Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 19479-19483 [2018-09211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2018–0211; FRL 9977–27–
Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Regional
Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for
the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take three
actions regarding the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The three
SIP actions relate to how Missouri
addresses transport as related to
visibility and the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing approval of the portion of
Missouri’s September 5, 2014, Five-year
Progress Report for the State of Missouri
Regional Haze Plan and a subsequently
submitted letter dated July 31, 2017,
which clarifies that the state was
changing from reliance on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
for certain regional haze requirements;
convert EPA’s limited approval/limited
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
plan to a full approval; and approve the
states’ submissions addressing the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act) provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in another state (prong
4) of Missouri’s infrastructure SIP
submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before June 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R07–
OAR–2018–0211 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’
‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This
section provides additional information
by addressing the following:
I. Background Information
A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their
Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
B. Infrastructure SIPs
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Missouri
addressed prong 4 and regional haze?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background Information
A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their
Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires states to submit regional haze
SIPs that contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the natural visibility
goal at Class 1 areas, including a
requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate BART as determined by the
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR), adopted in 1999, states are
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area.1
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.2 EPA provided
states with this flexibility in the 1999
RHR, and further refined the criteria for
1 See
2 See
PO 00000
64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19479
assessing whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable
progress in two subsequent
rulemakings.3
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would
achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART in revisions to the RHR made in
2005.4 In those revisions, EPA amended
its regulations to provide that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade
programs pursuant to an EPA-approved
CAIR SIP or states that remain subject
to a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) need not require affected BARTeligible electric generating units (EGUs)
to install, operate, and maintain BART
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA’s
determination that CAIR was ‘‘betterthan-BART,’’ a number of states in the
CAIR region, including Missouri, relied
on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
an alternative to BART for EGU
emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing
their regional haze SIPs. These states
also relied on CAIR as an element of a
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving
reasonable progress. However, in 2008,
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA, which
it did without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by
CAIR.5 On August 8, 2011, acting on the
DC Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated
CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs
to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.6 Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR would have superseded
the CAIR program.
Due to the DC Circuit’s 2008 ruling
that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its
resulting status as a temporary measure
following that ruling, EPA could not
fully approve regional haze SIPs to the
3 See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612
(October 13, 2006).
4 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Alabama,
that contributed to downwind nonattainment or
interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70
FR 39104.
5 North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (DC
Cir. 2008).
6 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their
statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully
impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of
annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX
by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR
state budgets are implemented in two phases of
generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016
and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in
2017 and later years. See 76 FR 48208.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19480
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy
the EGU BART requirement. On these
grounds, EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the
requirement for EPA to promulgate a
FIP unless Missouri submitted, and EPA
approved, a SIP revision that corrected
the deficiency.7 EPA finalized a limited
approval of Missouri’s regional haze SIP
on June 26, 2012, as meeting the
remaining applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in the CAA and
the RHR.8
In the June 7, 2012 limited
disapproval action, EPA also amended
the RHR to provide that participation by
a state’s EGUs in a CSAPR trading
program for a given pollutant—either a
CSAPR federal trading program
implemented through a CSAPR FIP or
an integrated CSAPR state trading
program implemented through an
approved CSAPR SIP revision—
qualifies as a BART alternative for those
EGUs for that pollutant.9 10 Since EPA
promulgated this amendment,
numerous states covered by CSAPR
have come to rely on the provision
through either SIPs or FIPs.11
Numerous parties filed petitions for
review of CSAPR in the DC Circuit, and
on August 21, 2012, the court issued its
ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR
to EPA and ordering continued
implementation of CAIR.12 The DC
Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was reversed
by the United States Supreme Court on
April 29, 2014, and the case was
remanded to the DC Circuit to resolve
remaining issues in accordance with the
high court’s ruling.13 On remand, the
DC Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without
vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as
7 See 77 FR 33642. EPA finalized limited
disapprovals of fourteen states’ regional haze SIP
submissions that relied on CAIR in this action,
including Missouri’s.
8 See 77 FR 38007.
9 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
10 Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-thanBART rule from state, industry, and other
petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August
6, 2012).
