Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38007 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing its limited approval 

of the State of Iowa’s Regional Haze SIP, 

submitted on March 25, 2008, as 

meeting some of the applicable regional 

haze requirements set forth in section 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in the 

Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR 

51.308, and the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart F and appendix V. In 

a separate rulemaking action, EPA 

finalized the limited disapproval of 

Iowa’s Regional Haze SIP and imposed 

a FIP for Iowa. 77 FR 33642. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 7, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart Q—Iowa 

■ 2. In § 52.820 the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding a new entry 

(39) in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(39) Regional Haze plan for the 

first implementation period.

Statewide ..... 3/25/08 6/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

§ 52.842(a); Limited Approval. 

■ 3. Section 52.842 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 52.842 Visibility protection. 

(a) Regional Haze. The requirements 

of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are 

not met because the regional haze plan 

submitted by Iowa on March 25, 2008, 

does not include fully approvable 

measures for meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) 

with respect to emissions of NOX and 

SO2 from electric generating units. EPA 

has given limited approval and limited 

disapproval to the plan provisions 

addressing these requirements. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–15020 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0153; FRL–9688–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri: Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of a revision to the State 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1After the close of the public comment period, 

EPA received comments in support of the proposed 

rule from the U.S. Forest Service. A copy of the 

comment letter is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

2Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (‘‘1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum’’) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Missouri, 

submitted by the Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources on August 5, 2009, 

and supplemented on January 30, 2012, 

that addresses Regional Haze for the 

first implementation period. 

Specifically, these revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that required 

States to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in Class I Areas (national 

parks and wilderness areas) caused by 

emissions of air pollutants located over 

a wide geographic area (also known as 

the ‘‘regional haze’’ program). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA proposed to approve these 

revisions on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 

11958). In a separate rulemaking action, 

EPA finalized the limited disapproval of 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP and 

imposed a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) for Missouri on June 7, 2012. 77 

FR 33642. 

DATES: This rule will become effective 

July 26, 2012, except that the 

amendment to § 52.1339 is effective 

August 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR– 

2012–0153. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, Air and Waste Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The regional 

office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at 

(913) 551–7864; or by email at 

wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11958), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Missouri, proposing limited approval of 

Missouri’s regional haze plan for the 

first implementation period (through 

2018). A detailed explanation of the 

CAA’s visibility requirements and the 

regional haze rule as it applies to 

Missouri was provided in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. EPA’s 

rationale for proposing limited approval 

of the Missouri SIP was described in 

detail in the proposal, and is further 

described in this final rulemaking. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The publication of EPA’s proposed 

rule on February 28, 2012, initiated a 30 

day public comment period that ended 

on March 29, 2012. During the public 

comment period we received one set of 

written comments from Earthjustice on 

behalf of the Natural Resources Defense 

Council and Sierra Club (collectively, 

the ‘‘Commenter’’).1 We have 

summarized the comments and 

provided our responses below. A full 

copy of the comment letter is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA does not have the authority 

under the CAA to issue a limited 

approval and concurrent limited 

disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze 

SIP. The Commenter contends that 

section 110(k) of the Act only allows 

EPA to fully approve, partially approve, 

and partially disapprove, conditionally 

approve, or fully disapprove a SIP. The 

Commenter contends that regional haze 

SIPs are not like other SIP submissions 

and must be ‘‘submitted as a whole’’ 

and therefore, EPA cannot grant limited 

approval to a state SIP while proposing 

to issue a partial FIP. The Commenter 

also contends that EPA is required to 

determine whether the submittal ‘‘meets 

all applicable requirements’’ of section 

110 (k) and does not allow EPA to 

approve the submittal on the grounds 

that it strengthens the Missouri SIP. The 

Commenter cites to several Federal 

appellate court decisions to support its 

contention that 110(k) of the Act limits 

EPA to ‘‘a conditional approval, a 

partial approval and disapproval, or a 

full approval.’’ 

Response 1: The cases cited by the 

Commenter in support of its contentions 

did not involve challenges to a limited 

approval approach and therefore are not 

applicable here. As discussed in the 

September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum 

cited in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking,2 although section 110(k) of 

the CAA may not expressly provide 

authority for limited approvals, the 

plain language of section 301(a) does 

provide ‘‘gap-filling’’ authority 

authorizing the Agency to ‘‘prescribe 

such regulations as are necessary to 

carry out’’ EPA’s CAA functions. EPA 

may rely on section 301(a) in 

conjunction with the Agency’s SIP 

approval authority in section 110(k)(3) 

to issue limited approvals where it has 

determined that a submittal strengthens 

a given state SIP and that the provisions 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

the Act are not separable from the 

provisions that do not meet the Act’s 

requirements. EPA has adopted the 

limited approval approach numerous 

times in SIP actions across the nation 

over the last twenty years. Limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

actions are appropriate here because 

EPA has determined that Missouri’s SIP 

revisions addressing regional haze, as a 

whole, strengthen the State’s SIP and 

because the provisions in the SIP 

revisions are not separable. 

