule 13--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed MPL Order Interaction With d-Quotes

    MPL Orders would not be available for d-Quotes \6\ since the
Exchange proposes to allow d-Quotes with a mid-point modifier as
described below. MPL Orders would not be available for pegging interest
since pegging interest is set to track the PBB or the PBO as the PBBO
changes, while MPL Orders would always be priced at the midpoint of the
PBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE MKT Rule 70.25--Equities (defining d-Quotes as
discretionary instructions with respect to a Floor broker's agency
interest file (e-Quotes)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make a midpoint modifier available for d-
Quotes that would have a discretionary range up to the midpoint of the
PBBO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that the MPL Order and the midpoint
modifier are distinct functionalities. An MPL Order would always be
priced at the midpoint of the PBBO and would execute at that price.
A d-Quote designated with a midpoint modifier would use its
discretion to execute up to the midpoint but could execute at a
less-aggressive price. As such, a d-Quote with a midpoint modifier
would operate as a d-Quote that updated with changes in the PBBO to
set the discretionary price range to the midpoint of the PBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to accommodate the use of a midpoint modifier, the
Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 70.25(b)(ii)--Equities, which
states that the minimum price range for a d-Quote is the minimum price
variation set forth in Exchange Rule 62--Equities. Rule 62--Equities
sets the minimum price variation at $0.01 for stocks priced greater
than $1.00. However, with the midpoint modifier, a d-Quote can have a
minimum price variation of $0.005. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing
to amend this restriction by excepting d-Quotes with a midpoint
modifier.

D. Incorporation of MPL Orders Into Retail Liquidity Program

    Retail Orders or Retail Price Improvement Interest, as defined in
NYSE MKT Rule 107C--Equities, could not be designated as MPL Orders.
MPL Orders, however, could interact with incoming Retail Orders.
    The Exchange proposed that MPL Orders be available to interact with
Retail Orders within the Retail Liquidity Program (``Retail Program''),
a pilot program.\8\ The Exchange proposes to permit all Retail Orders
to interact with, in addition to available contra-side RPIs, available
contra-side MPL Orders. When determining the price to execute a Retail
Order, Exchange systems would consider all eligible RPIs and MPL
Orders. If the only interest were MPL Orders, the Retail Order would
execute against one or more MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO. If
the only interest were RPIs, then the execution would occur against one
or more RPIs at the price level that completes the incoming order's
execution. If both RPIs and MPL Orders were present on the book, then
Exchange systems would determine the price level at which the incoming
Retail Order could be executed in full (``clean-up price''). If the
clean-up price were equal to the midpoint of the PBBO, RPIs would
receive priority over MPL Orders, and Retail Orders would execute
against both RPIs and MPL Orders at the midpoint. If the clean-up price
were worse than the midpoint of the PBBO, the Retail Order would
execute first with the MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO, and any
remaining quantity of the Retail Order would execute with the RPIs at
the clean-up price. If the clean-up price were better than the midpoint
of the PBBO, then the Retail Order would execute against the RPIs at
the clean-up price and would ignore the MPL Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under the Retail Program, retail liquidity providers
(``Providers'') are able to provide potential price improvement in
the form of a non-displayed order that is priced better than the
PBBO, called a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI''). Retail
Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail Order to the
Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with available
contra-side RPIs. Retail Orders may be designated as Type 1, Type 2,
or Type 3. A Type 1 Retail Order interacts with available contra-
side RPIs and does not interact with other available contra-side
interest in Exchange systems or route to other markets. A Type 2
Retail Order interacts with available contra-side RPIs and any
remaining portion of the Retail Order is executed as a Regulation
NMS-compliant Immediate or Cancel Order pursuant to NYSE MKT Rule
13--Equities. A Type 3 Retail Order interacts first with available
contra-side RPIs and any remaining portion of the Retail Order is
executed as an NYSE MKT Immediate or Cancel Order pursuant to Rule
13-- Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\9\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act. The Commission believes that the
proposed MPL Order is designed to enhance order execution opportunities
on the Exchange by providing market participants with an additional
order type to interact with other trading interests. The Commission
also believes that the proposed MPL Orders is designed to allow for
additional opportunities for investors to trade at the midpoint of the
PBBO, which may provide price improvement to incoming orders.
Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed introduction of
the MPL Order could provide market participants with better control
over their execution costs and with a means to offer price improvement
opportunities. The Commission notes that other exchanges offer similar
functions as the MPL Order.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(5). See also EDGA
Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.5(c)(7); BATS Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.9(c)(9);
and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Rule 4751(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange not
to allow DMMs to enter MPL Orders through CCS, because CCS interest
must observe the MPV in certain circumstances, but MPL Orders would be
tied to the midpoint of the protected NBBO and could therefore have
prices that do not observe the MPV. Further, the Commission believes
that it is appropriate not to allow d-Quotes to enter MPL Orders, as d-
Quotes would have a mid-point modifier that would provide a
functionality similar to MPL Orders.\12\ Finally, the Commission

believes that allowing MPL Orders to interact with retail orders in the
Retail Program is designed to expand the potential for price
improvement to retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission notes that pegging interests would also
conflict with the nature of MPL Order, since pegging interests are
orders that are pegged to the PBB or PBO as the PBBO changes. See
NYSE MKT Rule 13--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-84) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01250 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31185-31186]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148; FRL-7527-02-OAR, EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505; FRL-7523-
03-OAR, EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532; FRL-7523-03-OAR, FRL-9751-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU67, 2060-AU66

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General
Provisions; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is making technical corrections to the general provisions of the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
Specifically, on November 19, 2021, EPA finalized changes to the
NESHAPs for Refractory Products Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production
(major sources), Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, and Carbon Black
Production Area Sources and, also amended the general provisions.
Following signature, the EPA discovered inadvertent minor errors in the
ordering of the standards and methods that were being incorporated by
reference in these rules. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) was
unable to complete the amendatory instructions, resulting in regulatory
text intended for the general provisions to be omitted.

