Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Missouri: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; New Source Review Reform, 22500-22504 [2012-8920]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22500
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 15, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 12, 2012.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart O—Illinois
2. § 52.720 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(190) to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(190) On November 14, 2011, the
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Illinois EPA) submitted
amendments to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 218.208 and
219.208. These sections add a ‘‘small
container exemption’’ for pleasure craft
surface coating operations in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas. These
exemptions are consistent with EPA
volatile organic compound (VOC)
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) policy.
(i) Incorporation by reference. The
following sections of Illinois
Administrative Code, Title 35:
Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:
Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution
14:33 Apr 13, 2012
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0825; FRL–9657–8]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Missouri:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; New
Source Review Reform
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
EPA is approving revisions to
the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP) relating to regulation of
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under
Missouri’s Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, and to
other portions of Missouri’s New Source
Review (NSR) program. The GHGrelated SIP revisions are designed to
align Missouri’s regulations with the
GHG emission thresholds established in
EPA’s ‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Final Rule,’’ which EPA
issued by notice dated June 3, 2010. The
other NSR revisions are to the
Construction Permits Required Rule and
the Emissions Banking and Trading
Rule and are intended to address
changes to the Federal NSR regulations,
which were promulgated by EPA on
December 31, 2002 (the NSR Reform
rules). In today’s action, EPA is
approving both the GHG (as it relates to
the PSD program) and NSR revisions
because the Agency has determined that
these SIP revisions, already adopted by
Missouri as final effective rules, are in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA regulations regarding
PSD permitting for GHGs and NSR.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 16, 2012.
SUMMARY:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
[FR Doc. 2012–8952 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
§ 52.720
Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission
Standards and Limitations for
Stationary Sources, are incorporated by
reference.
(A) Part 218: Organic Material
Emission Standards and Limitations for
the Chicago Area, Subpart F: Coating
Operations, Section 218.208 Exemptions
From Emission Limitations; effective
October 25, 2011.
(B) Part 219: Organic Material
Emission Standards and Limitations for
the Metro East Area, Subpart F: Coating
Operations, Section 219.208 Exemptions
From Emission Limitations; effective
October 25, 2011.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR–
2011–0825. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., 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 at https://
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 to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding the GHG portion
of the Missouri SIP, contact Mr. Larry
Gonzalez, 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. Mr. Gonzalez’s
telephone number is (913) 551–7041,
and his email address is
gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. For information
regarding the NSR Reform portion of the
Missouri SIP, contact Ms. Amy
Bhesania, 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. Ms. Bhesania’s
telephone number is (913) 551–7147,
and her email address is
bhesania.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
ADDRESSES:
Table of Contents
I. What GHG-related final action is EPA
taking in this final rule?
II. What is the background for the GHGrelated PSD SIP approval in this final
rule?
III. GHG-Related Final Action
IV. What NSR reform-related final action is
EPA taking in this final rule?
V. What is the background for the NSR
reform-related approval in this final
rule?
VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action
E:\FR\FM\16APR1.SGM
16APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What GHG-related final action is EPA
taking in this final rule?
In a letter dated August 8, 2011,
MDNR submitted a request to EPA to
approve revisions to the State’s SIP and
Title V program to incorporate recent
rule amendments adopted by the
Missouri Air Conservation Commission.
These adopted rules became effective in
the Missouri Code of State Regulations
on August 30, 2011. These amendments
establish thresholds for GHG emissions
in Missouri’s PSD and Title V
regulations at the same emissions
thresholds and in the same time-frames
as those specified by EPA in the ‘‘PSD
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring;
Final Rule’’ (75 FR 31514), hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring Rule,’’
ensuring that smaller GHG sources
emitting less than these thresholds will
not be subject to permitting
requirements for GHGs that they emit.
The amendments to the SIP clarify the
applicable thresholds in the Missouri
SIP, address the flaw discussed in the
‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans
Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30,
2010) (the ‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’),
and incorporate state rule changes
adopted at the state level into the
Federally-approved SIP.