11 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR
participation for BART purposes for Georgia,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska,
77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has
approved Minnesota’s and Wisconsin’s SIPs relying
on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77
FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and
77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
12 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 38 (DC Cir. 2012).
13 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
to a number of states.14 The remanded
budgets include the Phase 2 SO2
emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia,
South Carolina, and Texas and the
Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for
eleven states. This litigation ultimately
delayed implementation of CSAPR for
three years, from January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were
originally scheduled to replace the CAIR
cap-and-trade programs, to January 1,
2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets
that were originally promulgated to
begin on January 1, 2014, began on
January 1, 2017.
On November 10, 2016, EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) explaining the
Agency’s belief that the potentially
material changes to the scope of CSAPR
coverage resulting from the DC Circuit’s
remand will be limited to the
withdrawal of the FIP provisions
providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets
for Texas and ozone-season NOX
budgets for Florida. This is due, in part,
to EPA’s approval of the portion of
Alabama’s October 26, 2015, SIP
submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX
and SO2 budgets equivalent to the
Federally-developed budgets and to
commitments from Georgia and South
Carolina to submit SIP revisions
adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2
budgets equal to or more stringent than
the Federally-developed budgets.15
Since publication of the NPRM, Georgia
and South Carolina have submitted
these SIP revisions to EPA.16 In the
NPRM, EPA also proposed to determine
that the limited changes to the scope of
CSAPR coverage do not alter EPA’s
conclusion that CSAPR remains ‘‘betterthan-BART’’; that is, that participation
in CSAPR remains available as an
alternative to BART for EGUs covered
by the trading programs on a pollutantspecific basis. On September 21, 2017,
Administrator Pruitt signed the final
action, ‘‘Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal
Implementation Plan Requirements for
Texas.’’ In this action, the agency
removed Texas from CSAPR and
affirmed the continued validity of the
Agency’s 2012 determination that
participation in CSAPR meets the
Regional Haze Rule’s criteria for an
14 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118 (DC Cir. 2015).
15 See 81 FR 78954.
16 Georgia’s rulemaking to adopt the Phase 2
annual NOX and SO2 budgets became state effective
on July 20, 2017, and the State will submit a SIP
revision to EPA in the near future. South Carolina
submitted a SIP revision to EPA for parallel
processing on May 26, 2017, to adopt the Phase 2
annual NOX and SO2 budgets and that action was
finalized by EPA in October 2017. See 82 FR 47936.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
alternative to the application of sourcespecific BART.
On July 31, 2017, the State of
Missouri submitted a letter to EPA
clarifying that the state had intended its
Five-year Progress Report to revise its
regional haze SIP to rely on its
participation in the CSAPR trading
programs for NOX and SO2 to satisfy 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, pursuant to the option provided
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (the ‘‘CSAPRbetter-than-BART’’ provision). This
letter has been added to the docket for
this action and to the docket for the
original action approving the Five-year
progress report (EPA–R07–OAR–2015–
0581).
EPA was not aware, at the time it
approved Missouri’s Five-year Progress
Report, that the state intended that
submission to also serve as a SIP
revision substituting reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(e)(4). With this
understanding, we are now proposing to
take an additional action on Missouri’s
Five-year Progress Report and to
approve that submission, in conjunction
with the clarification letter, as satisfying
the SO2 and NOX requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for EGUs
formerly subject to CAIR. If EPA
finalizes this proposal, we would also
convert the limited approval/limited
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
plan to a full approval.
B. Infrastructure SIPs
By statute, SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by
states within three years (or less, if the
Administrator so prescribes) after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to
these SIP submissions, which are made
for satisfying the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states
to address basic SIP elements such as
for monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or
revised NAAQS. More specifically,
section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must
meet for the infrastructure SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
contents of an infrastructure SIP
submission may vary depending upon
the data and analytical tools available to
the state, as well as the provisions
already contained in the state’s
implementation plan at the time at
which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two
components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (prong 3) or
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in another state (prong
4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs
to include provisions ensuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
of the Act, relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing
to approve the prong 4 portion of
Missouri’s infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2,
2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for these
SIP submissions have been or will be
addressed in separate rulemakings. A
brief background regarding the NAAQS
relevant to this proposal is provided
below. For comprehensive information
on these NAAQS, please refer to the
Federal Register notices cited in the
following subsections.