DATES: This technical correction is effective on May 23, 2022. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 19, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of This Action

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has
determined that for this action, there is good cause for making these
technical corrections final without a prior proposal and the
opportunity for comment because the Agency is correcting minor errors
that do not substantially change the Agency's action taken in each of
the three final rules discussed. These technical corrections will
ensure that the regulatory text agrees with the description of the rule
that the EPA provided in the final rule preamble for each of the three
rules discussed in this action. Thus, notice and comment public
procedures are unnecessary. The Agency finds that this constitutes a
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). See also the final sentence of
section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 307(d)(1),
indicating that the good cause provisions in subsection 553(b) of the
APA continue to apply to this type of rulemaking under section 307(d)
of the CAA.
    On the November 19, 2021, the EPA finalized amendments to multiple
NESHAPs. The first rule finalized the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review (86 FR 66045). The second rule
finalized the Carbon Black Production (major sources) and Cyanide
Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Reviews and the
Carbon Black Production Area Source Technology Review (86 FR 66096).
Both actions incorporated by reference three different test methods:
ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free Cyanide
in Water and Wastewater by Microdiffusion, approved July 15, 2015; ASTM
D6784-16; Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound
and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved March 1, 2016; and ASTM D7237-
18, Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide and Aquatic Free Cyanide with
Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas Diffusion Separation and
Amperometric Detection, approved December 1, 2018. This was the first
time these test methods were incorporated by reference under the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). Because the methods were incorporated by
reference for the first time and the final rules published on the same
date, there was an error in alphanumerically ordering the test methods
in 40 CFR 63.14. The ordering and instructions of the standards in the
centralized IBR section were incorrect. Thus, the redesignations and
additions of the standards were unable to be published in the CFR.
Therefore, the EPA finds good cause to make the correction in this
direct final action.

II. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    This action will have no cost, environmental, energy, or economic
impacts beyond those impacts presented in the NESHAPs for Refractory
Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review (86 FR
66045), Carbon Black Production (major sources) and Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Reviews and Carbon Black
Production Area Source Technology Review (86 FR 66096) published on
November 19, 2021. These technical corrections are cost neutral.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference.

Joseph Goffman,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is
corrected as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(105) through (116) as (h)(108) through
(119);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(103) and (104) as (h)(105) and (106),
respectively;
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(63) through (102) as (h)(64) through
(103); and
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (h)(63), (104), and (107).

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (63) ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free
Cyanide in Water and Wastewater by Microdiffusion, Approved July 15,
2015, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1103(g).
* * * * *
    (104) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016, IBR
approved for table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
* * * * *
    (107) ASTM D7237-18, Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide and
Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas
Diffusion Separation and Amperometric Detection, Approved December 1,
2018, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1103(g).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-10842 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


In Portland cement kilns, the NOx that is generated is primarily classified into one of two categories, i.e., thermal NOx or fuel NOx. Thermal NOx occurs as a result of the high-temperature oxidation of molecular nitrogen present in the combustion air. Fuel NOx is created by the oxidation of nitrogenous compounds present in the fuel. It is also possible for nitrogenous compounds to be present in the raw material feed and become oxidized to form additional NOx referred to as feed NOx. Due to the high flame temperature in the burning zone of the rotary kiln (3400[o] F), NOx emissions from the kiln tend to be mainly comprised of thermal NOx. Although NOx emissions from cement kilns include both nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), typically, less than 10% of the total NOx in the flue gas is NO2.

The Holcim kiln is the only BART source which emits NOx, thus a NOx BART evaluation was performed only for the kiln. The maximum actual 24-hour kiln NOx emission rate that was modeled for the BART applicability determination is summarized in Table 32. The NOx 24-hour maximum actual emission rate was determined from analyzer data for November 24, 2007.

       Table 32- Existing Actual Maximum 24-Hour NOx Emission Rate

Step 1 of the BART determination is the identification of all available retrofit NOX control technologies. A list of control technologies was obtained by reviewing the U.S. EPA's Clean Air
Technology Center, control equipment vendor information, publicly-available air permits, applications, and technical literature published by the U.S. EPA and the RPOs. The available retrofit NOX control technologies are summarized in Table 33.

              Table 33- Possible NOx Control Technologies

Step 2 of the BART determination is to eliminate technically infeasible NOX control technologies that were identified in Step 1.

 Low-NOx Burner in the Rotary Kiln

Low- NOx burners (LNBs) reduce the amount of NOx formed at the flame. The principle of all LNBs is the same: stepwise or staged combustion and localized exhaust gas recirculation (i.e. at the flame). As applied to the rotary cement kiln, the low-NOx burner creates primary and secondary combustion zones at the end of the main burner pipe to reduce the amount of NOx initially formed at the flame. In the high-temperature primary zone, combustion is initiated in a fuel-rich environment in the presence of a less than stoichiometric oxygen concentration. The oxygen-deficient condition at the primary combustion site minimizes thermal and fuel NOx formation and produces free radicals that chemically reduce some of the NOx that is being generated in the flame.

In the secondary zone, combustion is completed in an oxygen-rich environment. The temperature in the secondary combustion zone is much lower than in the first; therefore, lower NOx formation is achieved as combustion is completed. CO that has been generated in the primary combustion zone as an artifact of the sub-stoichiometric combustion is fully oxidized in the secondary combustion zone. Low-NOx burners are considered to be a technically feasible option for NOX control. Holcim already operates a LNB, therefore the technology will not be considered further.

 Flue Gas Recirculation

Flue gas recirculation involves the use of oxygen-deficient flue gas from some point in the process as a substitute for primary air in the main burner pipe in the rotary kiln. Flue gas recirculation (FGR) lowers the peak flame temperature and develops localized reducing conditions in the burning zone through a significant reduction of the oxygen content of the primary combustion "air." The intended effect of the lower flame temperature and reducing conditions in the flame is to decrease both thermal and fuel NOx formation in the rotary kiln.
While FGR is a practiced control technology in the electric utility industry, Holcim is not aware of any attempt to apply FGR to a cement kiln because of the unique process requirements of the industry, i.e., a hot flame is required to complete the chemical reactions that form clinker minerals from the raw materials. The process of producing clinker in a cement kiln requires the heating of raw materials to about 2700°F for a brief but appropriate time to allow the desired chemical reactions that form the clinker minerals to occur. A short, high-temperature flame of about 3400°F is necessary to meet this process requirement. The long/lazy flame that would be produced by FGR would result in the production of lower or unacceptable quality clinker because of the resulting undesirable mineralogy. Clinkering reactions must take place in an oxidizing atmosphere in the burning zone to generate clinker that can be used to produce acceptable cement. FGR would tend to produce localized or general reducing conditions that also could detrimentally affect clinker quality. Due to these important limitations on the application of FGR and the lack of a successful demonstration on cement kiln in the United States, FGR is not a technically feasible control option for NOx control at this time.