On October 28, 2011, EPA published
a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri’s SIP revision. The proposal
addressed SIP revisions associated with
both the Federal ‘‘tailoring rule’’
revisions and ‘‘NSR reform’’ rules. See
76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any
public comments in response to the
proposal. In this final rule, pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving these revisions into the
Missouri SIP.1
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
II. What is the background for the
GHG-related PSD SIP Approval in this
final rule?
This section briefly summarizes EPA’s
recent GHG-related actions that provide
the background for this final action.
More detailed discussion of the
background is found in the proposal for
this rulemaking, 76 FR 66882, and in
the EPA rulemakings cited in the
proposal. In particular, the background
is contained in what we called the PSD
1 As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to
address Missouri’s August 8, 2011 request to
approve revisions to the Title V program relating to
GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Apr 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
SIP Narrowing Rule,2 and in the
preambles to the actions cited therein.
A. GHG-Related Actions
EPA has recently undertaken a series
of actions pertaining to the regulation of
GHGs that, although for the most part
are distinct from one another, establish
the overall framework for this final
action on the Missouri SIP. Four of
these actions include, as they are
commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment
Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute
Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single
final action,3 the ‘‘Johnson Memo
Reconsideration,’’ 4 the ‘‘Light-Duty
Vehicle Rule,’’ 5 and the ‘‘Tailoring
Rule.’’ Taken together and in
conjunction with the CAA, these actions
established regulatory requirements for
GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles
and new motor vehicle engines;
determined that such regulations, when
they took effect on January 2, 2011,
subjected GHGs emitted from stationary
sources to PSD requirements; and
limited the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG sources on a
phased-in basis. EPA took this last
action in the Tailoring Rule, which,
more specifically, established
appropriate GHG emission thresholds
for determining the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
In many states, such as Missouri, PSD
is implemented through the SIP. In
December 2010, EPA promulgated
several rules to implement the new GHG
PSD SIP program. Recognizing that
some states had approved SIP PSD
programs that did not apply PSD to
GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call and, for
some of these states, a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP).6
2 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning
Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536
(December 30, 2010).
3 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496
(December 15, 2009).
4 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
6 Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010,
EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those
states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs
but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to
submit a SIP revision providing such authority.
‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75
FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings
of failure to submit in some states which were
unable to submit the required SIP revision by their
deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See,
e.g. ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22501
Recognizing that other states had
approved SIP PSD programs that do
apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for
sources that emit as little as 100 or 250
tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD
applicability to GHGs to the higher
thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA
issued the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
Under that rule, EPA withdrew its
approval of the affected SIPs to the
extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting
sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. EPA based its action
primarily on the ‘‘error correction’’
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
B. Missouri’s Actions
On July 27, 2010, Missouri submitted
a letter to EPA, in accordance with a
request to all states from EPA in the
proposed Tailoring Rule, with
confirmation that the State of Missouri
has the authority to regulate GHGs in its
PSD program. The letter also confirmed
Missouri’s intent to amend its air
quality rules for the PSD program for
GHGs to match the thresholds set in the
Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this
final rulemaking for a copy of Missouri’s
letter.
In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,
published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Missouri’s SIP
(among other SIPs) to the extent that the
SIP applies PSD permitting
requirements to GHG emissions from
sources emitting at levels below those
set in the Tailoring Rule.7 As a result,
Missouri’s current approved SIP
provides the State with authority to
regulate GHGs, but only at and above
the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and
requires new and modified sources to
receive a Federal PSD permit based on
GHG emissions only if they emit or have
potential to emit at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
The basis for this SIP revision is that
limiting PSD applicability to GHG
sources with the higher thresholds in
the Tailoring Rule is consistent with the
SIP provisions that require assurances of
adequate resources, and thereby
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation
Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75
FR 81874 (December 29, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure
Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation
Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because
Missouri’s SIP already authorizes Missouri to
regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Missouri is not
subject to the SIP Call or FIP.