1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly
standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb)
based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations.17 States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2,
2013. Missouri submitted an
infrastructure SIP submission for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 08,
17 See
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
2013. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that
submission.18
2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary
NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb,
based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1hour daily maximum concentrations.19
States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no
later than January 22, 2013. Missouri
submitted infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS on April 30, 2013. This
proposed action only addresses the
prong 4 element of those submissions.20
3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised
the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3).21
States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than
December 14, 2015. Missouri submitted
an infrastructure SIP submission for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 14,
2015. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that
submission.22
4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the
8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per
million.23 States were required to
submit infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to
EPA no later than March 12, 2011.
Missouri submitted an infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
on July 8, 2013. This proposed action
only addresses the prong 4 element of
that submission.24
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
The prong 4 requirement of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a
state’s implementation plan to contain
18 The other portions of Missouri’s July 08, 2013,
SO2 infrastructure submission are being addressed
in a separate EPA action. See the docket for EPA–
R07–OAR–2017–0515.
19 See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
20 The other portions for Missouri’s April 30,
2013, NO2 infrastructure submissions are being
addressed in a separate EPA action. See the docket
for EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0268.
21 See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
22 The other portions of Missouri’s December 9,
2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission are being
addressed in separate EPA actions. See the docket
for EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0513.
23 See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
24 The other portions of Missouri’s July 8, 2013,
ozone infrastructure SIP submission are being
addressed in a separate EPA action. See the docket
for EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0356.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19481
provisions prohibiting sources in that
state from emitting pollutants in
amounts that interfere with any other
state’s efforts to protect visibility under
part C of the CAA (which includes
sections 169A and 169B). On September
13, 2013, the EPA issued Guidance on
the Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
(‘‘2013 Guidance’’).25 EPA developed
this document to provide states with
guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. The 2013
Guidance states that the prong 4
requirements are satisfied by an
approved SIP provision that EPA has
found to adequately address any
contribution of that state’s sources that
impacts the visibility program
requirements in other states. The 2013
Guidance also states that EPA interprets
this prong to be pollutant-specific, such
that the infrastructure SIP submission
need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility
caused by the pollutant (including
precursors) to which the new or revised
NAAQS applies.
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a
state’s infrastructure SIP may satisfy
prong 4. One way that a state can meet
the requirements is via confirmation in
its infrastructure SIP submission that
the state has an approved regional haze
SIP that fully meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308
and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon
through that process. A fully approved
regional haze SIP will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air
agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering
with measures required to be included
in other air agencies’ plans to protect
visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully
approved regional haze SIP, a state may
meet the requirements of prong 4
through a demonstration in its
infrastructure SIP submission that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not
interfere with other air agencies’ plans
to protect visibility. Such an
infrastructure SIP submission would
need to include measures to limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and
ensure that the reductions conform with
any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other
states.
25 ‘‘Guidance on the Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2);
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19482
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
III. What is EPA’s analysis of how
Missouri addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
Each of Missouri’s infrastructure SIP
that complies with the provisions of the
submittals (2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1Act and applicable Federal regulations.
hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
annual PM2.5) relied on the State having
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
a fully approved regional haze SIP to
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
satisfy its prong 4 requirements.
