Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri: Regional Haze, 38007-38011 [2012-15021]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Final Action
EPA is finalizing its limited approval
of the State of Iowa’s Regional Haze SIP,
submitted on March 25, 2008, as
meeting some of the applicable regional
haze requirements set forth in section
169A and 169B of the CAA and in the
Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR
51.308, and the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51, subpart F and appendix V. In
a separate rulemaking action, EPA
finalized the limited disapproval of
Iowa’s Regional Haze SIP and imposed
a FIP for Iowa. 77 FR 33642.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
38007
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q—Iowa
2. In § 52.820 the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding a new entry
(39) in numerical order to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.820
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
(39) Regional Haze plan for the
first implementation period.
Statewide .....
*
3. Section 52.842 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 52.842
Visibility protection.
13:18 Jun 25, 2012
EPA approval date
*
3/25/08
Jkt 226001
disapproval to the plan provisions
addressing these requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Explanation
*
6/26/12, [Insert Federal Register
citation].
[FR Doc. 2012–15020 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
(a) Regional Haze. The requirements
of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are
not met because the regional haze plan
submitted by Iowa on March 25, 2008,
does not include fully approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e)
with respect to emissions of NOX and
SO2 from electric generating units. EPA
has given limited approval and limited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State submittal
date
*
*
§ 52.842(a); Limited Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0153; FRL–9688–1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri: Regional Haze
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of a revision to the State
SUMMARY:
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38008
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Missouri,
submitted by the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources on August 5, 2009,
and supplemented on January 30, 2012,
that addresses Regional Haze for the
first implementation period.
Specifically, these revisions address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA’s rules that required
States to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment
of visibility in Class I Areas (national
parks and wilderness areas) caused by
emissions of air pollutants located over
a wide geographic area (also known as
the ‘‘regional haze’’ program). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA proposed to approve these
revisions on February 28, 2012 (77 FR
11958). In a separate rulemaking action,
EPA finalized the limited disapproval of
Missouri’s regional haze SIP and
imposed a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) for Missouri on June 7, 2012. 77
FR 33642.
DATES: This rule will become effective
July 26, 2012, except that the
amendment to § 52.1339 is effective
August 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR–
2012–0153. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning and Development
Branch, Air and Waste Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
for further information. The regional
office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at
(913) 551–7864; or by email at
wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11958),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Missouri, proposing limited approval of
Missouri’s regional haze plan for the
first implementation period (through
2018). A detailed explanation of the
CAA’s visibility requirements and the
regional haze rule as it applies to
Missouri was provided in the NPR and
will not be restated here. EPA’s
rationale for proposing limited approval
of the Missouri SIP was described in
detail in the proposal, and is further
described in this final rulemaking.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The publication of EPA’s proposed
rule on February 28, 2012, initiated a 30
day public comment period that ended
on March 29, 2012. During the public
comment period we received one set of
written comments from Earthjustice on
behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council and Sierra Club (collectively,
the ‘‘Commenter’’).1 We have
summarized the comments and
provided our responses below. A full
copy of the comment letter is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts
that EPA does not have the authority
under the CAA to issue a limited
approval and concurrent limited
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
SIP. The Commenter contends that
section 110(k) of the Act only allows
EPA to fully approve, partially approve,
and partially disapprove, conditionally
approve, or fully disapprove a SIP. The
Commenter contends that regional haze
SIPs are not like other SIP submissions
and must be ‘‘submitted as a whole’’
and therefore, EPA cannot grant limited
approval to a state SIP while proposing
to issue a partial FIP. The Commenter
also contends that EPA is required to
determine whether the submittal ‘‘meets
all applicable requirements’’ of section
110 (k) and does not allow EPA to
approve the submittal on the grounds
that it strengthens the Missouri SIP. The
1 After the close of the public comment period,
EPA received comments in support of the proposed
rule from the U.S. Forest Service. A copy of the
comment letter is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commenter cites to several Federal
appellate court decisions to support its
contention that 110(k) of the Act limits
EPA to ‘‘a conditional approval, a
partial approval and disapproval, or a
full approval.’’