7 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning
Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536
(December 30, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\16APR1.SGM
16APR1
22502
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)
includes as a requirement for SIP
approval that states provide ‘‘necessary
assurances that the State * * * will
have adequate personnel [and] funding
* * * to carry out such [SIP].’’ In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher
thresholds for PSD applicability to
GHG-emitting sources, in part, because
the states generally did not have
adequate resources to apply PSD to
GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds,8 and no state,
including Missouri, asserted that it did
have adequate resources to do so.9 In
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found
that the affected states, including
Missouri, had a flaw in their SIP at the
time they submitted their PSD
programs, which was that the
applicability of the PSD programs was
potentially broader than the resources
available to them under their SIP.10
Accordingly, for each affected state,
including Missouri, EPA concluded that
EPA’s action in approving the SIP was
in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6),
and EPA rescinded its approval to the
extent the PSD program applies to GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring
Rule thresholds.11 EPA recommended
that states adopt a SIP revision to
incorporate the Tailoring Rule
thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that
under state law, only sources at or above
the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be
subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding
confusion under the Federally approved
SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies
only to sources at or above the Tailoring
Rule thresholds.12
Missouri’s August 8, 2011, SIP
submission establishes thresholds for
determining which stationary sources
and modification projects become
subject to permitting requirements for
GHG emissions under Missouri’s PSD
program. Specifically, the SIP revision
includes changes—which are already
effective in Missouri’s Code of State
Regulations (CSR)—revising rule 10 CSR
10–6.060(8)(A) to incorporate by
reference all of the revisions of the
Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21
published in the Tailoring Rule.13 These
revisions specifically define the term
8 Tailoring
Rule, 75 FR at 31517.
SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR at 82540.
10 Id. at 82542.
11 Id. at 82544.
12 Id. at 82540.
13 The revised rule states that all of the
subsections of 40 CFR 52.21, other than subsections
(a), (q), (s), and (u), promulgated as of July 1, 2009,
including the revision published at 75 FR 31606–
07 (effective August 2, 2010), are incorporated by
reference into 10 CSR 10–6.060(8)(A).
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
9 PSD
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Apr 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘subject to regulation’’ for the PSD
program and define ‘‘greenhouse gases
(GHGs)’’ and ‘‘tpy CO2 equivalent
emissions (CO2e).’’ Additionally, the
revisions to 10 CSR 10–6.060 specify the
methodology for calculating an
emissions increase for GHGs, the
applicable thresholds for GHG
emissions subject to PSD, and the
schedule for when the applicability
thresholds take effect.
Missouri is currently a SIP-approved
State for the PSD program, and has
previously incorporated EPA’s 2002
NSR Reform revisions for PSD into its
SIP. See 71 FR 36486 (June 27, 2006).14
In that rulemaking, at the State’s
request, EPA did not act on the portions
of Missouri’s rule which reflected the
vacated and remanded provisions in
EPA’s NSR Reform rule.15 The changes
to Missouri’s PSD program regulations
are substantively the same as the
Federal provisions amended in EPA’s
Tailoring Rule.
III. GHG-Related Final Action
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
EPA is approving Missouri’s August 8,
2011 revisions to the Missouri SIP,
relating to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources. EPA has made the
determination that this SIP revision is
approvable because it is in accordance
with the CAA and EPA regulations
regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The
detailed rationale for this action is set
forth in the proposed rulemaking
referenced above, and in this final rule.
Since EPA is finalizing its approval of
Missouri’s changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate appropriate
thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability into Missouri’s SIP, then
section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52,
added in EPA’s PSD SIP Narrowing Rule
to codify the limitation of its approval
of Missouri’s PSD SIP to exclude the
14 In sections IV through VI of this final action,
EPA is approving several of Missouri’s other
revisions to its rules for incorporation into the
Missouri SIP.
15 These portions included provisions relating to
pollution control projects, the ‘‘clean unit’’
exemption, and the recordkeeping requirements for
certain sources using the ‘‘actual to projected
actual’’ test for applicability of PSD (the
‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision in section
52.21(r)(6)). See 71 FR 36487 for a more detailed
discussion of EPA’s approval of Missouri’s NSR
reform rule relating to PSD. We are not acting on
those provisions, including the recordkeeping
aspect of the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision, in
today’s action. (See section V of this preamble for
a more detailed discussion of the vacated and
remanded provisions.) We are also not acting on
Missouri’s rule incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision
of the definition of ‘‘chemical processing plants’’
(the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007))
or EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions rule,’’ 73 FR
77882 (December 19, 2008). See Section IV for more
details.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting
sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds, is no longer necessary. In
this action, EPA is also amending
section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52 to
remove this unnecessary regulatory
language.
IV. What NSR reform-related final
action is EPA taking in this final rule?
In this final rule, we are also
approving MDNR’s request to include as
a revision to Missouri’s SIP,
amendments to rule 10 CSR 10–6.060
‘‘Construction Permit Required’’ and 10
CSR 10–6.410 ‘‘Emission Banking and
Trading.’’ These rules were adopted by
the Missouri Air Conservation
Commission on March 26, 2009, and
became effective under state law on July
30, 2009. The rules were submitted to
EPA for inclusion into the Missouri SIP
in a letter dated November 30, 2009.
The submission included comments on
the rules made during the State’s
adoption process and the State’s
response to comments. Missouri
submitted these revisions to align its
rules with EPA’s revisions to the
Federal NSR program (NSR Reform), as
it relates to nonattainment areas in the
State. Pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA, EPA is approving these SIP
revisions with several exceptions. First,
in today’s final action, EPA is not taking
action on Missouri’s submittal of
changes to the applicability of the PSD
program to exclude ethanol production
facilities from the definition of
‘‘chemical processing plants’’ (the
Ethanol Rule) (72 FR 24060, May 1,
2007). See letter from James L.
Kavanaugh, Director, MDNR, to EPA,
April 10, 2008. Second, because
Missouri has not adopted EPA’s
‘‘Fugitive Emissions Rule’’ (73 FR
77882, Dec. 19, 2008), as it relates to
NSR in nonattainment areas, today’s
action also does not address the Fugitive
Emissions Rule.16
On October 28, 2011, EPA published
a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri’s SIP revision. The proposal
addressed SIP revisions associated with
both the Federal ‘‘tailoring rule’’
revisions and ‘‘NSR reform’’ rules. See
76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any
public comments in response to the
proposal. Therefore, in this final rule,
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
16 The November 30, 2009 submittal from MDNR
also proposed revisions to 10 CSR 10–6.350
‘‘Emission Limitations and Emissions Trading of
Oxides of Nitrogen’’ and 10 CSR 10–6.360 ‘‘Control
of NOX Emissions from Electric Generating Units
and Non-Electric Generating Boilers.’’ In a letter
dated April 20, 2011, Missouri withdrew this
submission of revisions to these two rules, and
therefore today’s action does not include them.
E:\FR\FM\16APR1.SGM
16APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
EPA is approving these revisions into
the Missouri SIP.17
V. What is the background for the NSR
reform-related approval in this final
rule?
On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186),
EPA published final rule changes to 40
CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the
CAA’s PSD and Nonattainment NSR
programs (‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NSR); Baseline
Emissions Determination, Actual-toFuture-Actual Methodology, Plantwide
Applicability Limitations, Clean Units,
Pollution Control Projects’’). On
November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA
published a notice of final action on the
reconsideration of the December 31,
2002, final rule changes. In that
November 7, 2003, final action, EPA
added the definition of ‘‘replacement
unit,’’ and clarified an issue regarding
PALs. The December 31, 2002, and the
November 7, 2003, final actions are
collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002
NSR Reform Rules.’’
In brief, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs (concerning both PSD and
nonattainment NSR).18 The 2002 Rules:
(1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions;
(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual
methodology for determining whether a
major modification has occurred; (3)
allow major stationary sources to
comply with plantwide applicability
limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emissions increase that
triggers the requirements of the major
NSR program; (4) provide a new
applicability provision for emissions
units that are designated clean units;
and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of
‘‘physical change or change in the
method of operation.’’
After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
were finalized and effective, industry,
state, and environmental petitioners
challenged numerous aspects of the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with
portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules (45
FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24,
2005, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (DC Circuit Court) issued a
decision on the challenges to the 2002
NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United
States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In
summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated
17 As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to
address Missouri’s August 8, 2011 request to
approve revisions to the Title V program relating to
GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
18 For more background information about the
2002 NSR Reform rules, see 67 FR 80186.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Apr 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
portions of the rules pertaining to clean
units and PCPs, remanded a portion of
the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g.