Moreover, adopting the Commenter’s 

position would ignore section 301 and 

violate the ‘‘fundamental canon of 

statutory construction that the words of 

a statute must be read in their context 

and with a view to their place in the 

overall statutory scheme, * * *. A court 

must therefore interpret the statute ‘as a 

symmetrical and coherent regulatory 

scheme,’ * * * and ‘fit, if possible, all 

parts into an harmonious whole.’ ’’ FDA 

v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 

529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis 

v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 

803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd 

Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC 

v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 

389 (1959). 

The Commenter’s claim that regional 

haze SIPs are somehow different from 

other SIPs is unfounded and not 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38009 

supported by the case law cited or the 

CAA. Notably, the Commenter cites no 

authority for its contention that regional 

haze SIPs must be ‘‘submitted as 

whole.’’ In any event, today’s action 

combined with the ‘‘Transport Rule 

Better than BART’’ FIP 77 FR 33642 

address all applicable requirements for 

Missouri with respect to the regional 

haze requirements of the Act. 

Comment 2: The Commenter states 

that EPA must partially disapprove 

Missouri’s regional haze SIP submittal 

because it relied on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Commenter 

cites to the proposed Kentucky SIP to 

show that Missouri’s long-term strategy, 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) and 

decision to exempt electric generating 

units (EGUs) from Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) should be 

disapproved due to the deficiencies 

identified in CAIR by the court and the 

impact of the Transport Rule on CAIR. 

Response 2: This comment is based 

on the incorrect premise that through 

this rulemaking EPA is exempting 

Missouri sources from BART 

requirements. In 2008, the DC Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to the Agency 

because the court believed that CAIR 

was inconsistent with the requirements 

of the CAA. Although CAIR may not 

remain in effect indefinitely, it is 

currently in force, and the State’s 

reliance on CAIR was fully consistent 

with EPA’s regulations at the time that 

Missouri developed its regional haze 

SIP. As explained in the February 28, 

2011, rulemaking (77 FR 11958), EPA is 

taking a limited approval action because 

the revisions as a whole strengthen the 

SIP and because the action is consistent 

with the court’s intention to keep CAIR 

temporarily in place. The limited 

approval results in an approval of the 

entire regional haze submission and all 

of its elements, preserving the visibility 

benefits offered by the SIP until CAIR is 

replaced by the Transport Rule. EPA 

recently demonstrated that the 

Transport Rule is better than BART. 77 

FR 33642. EPA took a limited 

disapproval action because the Agency 

cannot fully approve regional haze SIP 

revisions that rely on CAIR for 

emissions reductions measures for the 

reasons discussed in Section III of the 

February 28, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking. 77 FR 11958. See also 77 

FR 33642. EPA’s response to Comment 

1, above, explains the Agency’s 

authority to take limited approval and 

limited disapproval actions under the 

CAA. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

request for a partial disapproval of the 

SIP. Because the SIP provisions relying 

on CAIR, including the long term 

strategy (LTS) do not meet the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

and are not separable from the 

provisions that meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act, a partial 

disapproval would prevent any of the 

SIP’s air quality benefits from being 

realized until EPA promulgated a FIP or 

approved a revised SIP to addresses the 

deficiencies. Furthermore, the two-year 

clock to promulgate a FIP to remedy the 

deficiencies is triggered by the limited 

disapproval just as it would be triggered 

by a partial disapproval. On December 

30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the 

trading programs in the Transport Rule 

would achieve greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal than 

would BART in the states in which the 

Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 

82219. Based on this proposed finding, 

EPA also proposed a FIP for Missouri in 

that action that would substitute 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule for 

participation in CAIR for the purposes 

of satisfying regional haze requirements 

and would remedy the CAIR-related 

deficiencies discussed above. EPA 

finalized this action on June 7, 2012. 77 

FR 33642. See also EPA’s response to 

comments on the Transport Better than 

BART rulemaking. 77 FR 33642. 

Comment 3: The Commenter 

identifies its opposition to EPA’s 

December 30, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is better than BART and to ‘‘use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART’’ for Missouri and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. The 

Commenter incorporates by reference its 

comments on that December 30, 2011, 

proposed rulemaking ‘‘by reference’’ 

and outlines several of those comments, 

including its arguments that the 

Transport Rule is not ‘‘better than 

BART’’ and that EPA cannot rely on the 

Transport Rule as an ‘‘alternative 

program to BART.’’ 