 Cement Kiln Dust Insufflations

Cement kiln dust (CKD) is a residual byproduct that can be produced by any of the four basic types of cement kiln systems. CKD is most often treated as a waste even though there are some beneficial uses. However, as a means of recycling usable CKD to the cement pyroprocess, CKD sometimes is injected or insufflated into the burning zone of the rotary kiln in or near the main flame. The presence of these cold solids within or in close proximity to the flame has the effect of cooling the flame and/or the burning zone thereby reducing the formation of thermal NOx. The insufflations process is somewhat counterintuitive because a basic requirement of a cement kiln is a very hot flame to heat the clinkering raw materials to about 2700[o] F in as short a time as possible. The Clarksville plant already uses this technology and it is already included in the baseline.

 Mid  - Kiln Firing of Solid Fuel With Mixing Air Fan

Secondary combustion is defined as follows: a portion of the fuel is fired in a location other than the burning zone. This reduces thermal NOx generation because the temperature in the secondary combustion zone is less than 2100 °F. Mid-kiln firing (MKF) of solid fuels is an example of secondary combustion and includes fuels such as used tires, oil filter fluff, plastics, spent activated carbon and carbon black, asphalt shingles, diaper manufacturing waste, and other combustible solids. MKF improves clinker process energy efficiency, allows for greater operational flexibility with respect to fuel types, and is currently listed as a NOx control technology in 10 CSR 10-6.380 Control of NOx Emissions from Portland Cement Kilns.
By adding fuel mid-kiln, MKF changes both the flame temperature and flame length.  These changes should reduce thermal NOx formation by burning part of the fuel at a lower temperature and by creating reducing conditions at the mid-kiln fuel injection point which may destroy some of the NOx formed upstream in the kiln burning zone.

Clarksville has the largest long kiln in the world. The kiln has a 7 meter diameter and a very high thermal capacity. Using whole tires to replace 10% of total fuel consumption will require four whole tires being fed to the mid-kiln door per kiln revolution, 12% fuel replacement would require 5 tires per revolution. The maximum tire feed rate per revolution that Holcim is aware of, on similar applications, is three tires per revolution.

Holcim is concerned that the greater the number of tires fed per revolution, on a continuous basis, the greater the potential for process upsets from unstable feeding. Holcim has found that kilns being fed even one to three tires per revolution can have problems with stable, uniform feeding. In addition, if too many tires burn at the bottom of the kiln, a high local temperature could result, and then disturb the normal operation of the kiln and potentially increase NOx. Further, due to the large kiln diameter, the reducing zone created by burning tires may only impact a small cross section of the entire cross section of the kiln, thus having less of an overall reduction in NOx than anticipated.

In an effort to better understand these uncertainties, Holcim hired CINAR Company, the expert in this field, to conduct modeling of the system and to predict NOx reduction. Their study predicted that a 15% NOx reduction would occur at 10% replacement (replace 10% of the current fuel with tires) and 27% NOx reduction for 15% replacement.

To determine the thermal substitution rate (TSR) of tires that the Clarksville plant is capable of utilizing, three additional factors were considered:
1. Tire availability. The local market only has sustainable resources of 10-12% TSR;
2. Tire feeding limit: 12% TSR equates to five tires being fed per revolution.
3. The thermal stability of operation in a large kiln. 15% TSR is predicted to be the maximum for short term periods, whereas 10-12% TSR is predicted to be achievable on a long term basis.

Based on the lack of experience using MKF of tires on kilns the size of Clarksville, Holcim is relying on the computer modeling (regardless of the general uncertainty that exists with computer models) to estimate the NOx reduction. Holcim anticipates that MKF of tires may achieve up to 20% percent NOx reduction at a TSR of 12 percent on a long term basis. MKF is considered to be a technically feasible option for NOx control. Further, Holcim has already received a construction permit that would allow the installation of MKF, whereas other technologies would require a new construction permit application process, the result of which is unknown.

 Selective Noncatalytic Reduction

In the relatively narrow temperature window of 1600o to 1995°F, ammonia (NH3) reacts with NOx without the need for a catalyst to form water and molecular nitrogen in accordance with the following simplified reactions.

4NO + 4NH3 + O2 --> 4N2 + 6H2O
2NO2 + 4NH3 + O2 --> 3N2 + 6H2O

As applied to NOx control from cement kilns and other combustion sources, this technology is called selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). Above this temperature range, the NH3 is oxidized to NOx thereby increasing NOx emissions. Below this temperature range, the reaction rate is too slow for completion and unreacted NH3 may be emitted from the pyroprocess. This temperature window generally is available at some location within the rotary kiln. The NH3 could be delivered to the kiln shell through the use of anhydrous NH3, or an aqueous solution of NH3 (ammonium hydroxide) or urea.

Based on the concerns with NH3 slip at high molar ratios, and the uncertainty regarding the level of effectiveness of the reagent in Clarksville's large diameter kiln, Holcim anticipates that at a molar ratio of about 1.0, an average annual control efficiency of 20 percent could likely be achieved without excessive NH3 slip. However, a pilot study would need to be conducted to verify this. Regardless, SNCR is considered to be a technically feasible option for NOX control.

 Selective Catalytic Reduction

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is an add-on control technology for the control of emissions of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from a combustion process. SCR has been successfully employed in the electric power industry. The basic SCR system consists of a system of catalyst grids placed in series with each other within a vessel that is located in a part of the process where the normal flue gas temperature is in the required range. An ammonia-containing reagent is injected at a controlled rate upstream of the catalyst grids that are designed to ensure relatively even flue gas distribution within the grids, to provide good mixing of the reagent and flue gas, and to result in minimum ammonia (NH3)slip. The NH3 reacts with NOx compounds (i.e., NO and NO2) on the surface of the catalyst in equal molar amounts (i.e., one molecule of NH3 reacts with one molecule of NOx). Common reagents include aqueous NH3, anhydrous NH3 and urea [(NH2)2CO]. In the presence of the catalyst, the injected ammonia is converted by OH- radicals to ammonia radicals (i.e., NH2 -), which, in turn, react with NOx to form N2 and H2O. The SCR catalyst enables the necessary reactions to occur at lower temperatures than those required for Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR). While catalysts can be effective over a larger range of temperatures, the optimal temperature range for SCR is 570 - 750º F.

Because the reaction rate of NH3 and NOx is temperature dependent, the temperature of the flue gas stream to be controlled is the most important consideration in applying SCR technology to any combustion source. The optimum temperature range for SCR application is about 300º C (570º F) to 450º C (840º F). This range of normal process temperature would occur within the kiln of a long wet kiln, rather than in the exhaust gas between the wet kiln and the PMCD inlet.
SCR has not been applied to any wet cement plant in the world and is not considered an available technology.

A technology is considered "available" if it can be obtained by the applicant through commercial channels or is otherwise available within the common sense meaning of the term. An available technology is "applicable" if it can reasonably be installed and operated on the source type under consideration. A technology that is available and applicable is technically feasible. Availability in this context is further explained using the following process commonly used for bringing a control technology concept to reality as a commercial product: concept stage; research and patenting; bench scale or laboratory testing; pilot scale testing; licensing and commercial demonstration; and Commercial sales.

A control technique is considered available, within the context presented above, if it has reached the licensing and commercial sales stage of development. A source would not be required to experience extended time delays or resource penalties to allow research to be conducted on a new technique. Neither is it expected that an applicant would be required to experience extended trials to learn how to apply a technology on a totally new and dissimilar source type. Consequently, technologies in the pilot scale testing stages of development would not be considered available. An exception would be if the technology were proposed and permitted under the qualifications of an innovative control device consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(v) or, where appropriate, the applicable SIP [in which case it would be considered available].

Therefore, SCR is eliminated from further consideration as BART for NOx control at the Clarksville plant.

            e.	Rank / Evaluation of Technically Feasible NOx Control 				Options

The third step in the BART analysis is to rank the technically feasible options according to effectiveness. Table 34 presents potential NOx technically feasible control technologies by effectiveness.

           Table 34- Ranking of Technically Kiln NOx Control Technologies

Step four for the BART analysis is the impact analysis. The BART determination guidelines list four factors to be considered in the impact analysis:

:: Cost of compliance
:: Energy impacts
:: Non-air quality impacts; and
:: The remaining useful life of the source

Missouri considered the following in its impact analysis.
 MKF

      Cost of Compliance

Holcim anticipates that MKF and SNCR have relatively the same level of effectiveness.
Because SNCR would require a pilot study to prove or verify the effectiveness of NOx reduction and the potential associated opacity issues due to ammonia slip (see Appendix B), Holcim is accepting the use of MKF as BART. Because MKF, the most stringent control option available is BART, the cost of compliance was not required to be evaluated. Regardless, a cost analysis has been conducted for informational purposes. The detailed cost analysis table is provided in Appendix P. The control cost factors were obtained from the EPA's Control Cost Manual, 6th Edition.

      Energy Impacts and Non Air-Quality Impacts

There are no known adverse energy or non-air impacts from MKF. MKF of tires has the benefit of eliminating tires from landfills and illegal dumping. It also reduces CO2 emissions (a Green House Gas) and reduces fossil fuel use.

      Remaining Useful Life

The remaining useful life of the kiln does not impact the annualized costs of MKF because the useful life is anticipated to be at least as long as the capital cost recovery period, which would be 15 years.

         		f.	Evaluation of Visibility Impact of Feasible NOx Controls

The final impact analysis was conducted to assess the visibility improvement for existing emission rates when compared to the emission rate with MKF. The existing emission rates and emission rates associated with MKF were modeled using CALPUFF. The existing emission rates are the same rates that were modeled for the BART applicability analysis. The NOx emission rate associated with MKF was the existing emission rate less an average reduction of 20 percent. The emission rate is summarized in Table 35.

     Table 35- Summary of Emission Rates Modeling in NOx Control Visibility Impact

Comparisons of the 98th percentile existing visibility impacts and the visibility impacts based on MKF are provided in Table 36. The visibility improvement associated with MKF are also shown in Table 35; this was calculated as the difference between the existing visibility impairment and the visibility impairment for the remaining control options as measured by the 98th percentile modeled visibility impact.

         Table 36- NOx Control Visibility Impact Analysis

As seen in Tables 36, the MKF option results in a visibility improvement of up to 11.1 percent in the Hercules Glades Class I area.

Based on the five-step analysis outlined by EPA, MKF was identified as the highest ranking feasible add-on control technology. Economic, energy and environmental impacts were assessed for this technology and the visibility improvements were evaluated against existing conditions. The visibility impact analysis demonstrates that the utilization of MKF to achieve a 2,440 lb/hr NOx emission rate results in up to an 11.1 percent visibility improvement. Neither non-air quality nor energy impacts associated with this control technology eliminate it in favor of retaining the existing rates as BART.

Holcim has determined that BART for the Holcim Clarksville Kiln is the installation and operation of a Mid Kiln Firing (MKF) system or equivalent that will achieve a 20 percent reduction in the maximum daily NOX emission rate of 73,185 lbs. Consistent with BART applicability, which is determined on a daily basis, Holcim proposes to comply with an enforceable limit for NOx of 58,548 lbs/day which is a 20% reduction in the maximum daily NOX emission rate of 73,185 lbs.

Based on the lack of site specific, or significant industry data, for the use of this technology on wet cement kilns, it is possible that Holcim will further evaluate the MKF system and determine that MKF results in limited or no additional benefit. In the future, an alternative technology or methodology may become feasible and could be implemented as needed. Holcim will continue to utilize the NOx controls that are already in place, including LNB, insufflations, and the use of alternative fuels as available.

In summary, based on the five-step analysis, Holcim proposes the following as BART:

:: PM10  -  Holcim has determined that the existing electrostatic precipitator constitutes BART.
This control device is effective for controlling PM10 from a wet kiln.

:: NOX  -  Holcim has determined that BART for the Holcim Clarksville Kiln is the installation and operation of a Mid Kiln Firing (MKF) system or equivalent technologies that will achieve a 20 percent reduction in the maximum daily NOX emission rate of 73,185 lbs that was used for visibility impact modeling.

:: SO2  -  Holcim proposes that BART for the Holcim Clarksville Kiln is fuel substitution or equivalent technologies that will achieve a 23 percent reduction in the maximum daily SO2 emission rate of 117,345 lbs that was used for visibility impact modeling.

The proposed BART control strategies will result in reductions of the visibility impacts attributable to the Clarksville plant. A summary of the visibility improvement at Class I areas based on the existing emission rates and proposed BART emission rates is provided in Table 37.

         Table 37- Visibility Impairment Improvement

Holcim proposed to implement BART on or before 5 years after EPA approval of Missouri's Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan as per 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y. Because the actual implementation date is at least 5 years from the date of this document, Holcim requested that it not be bound to the technologies reviewed during this analysis, but to the daily limits stated in the report. Changes in technology may offer opportunities to obtain even better reductions with lower cost impact. Consistent with BART applicability which is determined on a daily basis, Holcim proposed to comply with an enforceable limit for SO2 of 90,356 lbs/day which is a 23% reduction in the maximum daily SO2 emission rate of 117,345 lbs. and a NOx limit of 58,548 lbs/day which is a 20% reduction in the maximum daily NOX emission rate of 73,185 lbs.

Missouri comprehensively reviewed the source's BART analysis and determined that the mid-kiln firing of tires (using 12 percent total heat input substitution) and a switch from petroleum coke as the primary kiln fuel to 3 percent sulfur coal (along with the tire derived fuel for NOx control) would be BART for this source.  Missouri and the source did not initially agree on the emission limits proposed by Holcim.  Missouri required the source to pursue more aggressive emission limits than originally recommended based on the cost analysis of feasible controls. The cost analysis Missouri relied upon for their BART determination is found in Appendix Q.  Pages 77 and 78 of the SIP state as follows.

The SO2 finding was based primarily on the economic evaluation of several different control scenarios for the kiln including both wet and dry scrubbing of the kiln exhaust gas. The department found the overall net cost per ton of cement produced (~$15-20/ton) was excessive and would have seriously compromised the Clarksville kiln's ability to compete in the cement production market. The fuel switch provided a significant amount of emission reductions at a cost of approximately $3/ton cement produced. The overall cost per ton SO2 reduced was calculated as $1,148/ton removed. The NOX finding was based on information provided by Cinar (kiln design contractor for Holcim) regarding NOX emission rates when burning tirederived fuel and the department's serious concern over the use of selective non-catalytic reduction on the world's largest long wet cement kiln. The increased certainty of the mid-kiln firing of tires, along with the use of low-NOX burners and cement kiln dust insufflation, provide a firm basis for the finding of NOX BART at Clarksville. In addition, this reduction of emissions was to have very little additional cost for the plant due to the planned installation of the mid-kiln firing project. The department findings result in a 20 percent reduction of NOX and a 27 percent reduction of SO2 from the maximum 30-day average emissions using the CEM data. As provided in the presumptive BART finding for utilities, the emission limits are expressed as 30- day rolling averages of 42,287 pounds NOX/day and 58,787 pounds SO2/day. The calculation of these averages will include all hours when the kiln is not operating and those emissions for both pollutants will be entered as zero pounds.

The consent decree, included in Appendix S of the State's submittal, requires the Holcim  -  Clarksville Plant kiln system (Emission Point ID EP-14 main kiln stack) to meet the following rates and work practices, within 4 years after the EPA approves the State's RH SIP or expeditiously as practicable:

      1) NOx  -  42,287 lb/day using a 30 day rolling average
      2) SO2  -  58,787 lb/day using a 30 day rolling average
      3) the facility must monitor using existing CEMS

The State also performed a visibility analysis on the BART rates and found significant reductions in the visibility impacts.  The SIP on page 77 states:

Refined visibility modeling was conducted with the BART limits prescribed by the department using the previous refined modeling analysis as a baseline to determine the extent of visibility improvement for each of the three impacted Class I areas. The results are provided in Table 9.18.

These results demonstrate less than the 0.5 deciview threshold for the 98th percentile visibility impact at the Hercules Glade and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas. Further, great improvement at the more proximate Mingo National Wildlife Refuge was also demonstrated. The highest 98[th] percentile impact was in 2001 and this impact was reduced 47 percent from the original refined modeling estimate.

EPA Findings:   Missouri has appropriately addressed this provision. The State appropriately documented the technical analysis to assess the need and implementation of BART controls as applicable for the Holcim emission units for PM, SO2 and NOx  emissions.  This involved identification of existing controls on applicable emission units, potential control options for applicable emission precursors, and the application of the Five Factors from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) to determine the feasibility of controls that constituted BART.
The State required Holcim to evaluate and submit three separate BART analysis for the source.

For each BART-eligible source in the State subject to BART, the implementation plan should include emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART.   Each BART-eligible source in the State subject to BART, shall be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision, shall maintain the control equipment required by this subpart and shall establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.

The State and source have also entered into a BART Final Consent Agreement on April 19, 2009, with federally enforceable controls that represent BART, included in Appendix S of the State SIP.  The Consent Agreement includes emission limits on the BART source for NOx and SO2 in Section 19 of the agreement.  Section 19 also requires the controls be installed as expeditiously as practicable but no later than four years after approval of Missouri's regional haze plan. Section 20 provides a description of the compliance demonstration requiring CEMS.

Missouri has entered into a Consent Agreement with the only BART-subject source in the State other than the CAIR sources.  The Consent Agreement contains federally enforceable BART limitations along with a schedule for compliance before the required 5 year timeframe. The Consent Agreement also ensures continued compliance and maintenance of the equipment to be demonstrated with Continous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS).