40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR
51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other
provisions included as part of the 2002
NSR Reform Rules.
On February 25, 2005, Missouri
submitted a request to include EPA’s
2002 NSR Reform Rules in attainment
and unclassifiable areas in to the SIP,
and EPA approved these revisions
through a final rule published on June
27, 2006 (71 FR 36486).19
VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
EPA is approving revisions to Missouri’s
regulations 10 CSR 10–6.060 and 10
CSR 10–6.410, as submitted on
November 30, 2009, for inclusion in the
Missouri SIP. EPA has determined that
this SIP revision is approvable because
it is in accordance with the CAA and
EPA regulations implementing the NSR
program, including NSR Reform. The
detailed rationale for this action is set
forth in the proposal for this rule, 76 FR
66882, and in this notice.
VII. 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 the State’s law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by the State’s
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);
19 As stated in section II above, EPA did not act
on the portions of Missouri’s rule which related to
the vacated and remanded provisions of the EPA
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22503
• 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).
In addition, this final rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 15, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
E:\FR\FM\16APR1.SGM
16APR1
22504
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, New source
review, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 30, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Subpart AA—Missouri
2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by
revising the entries for 10 CSR 10–6.060
(Construction Permits Required) and 10
CSR 10–6.410 (Emissions Banking and
Trading) to read as follows:
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State effective date
Title
EPA approval
date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of
Missouri
*
10–6.060 .......
*
Construction Permits Required.
8/30/11
4/16/12 [insert FR
page number
where the document begins].
10–6.410 .......
Emissions Banking and Trading.
7/30/09
4/16/12 [insert FR
page number
where the document begins].
*
§ 52.1323
*
*
*
[Amended]
[FR Doc. 2012–8920 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 173
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
[Docket No. PHMSA–07–29364 (HM–231A)]
RIN 2137–AE32
Hazardous Materials; Packages
Intended for Transport by Aircraft
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Apr 13, 2012
*
ACTION:
3. Section 52.1323 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (n).
■
Jkt 226001
*
*
*
*
This revision incorporates by reference elements of EPA’s NSR reform
rule published December 31, 2002. Provisions of the incorporated reform rule relating to the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution Control
Projects, and exemption from recordkeeping provisions for certain
sources using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections test
are not SIP approved. In addition, we are not approving Missouri’s
rule incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision of the definition of ‘‘chemical
processing plants’’ (the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007)
or EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions rule,’’ 73 FR 77882 (December 19,
2008).
Otherwise, this revision also incorporates by reference the other provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on August 2, 2010, which supersedes any conflicting provisions in the Missouri rule. Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is not SIP approved.
*
Final rule.
PHMSA is amending the
Hazardous Materials Regulations to
require closures of inner packagings
containing liquids within a combination
packaging intended for transportation
by aircraft to be secured by a secondary
means or, where a secondary closure
cannot be applied or it is impracticable
to apply, permit the use of a leakproof
liner. These amendments are consistent
with the 2011–2012 edition of the
International Civil Aviation
Organization Technical Instructions for
the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods
by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective July 1, 2012.
Voluntary Compliance Date:
Voluntary compliance with all
amendments are authorized May 16,
2012.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
*
Sfmt 4700
Michael G. Stevens, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001, telephone (202) 366–8553, or
Janet McLaughlin, Office of Security
and Hazardous Materials Safety, Federal
Aviation Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 490
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 8100,
Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202)
385–4897.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Current Requirements in the HMR
B. Summary of Proposals in NPRM
E:\FR\FM\16APR1.SGM
16APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22500-22504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0825; FRL-9657-8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Missouri: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule; New Source Review Reform
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) under Missouri's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program, and to other portions of Missouri's New Source Review (NSR)
program. The GHG-related SIP revisions are designed to align Missouri's
regulations with the GHG emission thresholds established in EPA's ``PSD
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Final Rule,'' which EPA issued by
notice dated June 3, 2010. The other NSR revisions are to the
Construction Permits Required Rule and the Emissions Banking and
Trading Rule and are intended to address changes to the Federal NSR
regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 (the
NSR Reform rules). In today's action, EPA is approving both the GHG (as
it relates to the PSD program) and NSR revisions because the Agency has
determined that these SIP revisions, already adopted by Missouri as
final effective rules, are in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and NSR.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0825. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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
at https://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 to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the GHG
portion of the Missouri SIP, contact Mr. Larry Gonzalez, 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. Mr. Gonzalez's telephone number is (913) 551-7041,
and his email address is gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. For information
regarding the NSR Reform portion of the Missouri SIP, contact Ms. Amy
Bhesania, 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. Ms. Bhesania's telephone number is
(913) 551-7147, and her email address is bhesania.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What GHG-related final action is EPA taking in this final rule?