Response 3: In today’s rule, EPA is 

taking final action on the limited 

approval of Missouri’s regional haze 

SIP. The Commenter correctly 

recognizes that EPA did not propose to 

find that participation in the Transport 

Rule is an alternative to BART in this 

rulemaking. As noted above, EPA made 

this proposed finding in a separate 

action on December 30, 2011, and the 

Commenter is merely reiterating and 

incorporating its comments on that 

separate action. These comments are 

therefore not relevant to this rulemaking 

but have been addressed, as appropriate, 

by EPA in its final action on the 

December 30, 2011, proposed rule. 77 

FR 33642. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that EPA should disapprove Missouri’s 

long-term strategy because Missouri’s 

SIP is insufficient to address Missouri’s 

visibility impact on Class I areas in 

other states, particularly the Wichita 

Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma 

(WIMO) and the Boundary Waters Class 

I area in Minnesota (BOWA). The 

Commenter states that Missouri’s 

reliance on on-the-books requirements 

for EGUs, mobile sources, area sources, 

other point sources, and CAIR without 

requiring additional emissions 

reductions at various facilities is not 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

the regional haze rule. The Commenter 

states that Missouri’s analysis of impact 

of its sources on out-state Class I areas 

is not supported by modeling. Further, 

the Commenter states that Missouri’s 

reliance on cost as the basis for not 

requiring controls is incorrect and 

Missouri should focus on whether it has 

done its share to reduce visibility 

impact in those Class I areas. 

Response 4: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that Missouri’s long-term 

strategy does not adequately address 

visibility impacts on Class I areas in 

other states, such as in WIMO in 

Oklahoma, and BOWA in Minnesota. 

Further, the Commenter provides no 

evidence that Missouri has not 

addressed its fair share of emission 

reductions. 

As described in the proposal, 

Missouri properly entered into the 

consultation process with both 

Oklahoma and Minnesota and provided 

sufficient evidence to demonstrate its 

long-term strategy includes all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of emission 

reductions as required by the regional 

haze rule. 

Missouri appropriately concluded 

additional controls on Missouri’s 

sources are not reasonable due to the 

limited visibility improvement at 

WIMO. In a September 17, 2007, letter 

from Missouri to Oklahoma, Missouri 

responded to Oklahoma’s conclusion 

that Missouri is reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment at 

WIMO. Missouri noted that, based on 

the PSAT analysis presented by 

Oklahoma, over half the elevated pointsource impacts to WIMO are from 

sources in Oklahoma, Texas, and 

Louisiana, and most of the area source 

impacts are from Oklahoma and Texas 

sources. Missouri’s analysis shows that 

its sources only account for about 2.5 

percent and 2.75 percent visibility 

impairment at WIMO in 2002 and 2018, 

respectively based on the PSAT 

modeling. Additionally, Missouri 

questioned Oklahoma’s use of one 

inverse megameter to determine the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

contribution threshold. Missouri found 

that this low threshold, combined with 

Oklahoma’s reliance upon a one metric 

test using Particulate Matter Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT), as 

opposed to multiple tests utilized for 

the Central Class I Areas for determining 

contribution, resulted in an analysis that 

was too narrow. As a result of this 

narrow analysis, Missouri was found to 

be contributing to WIMO while many 

other states were left out with no strong 

rationale in Oklahoma’s analysis as to 

why these states were treated 

differently. Missouri also questioned 

how Oklahoma’s analysis could 

conclude that Missouri sources were 

contributing to WIMO, which is located 

200 to 250 miles from Missouri’s 

western border, but Missouri’s analysis 

showed that the emission reductions 

obtained by Missouri would address 

reasonable progress goals in nearby 

Central Class I areas in Missouri and 

Arkansas. Missouri’s analysis and 

conclusions regarding Missouri source 

contributions to WIMO were reasonable. 

Further, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that Missouri 

inappropriately relied upon costs to rule 

out additional emission controls at 

Missouri sources. Missouri did not 

solely rely on estimation of costs, but 

instead considered the limited potential 

visibility improvements of additional 

controls based on the modeling in 

addition to consideration of cost. EPA 

also notes that Oklahoma did not 

respond to Missouri’s September 17, 

2007 letter with any additional analysis. 

Missouri also entered into a 

consultation process with Minnesota. 

Minnesota identified Missouri as a 

contributing state to the BOWA based 

on a Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) trajectory 

analysis. Missouri relied upon PSAT 

modeling analysis to estimate the 

potential visibility benefit at BOWA if 

Missouri were to require additional 

emissions reductions from Missouri 

sources. Missouri relied upon the PSAT 

modeling analysis to demonstrate that 

the overwhelming majority of emissions 

impacts on BOWA are from Minnesota 

and neighboring states, with Missouri 

contributing less than 3 percent in 2002 

and 2018. Based on this modeling 

analysis, EPA believes Missouri 

appropriately concluded additional 

emission reductions from Missouri 

sources were not reasonable due to the 

likely limited visibility improvement at 

BOWA. 