provided that they meet the criteria of
However, at the time of those
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
submittals, EPA had not fully approved
merely approves state law as meeting
Missouri’s regional haze SIP, as the
Federal requirements and does not
Agency issued a limited disapproval of
impose additional requirements beyond
the State’s original regional haze plan
those imposed by state law. For that
on June 7, 2012. As detailed earlier in
reason, this action:
this notice, EPA is proposing to convert
• Is not a significant regulatory action
EPA’s limited approval/limited
subject to review by the Office of
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
Management and Budget under
plan to a full approval because final
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
approval of Missouri’s intended SIP
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
revision relying on CSAPR pursuant to
January 21, 2011);
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) would correct the
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
deficiencies that led to EPA’s limited
action because SIP approvals are
approval/limited disapproval of the
State’s regional haze SIP. Because a state exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
may satisfy prong 4 requirements
collection burden under the provisions
through a fully approved regional haze
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
SIP, EPA is therefore also proposing to
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
approve the prong 4 portion of
• Is certified as not having a
Missouri’s 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1significant economic impact on a
hour SO2, 2012 annual PM2.5, and 2008
substantial number of small entities
8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
submissions.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
IV. Proposed Action
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
As described above, EPA is proposing affect small governments, as described
to take the following actions: (1)
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Approve the portion of Missouri’s
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
September 5, 2014 Five-year Progress
• Does not have Federalism
Report for the State of Missouri Regional implications as specified in Executive
Haze Plan which, as clarified by the July Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
31, 2017 letter, identified the state’s
1999);
change from reliance on CAIR to a
• Is not an economically significant
reliance on the CSAPR FIP for certain
regulatory action based on health or
regional haze requirements; (2) convert
safety risks subject to Executive Order
EPA’s limited approval/limited
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze
• Is not a significant regulatory action
plan to a full approval; and (3) approve
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
the state’s infrastructure SIP
28355, May 22, 2001);
submissions addressing the CAA prong
• Is not subject to requirements of
4 requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2012 Section 12(d) of the National
PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 17, 2018.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by revising entry (70),
and adding entry (74) in numerical
order.
The revision and addition reads as
follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e)* * *
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
19483
EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP revision
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State submittal date
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
(70) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Regional
Haze (2014 Five-Year
Progress Report).
*
Statewide ..........
*
9/5/2014 ....................
*
*
[date of final publication
in the Federal Register] [Final rule Federal Register citation].
*
*
Missouri submitted a clarification letter to its
Five-year Progress Report on July 31, 2017
that is part of this action. [EPA–R07–OAR–
2015–0581; FRL–9949–68–Region 7]; [EPA–
R07–OAR–2018–0211;
FRL–9977–27–Region 7.]
*
(74) Sections 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Prong 4
Requirements for the
2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010
Sulfur Dioxide, and
the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS.
*
Statewide ..........
*
7/8/2013; 8/30/2013;
7/8/2013; 10/14/
2015.
*
*
[date of final publication
in the Federal Register] [Final rule Federal Register citation].
*
*
This action approves the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4.
[EPA–R07–OAR–2018–0211; FRL–9977–27–
Region 7.]
3. Amend § 52.1339 by revising
Paragraph (a) and removing paragraphs
(c) through (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1339
Visibility protection
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are met because the
regional haze plan submitted by
Missouri on August 5, 2009, and
supplemented on January 30, 2012, in
addition to the 5-year progress report
submitted on September 5, 2014, and
supplemented by state letter on July 31,
2017, includes fully approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of the Regional Haze Rule including 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.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–09211 Filed 5–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0476; FRL–9977–01–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the
Dallas/Fort Worth 2008 Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
is proposing to approve the ozone
attainment demonstration State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for
the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) moderate
ozone nonattainment area under the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) submitted
by the State of Texas (the State).
Specifically, EPA is proposing approval
of the attainment demonstration, a
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) analysis, the contingency
measures plan in the event of failure to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and the associated
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(MVEBs) for 2017, which is the
attainment year for the area.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2016–0476, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
todd.robert@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Robert M. Todd, 214–665–2156,
todd.robert@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert M. Todd, 214–665–2156,
todd.robert@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Todd or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. Review of Eight-Hour Attainment
Demonstration Modeling and Weight of
Evidence
1. What is a photochemical grid model?
2. Model Selection
3. What episode did Texas choose to
model?
4. How well did the model perform?
5. Once the base case is determined to be
acceptable, how is the modeling used for
the attainment demonstration?