II. What is the background for the GHG-related PSD SIP approval in
this final rule?
III. GHG-Related Final Action
IV. What NSR reform-related final action is EPA taking in this final
rule?
V. What is the background for the NSR reform-related approval in
this final rule?
VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action
[[Page 22501]]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What GHG-related final action is EPA taking in this final rule?
In a letter dated August 8, 2011, MDNR submitted a request to EPA
to approve revisions to the State's SIP and Title V program to
incorporate recent rule amendments adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission. These adopted rules became effective in the
Missouri Code of State Regulations on August 30, 2011. These amendments
establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Missouri's PSD and Title V
regulations at the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-
frames as those specified by EPA in the ``PSD and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring; Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514), hereinafter referred to as
the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less
than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements
for GHGs that they emit. The amendments to the SIP clarify the
applicable thresholds in the Missouri SIP, address the flaw discussed
in the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30,
2010) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''), and incorporate state rule
changes adopted at the state level into the Federally-approved SIP.
On October 28, 2011, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri's SIP revision. The proposal addressed SIP revisions
associated with both the Federal ``tailoring rule'' revisions and ``NSR
reform'' rules. See 76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any public
comments in response to the proposal. In this final rule, pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving these revisions into the
Missouri SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to address Missouri's
August 8, 2011 request to approve revisions to the Title V program
relating to GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for the GHG-related PSD SIP Approval in this
final rule?
This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this final action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the proposal for this
rulemaking, 76 FR 66882, and in the EPA rulemakings cited in the
proposal. In particular, the background is contained in what we called
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\2\ and in the preambles to the actions
cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GHG-Related Actions
EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from
one another, establish the overall framework for this final action on
the Missouri SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\3\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \4\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \5\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs
emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more
specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. In many states, such as Missouri, PSD is implemented through
the SIP. In December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement
the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved
SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call
and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\6\
Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do
apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as
100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs
to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the PSD SIP
Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the
affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources
below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on
the ``error correction'' provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
\4\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
\5\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
\6\ Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings of failure to submit in
some states which were unable to submit the required SIP revision by
their deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, e.g.
``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR 81874 (December 29,
2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR 82246
(December 30, 2010). Because Missouri's SIP already authorizes
Missouri to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Missouri is not subject to the SIP
Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Missouri's Actions
On July 27, 2010, Missouri submitted a letter to EPA, in accordance
with a request to all states from EPA in the proposed Tailoring Rule,
with confirmation that the State of Missouri has the authority to
regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter also confirmed Missouri's
intent to amend its air quality rules for the PSD program for GHGs to
match the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this
final rulemaking for a copy of Missouri's letter.
In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Missouri's SIP (among other SIPs) to the
extent that the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions from sources emitting at levels below those set in the
Tailoring Rule.\7\ As a result, Missouri's current approved SIP
provides the State with authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and
above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified
sources to receive a Federal PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if
they emit or have potential to emit at or above the Tailoring Rule
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability
to GHG sources with the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with the SIP provisions that require assurances of adequate
resources, and thereby
[[Page 22502]]
addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) includes as a requirement for
SIP approval that states provide ``necessary assurances that the State
* * * will have adequate personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out
such [SIP].'' In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds
for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources, in part, because the
states generally did not have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds,\8\ and no state,
including Missouri, asserted that it did have adequate resources to do
so.\9\ In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected
states, including Missouri, had a flaw in their SIP at the time they
submitted their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the
PSD programs was potentially broader than the resources available to
them under their SIP.\10\ Accordingly, for each affected state,
including Missouri, EPA concluded that EPA's action in approving the
SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA rescinded its
approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources
below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\ EPA recommended that states
adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds,
thereby (i) assuring that under state law, only sources at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding
confusion under the Federally approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP
applies only to sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31517.