The State documented an improvement in visibility at affected Class I areas.  While post-BART control modeled impacts at Mingo are still slightly above 0.5 deciview the impairment has significantly improved with the proposed BART controls. After reviewing the methodology and analyses presented in the SIP and Appendices, EPA finds Missouri's BART implementation for Holcim to be acceptable.

      E.  	2002 and 2018 Emissions Inventory (40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v)) (See also EPA 	TSD Section III.C.1.)
		SIP Pages 34-41

The plan must include a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area within the state. 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, and a commitment to update the inventory periodically.

            1.	State Submittal
            SIP Page 34

7.1 2002 AND 2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY

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), the regional haze emissions inventory includes carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate (PM10), and ammonia (NH3). Missouri used the CENRAP Base G emissions inventory for both the baseline year of 2002 and future year of 2018. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 summarize the Missouri 2002 and 2018 inventories, respectively. Tables H.1-8 in Appendix H include the complete 2002 and 2018 emissions inventory for Missouri.

             Table 7.1: 2002 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary

Source Sector
 NOX (TPY*)
  SO2 (TPY)
 PM10 (TPY)
 PM2.5 (TPY)
  CO (TPY)
 VOC (TPY)
 NH3 (TPY)
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

                    Table 7.2:  2018 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary
Source Sector
  NOX (TPY)
  SO2 (TPY)
 PM10 (TPY)
 PM2.5 (TPY)
  CO (TPY)
 VOC (TPY)
 NH3 (TPY)
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

7.2 OVERVIEW OF EMISSIONS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

      7.2.1 Point Sources

The 2002 point source inventory is based on information reported by facilities on Emission Inventory Questionnaires (EIQs). The 2002 EIQ data collection process was conducted by the department's Air Pollution Control Program and the local air pollution agencies of St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. As the coordinating agency for point source inventory development, the department's Air Pollution Control Program performed the overall quality assurance procedures and submitted the data to EPA's 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) to meet the requirements of the CERR.

Following submission of the Missouri point source inventory to the 2002 NEI, additional quality
assurance, and revision of the data was completed through the CENRAP process. E. H. Pechan
& Associates (Pechan), through a contract with CENRAP, obtained the Missouri point source
inventory and worked with the department's Air Pollution Control Program to make corrections
where needed. In particular, an error that resulted in the double counting of emissions from a
number of emission units was corrected. The problem affected VOC emissions only. For
example, for the Chrysler-North facility (291890231), emission unit number 20949, which
emitted a total of 112 tons/year (about 0.3 tons/day) VOC in 2002, was associated with stack
numbers 44387 and 44388. Instead of being proportioned between the two stacks, the total
amount of 112 tons/year was linked to each stack, which doubled the emissions. In all, this
problem resulted in overstating VOC emissions in the St. Louis nonattainment area by a total of
751 tons/year (roughly 2 tons/day). Other revisions included corrections to facility coordinates
and stack parameters. Pechan also converted the point source inventory to the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions/Inventory Data Analyzer (SMOKE/IDA) format. Pechan's work is
described in detail in the two documents included in Appendix H: The Consolidation of
Emissions Inventories (April 28, 2005) and Refinement of CENRAP's 2002 Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005).

The 2018 point source emissions inventory was prepared by CENRAP. For non-EGUs, the 2002
emissions were projected to 2018 by applying growth and control factors using the SMOKE
model. The growth and control factors were prepared by Pechan and are documented in the
following report in Appendix H.4: Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP
2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005). The control factors for non-
EGU point sources account for Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
and the NOX SIP Call for industrial boilers. In addition, the newly permitted Holcim cement kiln
in Ste. Genevieve County was added to the 2018 non-EGU point inventory.

The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 2.1.9 model output for 2018 was used for 2018
EGU point source emissions. The SMOKE IDA formatted version of the 2018 Integrated
Planning Model (IPM) 2.1.9 file was prepared by Pechan for CENRAP. See the Pechan report,
Refinement of CENRAP's 2002 Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005), in Appendix H.3 for
more information. The proprietary IPM model has been used by the EPA to simulate electrical
power generation and electrical power distribution scenarios based upon "least-cost"
assumptions for future years and, simultaneously, generate estimates of pollutant emissions
associated with these scenarios. The IPM run was conducted by ICF under contract to the RPOs.
This run corresponds with the "VISTASII_PC_1f" modeling run. This run specifically
addressed the emission reductions to be realized through implementation of CAIR assuming all
states participate in the EPA's trading program, Acid Rain Program (Title IV  -  Phases I and II),
NOX SIP Call, and state and local regulations, while incorporating unit-level updates provided by power company stakeholders.

The University of California-Riverside (UCR) ran the SMOKE model for 2018 point source
emissions. The edited IPM file for EGUs was processed in SMOKE without adjustments. The
growth and control factors for non-EGUs were applied using the SMOKE model. The technical
support document in Appendix F describes UCR's work on the 2018 point source inventory.

      7.2.2 Area Sources

The 2002 area source inventory includes emissions estimates prepared by the department's Air
Pollution Control Program and CENRAP, with remaining gaps filled in with data from the NEI.
Table H.9 in Appendix H.1 lists the source of the emissions estimates for each SCC in the base
year area source inventory. For the categories developed by the department's Air Pollution

Control Program, the data and methods used are described in the document Missouri Statewide
Estimates for the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI): Area Sources (January 8, 2007) in
Appendix H.5. The data and methods used to develop the prescribed burning, agricultural dust,
and soil agricultural ammonia inventories for CENRAP can be found in the following reports
prepared by Sonoma Technology in Appendix H: Research and Development of Planned
Burning Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Association (July 30,
2004), Emission Inventory Development for Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for
the Central States (October 28, 2004), and Research and Development of Ammonia Emission
Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Association (October 30, 2003).
Documentation of EPA's methods for the NEI may be found on EPA's Clearinghouse for
Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) website at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.

In a contract with CENRAP, Pechan consolidated the area source data from the various sources,
conducted additional quality assurance, and worked with the department's Air Pollution Control
Program to make revisions where needed. In particular, corrections were made to doublecounting error of industrial surface coating VOC emissions. Pechan also converted the area source inventory to the SMOKE/IDA format. Pechan's work is described in detail in two
documents included in Appendix H: The Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (April 28,
2005) and Refinement of CENRAP's 2002 Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005).