Response 1: The cases cited by the
Commenter in support of its contentions
did not involve challenges to a limited
approval approach and therefore are not
applicable here. As discussed in the
September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum
cited in the notice of proposed
rulemaking,2 although section 110(k) of
the CAA may not expressly provide
authority for limited approvals, the
plain language of section 301(a) does
provide ‘‘gap-filling’’ authority
authorizing the Agency to ‘‘prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to
carry out’’ EPA’s CAA functions. EPA
may rely on section 301(a) in
conjunction with the Agency’s SIP
approval authority in section 110(k)(3)
to issue limited approvals where it has
determined that a submittal strengthens
a given state SIP and that the provisions
meeting the applicable requirements of
the Act are not separable from the
provisions that do not meet the Act’s
requirements. EPA has adopted the
limited approval approach numerous
times in SIP actions across the nation
over the last twenty years. Limited
approval and limited disapproval
actions are appropriate here because
EPA has determined that Missouri’s SIP
revisions addressing regional haze, as a
whole, strengthen the State’s SIP and
because the provisions in the SIP
revisions are not separable.
Moreover, adopting the Commenter’s
position would ignore section 301 and
violate the ‘‘fundamental canon of
statutory construction that the words of
a statute must be read in their context
and with a view to their place in the
overall statutory scheme, * * *. A court
must therefore interpret the statute ‘as a
symmetrical and coherent regulatory
scheme,’ * * * and ‘fit, if possible, all
parts into an harmonious whole.’ ’’ FDA
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis
v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S.
803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd
Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC
v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385,
389 (1959).
The Commenter’s claim that regional
haze SIPs are somehow different from
other SIPs is unfounded and not
2 Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division,
OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional
Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (‘‘1992 Calcagni
Memorandum’’) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
supported by the case law cited or the
CAA. Notably, the Commenter cites no
authority for its contention that regional
haze SIPs must be ‘‘submitted as
whole.’’ In any event, today’s action
combined with the ‘‘Transport Rule
Better than BART’’ FIP 77 FR 33642
address all applicable requirements for
Missouri with respect to the regional
haze requirements of the Act.
Comment 2: The Commenter states
that EPA must partially disapprove
Missouri’s regional haze SIP submittal
because it relied on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Commenter
cites to the proposed Kentucky SIP to
show that Missouri’s long-term strategy,
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) and
decision to exempt electric generating
units (EGUs) from Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) should be
disapproved due to the deficiencies
identified in CAIR by the court and the
impact of the Transport Rule on CAIR.
Response 2: This comment is based
on the incorrect premise that through
this rulemaking EPA is exempting
Missouri sources from BART
requirements. In 2008, the DC Circuit
remanded CAIR back to the Agency
because the court believed that CAIR
was inconsistent with the requirements
of the CAA. Although CAIR may not
remain in effect indefinitely, it is
currently in force, and the State’s
reliance on CAIR was fully consistent
with EPA’s regulations at the time that
Missouri developed its regional haze
SIP. As explained in the February 28,
2011, rulemaking (77 FR 11958), EPA is
taking a limited approval action because
the revisions as a whole strengthen the
SIP and because the action is consistent
with the court’s intention to keep CAIR
temporarily in place. The limited
approval results in an approval of the
entire regional haze submission and all
of its elements, preserving the visibility
benefits offered by the SIP until CAIR is
replaced by the Transport Rule. EPA
recently demonstrated that the
Transport Rule is better than BART. 77
FR 33642. EPA took a limited
disapproval action because the Agency
cannot fully approve regional haze SIP
revisions that rely on CAIR for
emissions reductions measures for the
reasons discussed in Section III of the
February 28, 2011, proposed
rulemaking. 77 FR 11958. See also 77
FR 33642. EPA’s response to Comment
1, above, explains the Agency’s
authority to take limited approval and
limited disapproval actions under the
CAA.
EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s
request for a partial disapproval of the
SIP. Because the SIP provisions relying
on CAIR, including the long term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
strategy (LTS) do not meet the
applicable regional haze requirements
and are not separable from the
provisions that meet the applicable
requirements of the Act, a partial
disapproval would prevent any of the
SIP’s air quality benefits from being
realized until EPA promulgated a FIP or
approved a revised SIP to addresses the
deficiencies. Furthermore, the two-year
clock to promulgate a FIP to remedy the
deficiencies is triggered by the limited
disapproval just as it would be triggered
by a partial disapproval. On December
30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the
trading programs in the Transport Rule
would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal than
would BART in the states in which the
Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR
82219. Based on this proposed finding,
EPA also proposed a FIP for Missouri in
that action that would substitute
participation in the trading programs
under the Transport Rule for
participation in CAIR for the purposes
of satisfying regional haze requirements
and would remedy the CAIR-related
deficiencies discussed above. EPA
finalized this action on June 7, 2012. 77
FR 33642. See also EPA’s response to
comments on the Transport Better than
BART rulemaking. 77 FR 33642.
Comment 3: The Commenter
identifies its opposition to EPA’s
December 30, 2011, proposed
rulemaking to find that the Transport
Rule is better than BART and to ‘‘use
the Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART’’ for Missouri and other states
subject to the Transport Rule. The
Commenter incorporates by reference its
comments on that December 30, 2011,
proposed rulemaking ‘‘by reference’’
and outlines several of those comments,
including its arguments that the
Transport Rule is not ‘‘better than
BART’’ and that EPA cannot rely on the
Transport Rule as an ‘‘alternative
program to BART.’’
Response 3: In today’s rule, EPA is
taking final action on the limited
approval of Missouri’s regional haze
SIP. The Commenter correctly
recognizes that EPA did not propose to
find that participation in the Transport
Rule is an alternative to BART in this
rulemaking. As noted above, EPA made
this proposed finding in a separate
action on December 30, 2011, and the
Commenter is merely reiterating and
incorporating its comments on that
separate action. These comments are
therefore not relevant to this rulemaking
but have been addressed, as appropriate,
by EPA in its final action on the
December 30, 2011, proposed rule. 77
FR 33642.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
38009
Comment 4: The Commenter states
that EPA should disapprove Missouri’s
long-term strategy because Missouri’s
SIP is insufficient to address Missouri’s
visibility impact on Class I areas in
other states, particularly the Wichita
Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma
(WIMO) and the Boundary Waters Class
I area in Minnesota (BOWA). The
Commenter states that Missouri’s
reliance on on-the-books requirements
for EGUs, mobile sources, area sources,
other point sources, and CAIR without
requiring additional emissions
reductions at various facilities is not
sufficient to meet the requirements of
the regional haze rule. The Commenter
states that Missouri’s analysis of impact
of its sources on out-state Class I areas
is not supported by modeling. Further,
the Commenter states that Missouri’s
reliance on cost as the basis for not
requiring controls is incorrect and
Missouri should focus on whether it has
done its share to reduce visibility
impact in those Class I areas.
Response 4: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter that Missouri’s long-term
strategy does not adequately address
visibility impacts on Class I areas in
other states, such as in WIMO in
Oklahoma, and BOWA in Minnesota.
Further, the Commenter provides no
evidence that Missouri has not
addressed its fair share of emission
reductions.
As described in the proposal,
Missouri properly entered into the
consultation process with both
Oklahoma and Minnesota and provided
sufficient evidence to demonstrate its
long-term strategy includes all measures
necessary to obtain its share of emission
reductions as required by the regional
haze rule.
Missouri appropriately concluded
additional controls on Missouri’s
sources are not reasonable due to the
limited visibility improvement at
WIMO. In a September 17, 2007, letter
from Missouri to Oklahoma, Missouri
responded to Oklahoma’s conclusion
that Missouri is reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment at
WIMO. Missouri noted that, based on
the PSAT analysis presented by
Oklahoma, over half the elevated pointsource impacts to WIMO are from
sources in Oklahoma, Texas, and
Louisiana, and most of the area source
impacts are from Oklahoma and Texas
sources. Missouri’s analysis shows that
its sources only account for about 2.5
percent and 2.75 percent visibility
impairment at WIMO in 2002 and 2018,
respectively based on the PSAT
modeling. Additionally, Missouri
questioned Oklahoma’s use of one
inverse megameter to determine the
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
contribution threshold. Missouri found
that this low threshold, combined with
Oklahoma’s reliance upon a one metric
test using Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT), as
opposed to multiple tests utilized for
the Central Class I Areas for determining
contribution, resulted in an analysis that
was too narrow. As a result of this
narrow analysis, Missouri was found to
be contributing to WIMO while many
other states were left out with no strong
rationale in Oklahoma’s analysis as to
why these states were treated
differently. Missouri also questioned
how Oklahoma’s analysis could
conclude that Missouri sources were
contributing to WIMO, which is located
200 to 250 miles from Missouri’s
western border, but Missouri’s analysis
showed that the emission reductions
obtained by Missouri would address
reasonable progress goals in nearby
Central Class I areas in Missouri and
Arkansas. Missouri’s analysis and
conclusions regarding Missouri source
contributions to WIMO were reasonable.
Further, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter’s assertion that Missouri
inappropriately relied upon costs to rule
out additional emission controls at
Missouri sources. Missouri did not
solely rely on estimation of costs, but
instead considered the limited potential
visibility improvements of additional
controls based on the modeling in
addition to consideration of cost. EPA
also notes that Oklahoma did not
respond to Missouri’s September 17,
2007 letter with any additional analysis.
Missouri also entered into a
consultation process with Minnesota.
Minnesota identified Missouri as a
contributing state to the BOWA based
on a Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) trajectory
analysis. Missouri relied upon PSAT
modeling analysis to estimate the
potential visibility benefit at BOWA if
Missouri were to require additional
emissions reductions from Missouri
sources. Missouri relied upon the PSAT
modeling analysis to demonstrate that
the overwhelming majority of emissions
impacts on BOWA are from Minnesota
and neighboring states, with Missouri
contributing less than 3 percent in 2002
and 2018. Based on this modeling
analysis, EPA believes Missouri
appropriately concluded additional
emission reductions from Missouri
sources were not reasonable due to the
likely limited visibility improvement at
BOWA.
We also used Missouri’s reasonable
further progress (RFP) analysis to
provide further support to our
determination of the adequacy of
Missouri’s long-term strategy. Missouri’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
four-factor analysis examined the
effectiveness of additional emissions
reductions from Missouri sources on
visibility improvement in Missouri
Class I areas and examined all
anthropogenic source categories,
including point, area, on-road and offroad mobile, with a focus on large point
sources. Missouri’s four-factor analysis
supports EPA’s conclusion that
Missouri appropriately determined that
the amount of visibility improvement
from additional controls on point
sources would not have a significant
impact on Missouri Class I areas. EPA
believes the same determination could
be made regarding Missouri’s impact on
more distant Class I areas in other states.
It is reasonable to conclude from
Missouri’s modeling and four-factor
analysis that the increased distance
from Missouri sources to the Oklahoma
and Minnesota Class I areas would only
decrease the previously demonstrated
limited effectiveness of additional
emission reductions from Missouri
sources.
Comment 5: The Commenter states
that Missouri’s proposed BART limits
for the Holcim-Clarksville facility fail to
satisfy the requirements of BART. The
Commenter states that the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) control option selected as
BART for the facility is flawed and not
approvable as BART for two reasons.
First, the Commenter argues that the
cost of the wet scrubber was
inaccurately inflated. Second, the
Commenter states that Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) assumed an incorrect removal
efficiency for a dry scrubber. The
Commenter also states that the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) control option selected as
BART for the Holcim-Clarksville facility
is flawed because EPA has ‘‘concluded
that BART is a combination of selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and
Low-NOX burner’’ for a Holcim facility
located in Montana.
Response 5: In a letter dated
November 20, 2010, Holcim requested
that the State terminate the operating
permit for the emission units at the
source that are subject to BART because
it curtailed operations at HolcimClarksville so that the facility will no
longer manufacture Portland cement or
burn hazardous fuel. The curtailment of
operations conforms to the State
Consent Agreement (Appendix S),
which EPA is approving into the SIP in
today’s action. In its June 23, 2011,
response to Holcim’s request, MDNR
revised Holcim’s Title V permit to be a
Basic State Operating permit; removed
the BART-eligible emission units from
the permit, which thereby prohibits
Holcim from operating those units; and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
limited emissions of any visibility
impairing pollutant to less than 100 tons
per year. A copy of MDNR’s letter is in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Moreover, MDNR has stated in its
letter, and EPA agrees, that Holcim must
continue to meet all applicable federal
and state regulations and if conditions
change, new standards are promulgated,
or if Holcim intends to add or re-start
any equipment, a new operating and/or
construction permit may be necessary.
By choosing to shutdown in accordance
with the Consent Agreement, Holcim
will not operate the BART-eligible units
at the Clarksville facility, therefore, EPA
does not need to address the
Commenter’s issues regarding the BART
limits for the facility.