\9\ PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR at 82540.
\10\ Id. at 82542.
\11\ Id. at 82544.
\12\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri's August 8, 2011, SIP submission establishes thresholds
for determining which stationary sources and modification projects
become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under
Missouri's PSD program. Specifically, the SIP revision includes
changes--which are already effective in Missouri's Code of State
Regulations (CSR)--revising rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(8)(A) to incorporate
by reference all of the revisions of the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR
52.21 published in the Tailoring Rule.\13\ These revisions specifically
define the term ``subject to regulation'' for the PSD program and
define ``greenhouse gases (GHGs)'' and ``tpy CO2 equivalent
emissions (CO2e).'' Additionally, the revisions to 10 CSR
10-6.060 specify the methodology for calculating an emissions increase
for GHGs, the applicable thresholds for GHG emissions subject to PSD,
and the schedule for when the applicability thresholds take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The revised rule states that all of the subsections of 40
CFR 52.21, other than subsections (a), (q), (s), and (u),
promulgated as of July 1, 2009, including the revision published at
75 FR 31606-07 (effective August 2, 2010), are incorporated by
reference into 10 CSR 10-6.060(8)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri is currently a SIP-approved State for the PSD program, and
has previously incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR Reform revisions for PSD
into its SIP. See 71 FR 36486 (June 27, 2006).\14\ In that rulemaking,
at the State's request, EPA did not act on the portions of Missouri's
rule which reflected the vacated and remanded provisions in EPA's NSR
Reform rule.\15\ The changes to Missouri's PSD program regulations are
substantively the same as the Federal provisions amended in EPA's
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In sections IV through VI of this final action, EPA is
approving several of Missouri's other revisions to its rules for
incorporation into the Missouri SIP.
\15\ These portions included provisions relating to pollution
control projects, the ``clean unit'' exemption, and the
recordkeeping requirements for certain sources using the ``actual to
projected actual'' test for applicability of PSD (the ``reasonable
possibility'' provision in section 52.21(r)(6)). See 71 FR 36487 for
a more detailed discussion of EPA's approval of Missouri's NSR
reform rule relating to PSD. We are not acting on those provisions,
including the recordkeeping aspect of the ``reasonable possibility''
provision, in today's action. (See section V of this preamble for a
more detailed discussion of the vacated and remanded provisions.) We
are also not acting on Missouri's rule incorporating EPA's 2007
revision of the definition of ``chemical processing plants'' (the
``Ethanol Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007)) or EPA's 2008
``fugitive emissions rule,'' 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). See
Section IV for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. GHG-Related Final Action
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving Missouri's
August 8, 2011 revisions to the Missouri SIP, relating to PSD
requirements for GHG-emitting sources. EPA has made the determination
that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with
the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The
detailed rationale for this action is set forth in the proposed
rulemaking referenced above, and in this final rule.
Since EPA is finalizing its approval of Missouri's changes to its
air quality regulations to incorporate appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Missouri's SIP, then section 52.1323(n)
of 40 CFR part 52, added in EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing Rule to codify the
limitation of its approval of Missouri's PSD SIP to exclude the
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds, is no longer necessary. In this action, EPA is also
amending section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove this
unnecessary regulatory language.
IV. What NSR reform-related final action is EPA taking in this final
rule?
In this final rule, we are also approving MDNR's request to include
as a revision to Missouri's SIP, amendments to rule 10 CSR 10-6.060
``Construction Permit Required'' and 10 CSR 10-6.410 ``Emission Banking
and Trading.'' These rules were adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission on March 26, 2009, and became effective under
state law on July 30, 2009. The rules were submitted to EPA for
inclusion into the Missouri SIP in a letter dated November 30, 2009.