To prepare the area inventories for modeling, UCR made several modifications to the IDA files by removing selected sources either to model them as separate source categories or to omit them from simulations completely. Fugitive and road dust sources were extracted from all stationary-area inventories and adjusted by transport factors following Methodology to Estimate the
Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses (Pace 2005).

The 2018 area source emissions inventory was based on data provided by CENRAP states. Area
source growth and control factors were prepared by Pechan and are documented in the following report in Appendix H.5: Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005). The control factors reflect New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood combustion and Stage II vapor
recovery controls, including onboard vapor recovery.

UCR ran the SMOKE model for the 2018 area source emissions. The growth and control factors
for area sources were applied within SMOKE. The technical support document in Appendix F
describes UCR's work on the 2018 area source inventory. Windblown dust from nonagricultural
land use categories and fire emissions were held constant from 2002 to 2018.

      7.2.3 Offroad Mobile Sources

The 2002 offroad mobile source includes emissions estimates prepared by the department's Air
Pollution Control Program and CENRAP, with remaining gaps filled in with EPA NEI data.
Table H.10 in Appendix H.1 lists the source of the emissions estimates for each SCC in the base
year offroad mobile inventory. The majority of the offroad mobile inventory was developed by
Sonoma Technology under a contract with CENRAP. The methods and data used by Sonoma
are described in the report Emissions Inventory Development for Mobile Sources and
Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States (October 28, 2004) in Appendix H.7.
Information on the NONROAD model is at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm.

Pechan, under a contract with CENRAP, consolidated the offroad mobile source inventories
from the various data sources, quality-assured the data, worked with the department's Air
Pollution Control Program to make corrections where needed, and created SMOKE/IDAformatted files. In particular, Pechan made corrections to the fuel oxygenate content used in the NONROAD model. Pechan's work is described in detail in the two documents included in Appendix H: The Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (April 28, 2005) and Refinement of CENRAP's 2002 Emissions Inventories (August 31, 2005).

The 2018 offroad mobile inventory was based on inputs from CENRAP states. Growth and
control factors for locomotives, aircraft, and commercial marine vessels were prepared by
Pechan. The control factors accounted for federal standards for commercial marine vessels and
locomotives. For the remaining offroad mobile categories, Pechan ran the EPA's
NONROAD2004 model for 2018.  EPA's NONROAD2004 model accounts for growth in
equipment populations and incorporates the effects of most final federal standards, including the
Tier 4 diesel engine standards and the exhaust emission standards for large spark-ignition
engines, diesel marine, and land-based recreational engines. Pechan's methods are described in
greater detail in the following report in Appendix H.4: Development of Growth and Control
Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005).

UCR and applied the growth and control factors to non-NONROAD categories using the
SMOKE model. In addition, UCR processed NONROAD-model categories in SMOKE without
adjustments. The technical support document in Appendix F describes UCR's work on the 2018
offroad inventory

      7.2.4 Onroad Mobile Sources

The department's Air Pollution Control Program and CENRAP, with contractor support,
developed the 2002 and 2018 onroad mobile source emissions inventories. Sonoma Technology
provided 2002 VMT data and MOBILE6 input files for all counties in the CENRAP region.
MOBILE6 input files were provided only for the months of January and July for 2002. The
methods and data used by Sonoma are described in the report Emissions Inventory Development
for Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States (October 28, 2004) in
Appendix H.7. UCR prepared MOBILE6 input files for the remaining months of 2002 and
processed the 2002 mobile emissions using the MOBILE6 model within the SMOKE
framework.

Pechan prepared the VMT and MOBILE6 inputs for the 2018 onroad mobile source emissions
inventory. The VMT growth factors and MOBILE6 input files were provided in SMOKE
format. The MOBILE6 input files incorporated state/local control program information,
including Reformulated Gasoline and the inspection and maintenance program in the St. Louis
nonattainment area and low Reid vapor pressure (RVP) gasoline in the Kansas City maintenance area. For each county or group of counties modeled, two SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 files were prepared: one representing July conditions and one representing January conditions. Pechan's methods are described in greater detail in the following report in Appendix H.4: Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions Draft Technical
Support Document (May 2005).

UCR prepared MOBILE6 input files for the remaining months of 2018 and processed the 2018 onroad mobile emissions by running the MOBILE6 model within the SMOKE framework. The SMOKE model applies the VMT growth factors. The MOBILE6 model accounts for federal motor vehicle controls, including light-duty motor vehicle engine standards and low-sulfur gasoline, and the federal heavy-duty diesel engine standards and low-sulfur diesel. The technical support document in Appendix F describes UCR's onroad mobile emissions inventory processing.

      7.2.5 Biogenic Emissions

UCR generated biogenic emissions by running the BEIS3 model within the SMOKE framework.
BEIS3 is a system integrated into SMOKE for deriving emissions estimates of biogenic gasphase
pollutants from land use information, emissions factors for different plant species, and
hourly, gridded meteorology data. Biogenic emissions were held constant from 2002 to 2018.
The technical support document in Appendix F describes the development of the biogenic
emissions inventory.

7.3 PERIODIC UPDATES OF EMISSIONS INVENTORIES

Recognizing the importance of maintaining current, valid emissions information, the
department's Air Pollution Control Program commits to periodically updating the Missouri
statewide emissions inventories. The point source inventories will be updated on an annual basis, and the area, onroad mobile, and offroad mobile inventories will be updated every three years.  The three-year updates will begin with the inventory for calendar year 2008, and follow with 2011, 2014, and so on, consistent with EPA's emissions inventory reporting requirements.

In addition to completing regular updates of Missouri's emissions inventory, the Air Pollution
Control Program commits to periodically reviewing emissions information for other states and
future-year emissions projections and making adjustments where needed. This effort will consist
of reviewing and updating any technical data and assumptions regarding emissions growth rates, implementation of emissions controls, and geographic distribution of emissions. The periodic reviews will be coordinated with other states and consultation partners and will be conducted in conjunction with the five-year progress reports discussed in section 2.6.