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19479-19483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09211]
[[Page 19479]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0211; FRL 9977-27-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone
NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
three actions regarding the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The three SIP actions relate to how Missouri addresses transport as
related to visibility and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing approval of the portion of
Missouri's September 5, 2014, Five-year Progress Report for the State
of Missouri Regional Haze Plan and a subsequently submitted letter
dated July 31, 2017, which clarifies that the state was changing from
reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze
requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
Missouri's regional haze plan to a full approval; and approve the
states' submissions addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong
4) of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R07-
OAR-2018-0211 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
This section provides additional information by addressing the
following:
I. Background Information
A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
B. Infrastructure SIPs
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Missouri addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background Information
A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit regional
haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal at Class 1
areas, including a requirement that certain categories of existing
major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR), adopted in 1999, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area.\1\ Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states
also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or
other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.\2\ EPA
provided states with this flexibility in the 1999 RHR, and further
refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program
provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent
rulemakings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
\2\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
\3\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART in revisions to the RHR made in 2005.\4\ In those
revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-
approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) need not require affected BART-eligible
electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-BART,''
a number of states in the CAIR region, including Missouri, relied on
the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU
emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their
regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress. However, in
2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (DC Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA, which it did without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.\5\ On August
8, 2011, acting on the DC Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to
replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.\6\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1,
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Alabama, that contributed
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR
39104.
\5\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (DC Cir. 2008).
\6\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. See 76 FR 48208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the DC Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the
[[Page 19480]]
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the EGU BART requirement. On
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Missouri's
regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA
to promulgate a FIP unless Missouri submitted, and EPA approved, a SIP
revision that corrected the deficiency.\7\ EPA finalized a limited
approval of Missouri's regional haze SIP on June 26, 2012, as meeting
the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the
CAA and the RHR.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 77 FR 33642. EPA finalized limited disapprovals of
fourteen states' regional haze SIP submissions that relied on CAIR
in this action, including Missouri's.
\8\ See 77 FR 38007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR
trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading
program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state
trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--
qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\9\
\10\ Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by
CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or
FIPs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
\10\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6,
2012).
\11\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012). EPA has approved Minnesota's and Wisconsin's SIPs
relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801,
34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August
7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the DC
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR.\12\ The DC Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the DC Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high
court's ruling.\13\ On remand, the DC Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as
to a number of states.\14\ The remanded budgets include the Phase 2
SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina,
and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for
eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of
CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade
programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade
programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that
were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on
January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (DC
Cir. 2012).
\13\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
\14\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (DC
Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2016, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) explaining the Agency's belief that the potentially material
changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting from the DC Circuit's
remand will be limited to the withdrawal of the FIP provisions
providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets for Texas
and ozone-season NOX budgets for Florida. This is due, in
part, to EPA's approval of the portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015,
SIP submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2
budgets equivalent to the Federally-developed budgets and to
commitments from Georgia and South Carolina to submit SIP revisions
adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equal
to or more stringent than the Federally-developed budgets.\15\ Since
publication of the NPRM, Georgia and South Carolina have submitted
these SIP revisions to EPA.\16\ In the NPRM, EPA also proposed to
determine that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage do
not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains ``better-than-BART'';
that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an
alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading programs on a
pollutant-specific basis. On September 21, 2017, Administrator Pruitt
signed the final action, ``Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for
Texas.'' In this action, the agency removed Texas from CSAPR and
affirmed the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that
participation in CSAPR meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for an
alternative to the application of source-specific BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 81 FR 78954.
\16\ Georgia's rulemaking to adopt the Phase 2 annual
NOX and SO2 budgets became state effective on
July 20, 2017, and the State will submit a SIP revision to EPA in
the near future. South Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
parallel processing on May 26, 2017, to adopt the Phase 2 annual
NOX and SO2 budgets and that action was
finalized by EPA in October 2017. See 82 FR 47936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2017, the State of Missouri submitted a letter to EPA
clarifying that the state had intended its Five-year Progress Report to
revise its regional haze SIP to rely on its participation in the CSAPR
trading programs for NOX and SO2 to satisfy 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, pursuant to the option provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (the
``CSAPR-better-than-BART'' provision). This letter has been added to
the docket for this action and to the docket for the original action
approving the Five-year progress report (EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0581).
EPA was not aware, at the time it approved Missouri's Five-year
Progress Report, that the state intended that submission to also serve
as a SIP revision substituting reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). With this understanding, we are now
proposing to take an additional action on Missouri's Five-year Progress
Report and to approve that submission, in conjunction with the
clarification letter, as satisfying the SO2 and
NOX requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for EGUs
formerly subject to CAIR. If EPA finalizes this proposal, we would also
convert the limited approval/limited disapproval of Missouri's regional
haze plan to a full approval.
B. Infrastructure SIPs
By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred
to these SIP submissions, which are made for satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements,
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The
[[Page 19481]]
contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon
the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the
provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the
time at which the state develops and submits the submission for a new
or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portion of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-
hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed
in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS
relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive
information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register
notices cited in the following subsections.
1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\17\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later
than June 2, 2013. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP submission
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 08, 2013. This
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that
submission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
\18\ The other portions of Missouri's July 08, 2013,
SO2 infrastructure submission are being addressed in a
separate EPA action. See the docket for EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\19\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later
than January 22, 2013. Missouri submitted infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on April 30, 2013.
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those
submissions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
\20\ The other portions for Missouri's April 30, 2013,
NO2 infrastructure submissions are being addressed in a
separate EPA action. See the docket for EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\).\21\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than
December 14, 2015. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP submission
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 14, 2015. This proposed
action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
\22\ The other portions of Missouri's December 9, 2015,
PM2.5 infrastructure submission are being addressed in
separate EPA actions. See the docket for EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million.\23\ States were required to submit infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than
March 12, 2011. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS on July 8, 2013. This proposed action only addresses
the prong 4 element of that submission.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\24\ The other portions of Missouri's July 8, 2013, ozone
infrastructure SIP submission are being addressed in a separate EPA
action. See the docket for EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What are the prong 4 requirements?
The prong 4 requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources
in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with
any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA
(which includes sections 169A and 169B). On September 13, 2013, the EPA
issued Guidance on the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (``2013
Guidance'').\25\ EPA developed this document to provide states with
guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. The 2013
Guidance states that the prong 4 requirements are satisfied by an
approved SIP provision that EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Guidance on the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2);
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may
satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning process include all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations
agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP
will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
[[Page 19482]]
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Missouri addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
Each of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submittals (2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012
annual PM2.5) relied on the State having a fully approved
regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, at the
time of those submittals, EPA had not fully approved Missouri's
regional haze SIP, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the
State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012. As detailed
earlier in this notice, EPA is proposing to convert EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze plan to a full
approval because final approval of Missouri's intended SIP revision
relying on CSAPR pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) would correct the
deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
the State's regional haze SIP. Because a state may satisfy prong 4
requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is
therefore also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Missouri's
2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, 2012 annual
PM2.5, and 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submissions.
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions:
(1) Approve the portion of Missouri's September 5, 2014 Five-year
Progress Report for the State of Missouri Regional Haze Plan which, as
clarified by the July 31, 2017 letter, identified the state's change
from reliance on CAIR to a reliance on the CSAPR FIP for certain
regional haze requirements; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited
disapproval of Missouri's regional haze plan to a full approval; and
(3) approve the state's infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the
CAA prong 4 requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2012 PM2.5,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 17, 2018.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
entry (70), and adding entry (74) in numerical order.
The revision and addition reads as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e)* * *
[[Page 19483]]
EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic or
Name of nonregulatory SIP revision nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(70) State Implementation Plan Statewide.................. 9/5/2014......................... [date of final Missouri submitted a
(SIP) Revision for Regional Haze publication in the clarification letter to
(2014 Five-Year Progress Report). Federal Register] its Five-year Progress
[Final rule Federal Report on July 31, 2017
Register citation]. that is part of this
action. [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-
0581; FRL-9949-68-Region
7]; [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-
0211; FRL-9977-27-Region
7.]
* * * * * * *
(74) Sections 110(a)(2) Statewide.................. 7/8/2013; 8/30/2013; 7/8/2013; 10/ [date of final This action approves the
Infrastructure Prong 4 14/2015. publication in the following CAA elements:
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, Federal Register] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur [Final rule Federal 4.
Dioxide, and the 2012 Fine Register citation]. [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0211; FRL-
Particulate Matter NAAQS. 9977-27-Region 7.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.1339 by revising Paragraph (a) and removing
paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1339 Visibility protection
(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are met
because the regional haze plan submitted by Missouri on August 5, 2009,
and supplemented on January 30, 2012, in addition to the 5-year
progress report submitted on September 5, 2014, and supplemented by
state letter on July 31, 2017, includes fully approvable measures for
meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule including 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-09211 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