III. Final Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval of
the State of Missouri’s Regional Haze
SIP, submitted on August 5, 2009, with
supplemental information provided on
January 30, 2012, as meeting some of the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in section 169A and 169B of
the Act and in the Federal regulations
codified at 40 CFR 51.300–308, and the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart
F and appendix V.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
38011
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
2. In § 52.1320:
a. The table in paragraph (d) is
amended by adding a new entry (26) in
numerical order; and
■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is
amended by adding a new entry (57) in
numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.1320
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) EPA-approved State sourcespecific permits and orders.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS
Name of source
Order/permit
No.
*
(26) Holcim ........
*
........................
State effective date
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
*
April 19, 2009 ................................ June 26, 2012, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
§ 52.1339(c); Limited Approval.
(e) EPA approved nonregulatory
provisions and quasi-regulatory
measures.
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
*
(57) Regional Haze Plan
for the first implementation period.
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
Statewide ..........................
3. Section 52.1339 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1339
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
(c) Regional Haze. The requirements
of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are
not met because the regional haze plan
submitted by Missouri on August 5,
2009, and supplemented on January 30,
2012, does not include fully approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e)
with respect to emissions of NOX and
SO2 from electric generating units. EPA
has given limited approval and limited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
EPA approval date
*
8/5/09, supplemented
1/30/12.
*
*
6/26/12, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
disapproval to the plan provisions
addressing these requirements.
[FR Doc. 2012–15021 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
Visibility protection.
*
State submittal date
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Explanation
*
§ 52.1339(c); Limited Approval.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 110210132–1275–02]
RIN 0648–XC055
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38007-38011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0153; FRL-9688-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri: Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the
State
[[Page 38008]]
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Missouri, submitted by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources on August 5, 2009, and supplemented on
January 30, 2012, that addresses Regional Haze for the first
implementation period. Specifically, these revisions address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that
required States to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I Areas (national parks
and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants located
over a wide geographic area (also known as the ``regional haze''
program). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA proposed to approve these revisions on February 28, 2012 (77
FR 11958). In a separate rulemaking action, EPA finalized the limited
disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP and imposed a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri on June 7, 2012. 77 FR 33642.
DATES: This rule will become effective July 26, 2012, except that the
amendment to Sec. 52.1339 is effective August 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0153. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Planning and Development Branch, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for further information. The regional
office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning
and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at (913)
551-7864; or by email at wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11958), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Missouri, proposing limited
approval of Missouri's regional haze plan for the first implementation
period (through 2018). A detailed explanation of the CAA's visibility
requirements and the regional haze rule as it applies to Missouri was
provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA's rationale for
proposing limited approval of the Missouri SIP was described in detail
in the proposal, and is further described in this final rulemaking.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The publication of EPA's proposed rule on February 28, 2012,
initiated a 30 day public comment period that ended on March 29, 2012.
During the public comment period we received one set of written
comments from Earthjustice on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council and Sierra Club (collectively, the ``Commenter'').\1\ We have
summarized the comments and provided our responses below. A full copy
of the comment letter is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After the close of the public comment period, EPA received
comments in support of the proposed rule from the U.S. Forest
Service. A copy of the comment letter is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA does not have the
authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval and concurrent
limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP. The Commenter
contends that section 110(k) of the Act only allows EPA to fully
approve, partially approve, and partially disapprove, conditionally
approve, or fully disapprove a SIP. The Commenter contends that
regional haze SIPs are not like other SIP submissions and must be
``submitted as a whole'' and therefore, EPA cannot grant limited
approval to a state SIP while proposing to issue a partial FIP. The
Commenter also contends that EPA is required to determine whether the
submittal ``meets all applicable requirements'' of section 110 (k) and
does not allow EPA to approve the submittal on the grounds that it
strengthens the Missouri SIP. The Commenter cites to several Federal
appellate court decisions to support its contention that 110(k) of the
Act limits EPA to ``a conditional approval, a partial approval and
disapproval, or a full approval.''
Response 1: The cases cited by the Commenter in support of its
contentions did not involve challenges to a limited approval approach
and therefore are not applicable here. As discussed in the September 7,
1992, EPA memorandum cited in the notice of proposed rulemaking,\2\
although section 110(k) of the CAA may not expressly provide authority
for limited approvals, the plain language of section 301(a) does
provide ``gap-filling'' authority authorizing the Agency to ``prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to carry out'' EPA's CAA functions.
EPA may rely on section 301(a) in conjunction with the Agency's SIP
approval authority in section 110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals
where it has determined that a submittal strengthens a given state SIP
and that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements of the Act
are not separable from the provisions that do not meet the Act's
requirements. EPA has adopted the limited approval approach numerous
times in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years.
Limited approval and limited disapproval actions are appropriate here
because EPA has determined that Missouri's SIP revisions addressing
regional haze, as a whole, strengthen the State's SIP and because the
provisions in the SIP revisions are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'') located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, adopting the Commenter's position would ignore section
301 and violate the ``fundamental canon of statutory construction that
the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to
their place in the overall statutory scheme, * * *. A court must
therefore interpret the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent
regulatory scheme,' * * * and `fit, if possible, all parts into an
harmonious whole.' '' FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S.
120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S.
803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and
FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959).
The Commenter's claim that regional haze SIPs are somehow different
from other SIPs is unfounded and not
[[Page 38009]]
supported by the case law cited or the CAA. Notably, the Commenter
cites no authority for its contention that regional haze SIPs must be
``submitted as whole.'' In any event, today's action combined with the
``Transport Rule Better than BART'' FIP 77 FR 33642 address all
applicable requirements for Missouri with respect to the regional haze
requirements of the Act.
Comment 2: The Commenter states that EPA must partially disapprove
Missouri's regional haze SIP submittal because it relied on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Commenter cites to the proposed
Kentucky SIP to show that Missouri's long-term strategy, reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) and decision to exempt electric generating units
(EGUs) from Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) should be
disapproved due to the deficiencies identified in CAIR by the court and
the impact of the Transport Rule on CAIR.
Response 2: This comment is based on the incorrect premise that
through this rulemaking EPA is exempting Missouri sources from BART
requirements. In 2008, the DC Circuit remanded CAIR back to the Agency
because the court believed that CAIR was inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA. Although CAIR may not remain in effect
indefinitely, it is currently in force, and the State's reliance on
CAIR was fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that
Missouri developed its regional haze SIP. As explained in the February
28, 2011, rulemaking (77 FR 11958), EPA is taking a limited approval
action because the revisions as a whole strengthen the SIP and because
the action is consistent with the court's intention to keep CAIR
temporarily in place. The limited approval results in an approval of
the entire regional haze submission and all of its elements, preserving
the visibility benefits offered by the SIP until CAIR is replaced by
the Transport Rule. EPA recently demonstrated that the Transport Rule
is better than BART. 77 FR 33642. EPA took a limited disapproval action
because the Agency cannot fully approve regional haze SIP revisions
that rely on CAIR for emissions reductions measures for the reasons
discussed in Section III of the February 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking.
77 FR 11958. See also 77 FR 33642. EPA's response to Comment 1, above,
explains the Agency's authority to take limited approval and limited
disapproval actions under the CAA.
EPA disagrees with the Commenter's request for a partial
disapproval of the SIP. Because the SIP provisions relying on CAIR,
including the long term strategy (LTS) do not meet the applicable
regional haze requirements and are not separable from the provisions
that meet the applicable requirements of the Act, a partial disapproval
would prevent any of the SIP's air quality benefits from being realized
until EPA promulgated a FIP or approved a revised SIP to addresses the
deficiencies. Furthermore, the two-year clock to promulgate a FIP to
remedy the deficiencies is triggered by the limited disapproval just as
it would be triggered by a partial disapproval. On December 30, 2011,
EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule
would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal
than would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See
76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed a FIP
for Missouri in that action that would substitute participation in the
trading programs under the Transport Rule for participation in CAIR for
the purposes of satisfying regional haze requirements and would remedy
the CAIR-related deficiencies discussed above. EPA finalized this
action on June 7, 2012. 77 FR 33642. See also EPA's response to
comments on the Transport Better than BART rulemaking. 77 FR 33642.
Comment 3: The Commenter identifies its opposition to EPA's
December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule
is better than BART and to ``use the Transport Rule as an alternative
to BART'' for Missouri and other states subject to the Transport Rule.
The Commenter incorporates by reference its comments on that December
30, 2011, proposed rulemaking ``by reference'' and outlines several of
those comments, including its arguments that the Transport Rule is not
``better than BART'' and that EPA cannot rely on the Transport Rule as
an ``alternative program to BART.''
Response 3: In today's rule, EPA is taking final action on the
limited approval of Missouri's regional haze SIP. The Commenter
correctly recognizes that EPA did not propose to find that
participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this
rulemaking. As noted above, EPA made this proposed finding in a
separate action on December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely
reiterating and incorporating its comments on that separate action.
These comments are therefore not relevant to this rulemaking but have
been addressed, as appropriate, by EPA in its final action on the
December 30, 2011, proposed rule. 77 FR 33642.
Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA should disapprove
Missouri's long-term strategy because Missouri's SIP is insufficient to
address Missouri's visibility impact on Class I areas in other states,
particularly the Wichita Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma (WIMO) and
the Boundary Waters Class I area in Minnesota (BOWA). The Commenter
states that Missouri's reliance on on-the-books requirements for EGUs,
mobile sources, area sources, other point sources, and CAIR without
requiring additional emissions reductions at various facilities is not
sufficient to meet the requirements of the regional haze rule. The
Commenter states that Missouri's analysis of impact of its sources on
out-state Class I areas is not supported by modeling. Further, the
Commenter states that Missouri's reliance on cost as the basis for not
requiring controls is incorrect and Missouri should focus on whether it
has done its share to reduce visibility impact in those Class I areas.
Response 4: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that Missouri's long-
term strategy does not adequately address visibility impacts on Class I
areas in other states, such as in WIMO in Oklahoma, and BOWA in
Minnesota. Further, the Commenter provides no evidence that Missouri
has not addressed its fair share of emission reductions.
As described in the proposal, Missouri properly entered into the
consultation process with both Oklahoma and Minnesota and provided
sufficient evidence to demonstrate its long-term strategy includes all
measures necessary to obtain its share of emission reductions as
required by the regional haze rule.
Missouri appropriately concluded additional controls on Missouri's
sources are not reasonable due to the limited visibility improvement at
WIMO. In a September 17, 2007, letter from Missouri to Oklahoma,
Missouri responded to Oklahoma's conclusion that Missouri is reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at WIMO. Missouri
noted that, based on the PSAT analysis presented by Oklahoma, over half
the elevated point-source impacts to WIMO are from sources in Oklahoma,
Texas, and Louisiana, and most of the area source impacts are from
Oklahoma and Texas sources. Missouri's analysis shows that its sources
only account for about 2.5 percent and 2.75 percent visibility
impairment at WIMO in 2002 and 2018, respectively based on the PSAT
modeling. Additionally, Missouri questioned Oklahoma's use of one
inverse megameter to determine the
[[Page 38010]]
contribution threshold. Missouri found that this low threshold,
combined with Oklahoma's reliance upon a one metric test using
Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT), as opposed
to multiple tests utilized for the Central Class I Areas for
determining contribution, resulted in an analysis that was too narrow.
As a result of this narrow analysis, Missouri was found to be
contributing to WIMO while many other states were left out with no
strong rationale in Oklahoma's analysis as to why these states were
treated differently. Missouri also questioned how Oklahoma's analysis
could conclude that Missouri sources were contributing to WIMO, which
is located 200 to 250 miles from Missouri's western border, but
Missouri's analysis showed that the emission reductions obtained by
Missouri would address reasonable progress goals in nearby Central
Class I areas in Missouri and Arkansas. Missouri's analysis and
conclusions regarding Missouri source contributions to WIMO were
reasonable.
Further, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that Missouri
inappropriately relied upon costs to rule out additional emission
controls at Missouri sources. Missouri did not solely rely on
estimation of costs, but instead considered the limited potential
visibility improvements of additional controls based on the modeling in
addition to consideration of cost. EPA also notes that Oklahoma did not
respond to Missouri's September 17, 2007 letter with any additional
analysis.
Missouri also entered into a consultation process with Minnesota.
Minnesota identified Missouri as a contributing state to the BOWA based
on a Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) trajectory
analysis. Missouri relied upon PSAT modeling analysis to estimate the
potential visibility benefit at BOWA if Missouri were to require
additional emissions reductions from Missouri sources. Missouri relied
upon the PSAT modeling analysis to demonstrate that the overwhelming
majority of emissions impacts on BOWA are from Minnesota and
neighboring states, with Missouri contributing less than 3 percent in
2002 and 2018. Based on this modeling analysis, EPA believes Missouri
appropriately concluded additional emission reductions from Missouri
sources were not reasonable due to the likely limited visibility
improvement at BOWA.