We also used Missouri’s reasonable 

further progress (RFP) analysis to 

provide further support to our 

determination of the adequacy of 

Missouri’s long-term strategy. Missouri’s 

four-factor analysis examined the 

effectiveness of additional emissions 

reductions from Missouri sources on 

visibility improvement in Missouri 

Class I areas and examined all 

anthropogenic source categories, 

including point, area, on-road and offroad mobile, with a focus on large point 

sources. Missouri’s four-factor analysis 

supports EPA’s conclusion that 

Missouri appropriately determined that 

the amount of visibility improvement 

from additional controls on point 

sources would not have a significant 

impact on Missouri Class I areas. EPA 

believes the same determination could 

be made regarding Missouri’s impact on 

more distant Class I areas in other states. 

It is reasonable to conclude from 

Missouri’s modeling and four-factor 

analysis that the increased distance 

from Missouri sources to the Oklahoma 

and Minnesota Class I areas would only 

decrease the previously demonstrated 

limited effectiveness of additional 

emission reductions from Missouri 

sources. 

Comment 5: The Commenter states 

that Missouri’s proposed BART limits 

for the Holcim-Clarksville facility fail to 

satisfy the requirements of BART. The 

Commenter states that the sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) control option selected as 

BART for the facility is flawed and not 

approvable as BART for two reasons. 

First, the Commenter argues that the 

cost of the wet scrubber was 

inaccurately inflated. Second, the 

Commenter states that Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) assumed an incorrect removal 

efficiency for a dry scrubber. The 

Commenter also states that the nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) control option selected as 

BART for the Holcim-Clarksville facility 

is flawed because EPA has ‘‘concluded 

that BART is a combination of selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and 

Low-NOX burner’’ for a Holcim facility 

located in Montana. 

Response 5: In a letter dated 

November 20, 2010, Holcim requested 

that the State terminate the operating 

permit for the emission units at the 

source that are subject to BART because 

it curtailed operations at HolcimClarksville so that the facility will no 

longer manufacture Portland cement or 

burn hazardous fuel. The curtailment of 

operations conforms to the State 

Consent Agreement (Appendix S), 

which EPA is approving into the SIP in 

today’s action. In its June 23, 2011, 

response to Holcim’s request, MDNR 

revised Holcim’s Title V permit to be a 

Basic State Operating permit; removed 

the BART-eligible emission units from 

the permit, which thereby prohibits 

Holcim from operating those units; and 

limited emissions of any visibility 

impairing pollutant to less than 100 tons 

per year. A copy of MDNR’s letter is in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

Moreover, MDNR has stated in its 

letter, and EPA agrees, that Holcim must 

continue to meet all applicable federal 

and state regulations and if conditions 

change, new standards are promulgated, 

or if Holcim intends to add or re-start 

any equipment, a new operating and/or 

construction permit may be necessary. 

By choosing to shutdown in accordance 

with the Consent Agreement, Holcim 

will not operate the BART-eligible units 

at the Clarksville facility, therefore, EPA 

does not need to address the 

Commenter’s issues regarding the BART 

limits for the facility. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

the State of Missouri’s Regional Haze 

SIP, submitted on August 5, 2009, with 

supplemental information provided on 

January 30, 2012, as meeting some of the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in section 169A and 169B of 

the Act and in the Federal regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 51.300–308, and the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

F and appendix V. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely approves State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38011 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 7, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (d) is 

amended by adding a new entry (26) in 

numerical order; and 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding a new entry (57) in 

numerical order. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) EPA-approved State sourcespecific permits and orders. 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit 

No. State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(26) Holcim ........ ........................ April 19, 2009 ................................ June 26, 2012, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

§ 52.1339(c); Limited Approval. 

(e) EPA approved nonregulatory 

provisions and quasi-regulatory 

measures. 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(57) Regional Haze Plan 

for the first implementation period.

Statewide .......................... 8/5/09, supplemented 

1/30/12.

6/26/12, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

§ 52.1339(c); Limited Approval. 

■ 3. Section 52.1339 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1339 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(c) Regional Haze. The requirements 

of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are 

not met because the regional haze plan 

submitted by Missouri on August 5, 

2009, and supplemented on January 30, 

2012, does not include fully approvable 

measures for meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) 

with respect to emissions of NOX and 

SO2 from electric generating units. EPA 

has given limited approval and limited 

disapproval to the plan provisions 

addressing these requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15021 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 110210132–1275–02] 

RIN 0648–XC055 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES