[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