We also used Missouri's reasonable further progress (RFP) analysis
to provide further support to our determination of the adequacy of
Missouri's long-term strategy. Missouri's four-factor analysis examined
the effectiveness of additional emissions reductions from Missouri
sources on visibility improvement in Missouri Class I areas and
examined all anthropogenic source categories, including point, area,
on-road and off-road mobile, with a focus on large point sources.
Missouri's four-factor analysis supports EPA's conclusion that Missouri
appropriately determined that the amount of visibility improvement from
additional controls on point sources would not have a significant
impact on Missouri Class I areas. EPA believes the same determination
could be made regarding Missouri's impact on more distant Class I areas
in other states. It is reasonable to conclude from Missouri's modeling
and four-factor analysis that the increased distance from Missouri
sources to the Oklahoma and Minnesota Class I areas would only decrease
the previously demonstrated limited effectiveness of additional
emission reductions from Missouri sources.
Comment 5: The Commenter states that Missouri's proposed BART
limits for the Holcim-Clarksville facility fail to satisfy the
requirements of BART. The Commenter states that the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) control option selected as BART for the facility is
flawed and not approvable as BART for two reasons. First, the Commenter
argues that the cost of the wet scrubber was inaccurately inflated.
Second, the Commenter states that Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) assumed an incorrect removal efficiency for a dry
scrubber. The Commenter also states that the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) control option selected as BART for the Holcim-
Clarksville facility is flawed because EPA has ``concluded that BART is
a combination of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and Low-
NOX burner'' for a Holcim facility located in Montana.
Response 5: In a letter dated November 20, 2010, Holcim requested
that the State terminate the operating permit for the emission units at
the source that are subject to BART because it curtailed operations at
Holcim-Clarksville so that the facility will no longer manufacture
Portland cement or burn hazardous fuel. The curtailment of operations
conforms to the State Consent Agreement (Appendix S), which EPA is
approving into the SIP in today's action. In its June 23, 2011,
response to Holcim's request, MDNR revised Holcim's Title V permit to
be a Basic State Operating permit; removed the BART-eligible emission
units from the permit, which thereby prohibits Holcim from operating
those units; and limited emissions of any visibility impairing
pollutant to less than 100 tons per year. A copy of MDNR's letter is in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Moreover, MDNR has stated in its letter, and EPA agrees, that
Holcim must continue to meet all applicable federal and state
regulations and if conditions change, new standards are promulgated, or
if Holcim intends to add or re-start any equipment, a new operating
and/or construction permit may be necessary. By choosing to shutdown in
accordance with the Consent Agreement, Holcim will not operate the
BART-eligible units at the Clarksville facility, therefore, EPA does
not need to address the Commenter's issues regarding the BART limits
for the facility.
III. Final Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the State of Missouri's
Regional Haze SIP, submitted on August 5, 2009, with supplemental
information provided on January 30, 2012, as meeting some of the
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in section 169A and
169B of the Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR
51.300-308, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and
appendix V.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
[[Page 38011]]
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding a new entry (26) in
numerical order; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry (57) in
numerical order.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) EPA-approved State source-specific permits and orders.
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order/permit State effective
Name of source No. date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(26) Holcim...................... .............. April 19, 2009..... June 26, 2012, Sec. 52.1339(c);
[Insert Federal Limited Approval.
Register citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) EPA approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory
measures.
EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory Sip Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approval date Explanation
provision nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(57) Regional Haze Plan for the Statewide......... 8/5/09, 6/26/12, [Insert Sec. 52.1339(c);
first implementation period. supplemented 1/30/ Federal Register Limited Approval.
12. citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.1339 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1339 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(c) Regional Haze. The requirements of section 169A of the Clean
Air Act are not met because the regional haze plan submitted by
Missouri on August 5, 2009, and supplemented on January 30, 2012, does
not include fully approvable measures for meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX and SO2 from electric generating units. EPA
has given limited approval and limited disapproval to the plan
provisions addressing these requirements.
[FR Doc. 2012-15021 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