EPA Findings:  Missouri has appropriately addressed this provision.

	F.	Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements (40 CFR 			51.308(d)(4))
		SIP Pages 30-33

The State's plan must include a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within the State and/or summarize monitoring strategy of States with affected mandatory Class I areas. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network.

      1.	State Submittal
            SIP Page 30

6.2 CURRENT MONITORING STRATEGY

Upon the creation of CENRAP, the newly formed Monitoring Workgroup identified large
visibility data voids in Southern Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Southern Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma. Only five IMPROVE sites were located in the CENRAP region. Between 2000 and
2003, five more IMPROVE sites and 15 IMPROVE protocol sites were installed. In Missouri,
IMPROVE Sites are located at Hercules Glades and Mingo (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). An
IMPROVE protocol sampler is located at the site near El Dorado Springs (Figure 6.3). 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.

The filter samples from the IMPROVE modules are sent for analysis to the Crocker Nuclear
Laboratory of the University of California in Davis and the data is posted to the IMPROVE
website and the VIEWS website.4 Details regarding the monitors (location, date of installation,
etc., and monitoring data) are found at the VIEWS website. This fulfills Missouri's reporting
requirement of visibility data (electronic) under subsection (iv).

6.3 FUTURE MONITORING STRATEGY

In order to assess progress in reducing visibility impairment in Class I areas, the existing
IMPROVE and IMPROVE Protocol sites will be maintained contingent upon continued national
funding to measure, characterize and report regional haze visibility impairment to satisfy
requirements of subsection (i). If EPA elects to revise funding for this network, Missouri will
evaluate the IMPROVE protocol site at El Dorado Springs. Any changes appropriate to
continued monitoring of Regional Haze for the Missouri Class I areas will be evaluated during
the Missouri five-year review. The five-year review will include the following aspects:

* QA IMPROVE data from Mingo and Hercules Glades.
* Calculate current visibility conditions for most impaired and least impaired days.
* Calculate differences between current conditions and baseline conditions.
* Determine whether RPGs are being met.
Missouri will also evaluate technology changes and the need for new monitors as appropriate.

6.4 SPECIAL MONITORING STUDIES

Special monitoring in the CENRAP region for ammonia was conducted from November 1, 2003
through June 28, 2006. In all, approximately 7,200 individual ammonia and associated
measurements were attempted in the course of this project. One of the primary outcomes of this
sampling was the disclosure that high concentrations of ammonia are occurring in the northern
and central CENRAP regions with a considerable regularity. It seems likely that these are due to
the agricultural sources that have been documented as emitters of ammonia, including animal
raising and fertilizer application.5

EPA Findings: Missouri has appropriately addressed this provision.

      G.	Planning and Conclusion (40 CFR 51.308(f-h))
		SIP Pages 101-103

40 CFR 51.308(f) requires a state/tribe to revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter. In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR  51.308(f) of the federal Regional Haze Rule, Missouri in its SIP has committed to revising and submitting this regional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.  40 CFR 51.308(g)

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is responsible for developing and submitting the required SIP revisions and periodic reports. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires periodic reports evaluating progress towards the RPGs established for each mandatory Class I area. In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR  51.308(g) of the federal rule for regional haze, Missouri has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress to EPA every five years following the initial submittal of the plan. The reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPG for each mandatory Class I area located within Missouri and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Missouri that may be affected by emissions from within Missouri. The report will be in the form of a SIP revision.

To establish the criteria in evaluating progress, Missouri claims that all requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) shall be addressed in the plan revision for reasonable progress. These criteria are as follows:

   * Assessment of visibility conditions and changes for each Class I area in
      Missouri;
   * Implementation status of control measures included in plan and a summary of emissions reductions achieved from measures;
   * Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant, identified by source or activity;
   * Assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;
   * Assessment of whether current plan is sufficient to meet RPGs; and
   * Review of Missouri's visibility monitoring strategy and any necessary strategy.

Using the modeling and monitoring as described in the SIP and appendices, Missouri has made a determination that the plan will continue to meet the goal of showing progress towards reducing visibility. Using the consultation process described in the plan, Missouri demonstrates that the visibility goals have been adequately addressed. In addition, through participation in other states' consultation processes, Missouri demonstrates that contribution to other states visibility goals has also been adequately addressed.

For the 2013 five-year review process, Missouri intends to conduct a five factor analysis (four factors plus visibility impact) to address reasonable progress goals set for the Mingo and Hercules Glades Class 1 Areas. The findings of the five-year progress report will determine which action is appropriate and necessary. Depending on the findings of the five-year progress report, Missouri has committed to one of the actions listed in 40 CFR 51.308(h):

   * If Missouri determines that the existing plan requires no further substantive revision in order to achieve established goals, the state will provide the EPA with a negative declaration that further revision of the plan is not needed at this time.
   * If Missouri determines that the existing plan may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from other states that participated in the regional planning process, Missouri will provide notification to the EPA and the other states that participated in regional planning. Missouri will collaborate with the other states through the regional planning process to address the plan's deficiencies.
   * Where Missouri determines that the current plan may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, the state shall provide notification, along with available information, to the EPA.
   * Where Missouri determines that the existing plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions within the state, Missouri shall revise its plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.

Modeling and monitoring information will be used and the consultation process described in the plan will be followed in carrying out the scheduled incremental administrative and technical actions required in the plan. Any resulting plan revisions could include a revision to goals, contingency measures, the monitoring strategy, and any other parts of the plan as deemed necessary.

EPA Findings: Missouri has appropriately addressed these provisions.

IV.	CONCLUSION

Except for those aspects of the Regional Haze submittal that rely on EPA's CAIR Rule, Missouri's Regional Haze SIP, submitted on August 5, 2009, including the technical supplement submitted on January 30, 2012, meets all of the requirements of Section 110 of the CAA and Regional Haze requirements, as set forth in Sections 169A and 169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, including by requiring the establishment of reasonable progress goals for each of its Class I areas, determining Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), and submitting a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for its Class I areas and for those Class I areas in other states that may be impacted by emissions from within Missouri.