The submission included comments on the rules made during the State's
adoption process and the State's response to comments. Missouri
submitted these revisions to align its rules with EPA's revisions to
the Federal NSR program (NSR Reform), as it relates to nonattainment
areas in the State. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving these SIP revisions with several exceptions. First, in
today's final action, EPA is not taking action on Missouri's submittal
of changes to the applicability of the PSD program to exclude ethanol
production facilities from the definition of ``chemical processing
plants'' (the Ethanol Rule) (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007). See letter from
James L. Kavanaugh, Director, MDNR, to EPA, April 10, 2008. Second,
because Missouri has not adopted EPA's ``Fugitive Emissions Rule'' (73
FR 77882, Dec. 19, 2008), as it relates to NSR in nonattainment areas,
today's action also does not address the Fugitive Emissions Rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The November 30, 2009 submittal from MDNR also proposed
revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.350 ``Emission Limitations and Emissions
Trading of Oxides of Nitrogen'' and 10 CSR 10-6.360 ``Control of
NOX Emissions from Electric Generating Units and Non-
Electric Generating Boilers.'' In a letter dated April 20, 2011,
Missouri withdrew this submission of revisions to these two rules,
and therefore today's action does not include them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2011, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri's SIP revision. The proposal addressed SIP revisions
associated with both the Federal ``tailoring rule'' revisions and ``NSR
reform'' rules. See 76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any public
comments in response to the proposal. Therefore, in this final rule,
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
[[Page 22503]]
EPA is approving these revisions into the Missouri SIP.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to address
Missouri's August 8, 2011 request to approve revisions to the Title
V program relating to GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. What is the background for the NSR reform-related approval in this
final rule?
On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and
Nonattainment NSR programs (``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); Baseline Emissions
Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide
Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects'').
On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final
action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule
changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the
definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding
PALs. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions
are collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.''
In brief, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of
the NSR programs (concerning both PSD and nonattainment NSR).\18\ The
2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for determining baseline actual
emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for
determining whether a major modification has occurred; (3) allow major
stationary sources to comply with plantwide applicability limits (PALs)
to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the
requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability
provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5)
exclude pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of
``physical change or change in the method of operation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For more background information about the 2002 NSR Reform
rules, see 67 FR 80186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective,
industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous
aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980
NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In
summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining
to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding
recordkeeping, e.g. 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let
stand the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules.
On February 25, 2005, Missouri submitted a request to include EPA's
2002 NSR Reform Rules in attainment and unclassifiable areas in to the
SIP, and EPA approved these revisions through a final rule published on
June 27, 2006 (71 FR 36486).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As stated in section II above, EPA did not act on the
portions of Missouri's rule which related to the vacated and
remanded provisions of the EPA rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving revisions to
Missouri's regulations 10 CSR 10-6.060 and 10 CSR 10-6.410, as
submitted on November 30, 2009, for inclusion in the Missouri SIP. EPA
has determined that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations implementing the NSR
program, including NSR Reform. The detailed rationale for this action
is set forth in the proposal for this rule, 76 FR 66882, and in this
notice.
VII. 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 the State's law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the
State's 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).
In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 15, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
[[Page 22504]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source
review, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 30, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by revising the entries for 10 CSR 10-
6.060 (Construction Permits Required) and 10 CSR 10-6.410 (Emissions
Banking and Trading) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Missouri citation Title effective EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.060.......... Construction 8/30/11 4/16/12 [insert This revision incorporates by reference
Permits Required. FR page number elements of EPA's NSR reform rule
where the published December 31, 2002. Provisions
document begins]. of the incorporated reform rule relating
to the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution
Control Projects, and exemption from
recordkeeping provisions for certain
sources using the actual-to-projected-
actual emissions projections test are
not SIP approved. In addition, we are
not approving Missouri's rule
incorporating EPA's 2007 revision of the
definition of ``chemical processing
plants'' (the ``Ethanol Rule,'' 72 FR
24060 (May 1, 2007) or EPA's 2008
``fugitive emissions rule,'' 73 FR 77882
(December 19, 2008).
Otherwise, this revision also
incorporates by reference the other
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect
on August 2, 2010, which supersedes any
conflicting provisions in the Missouri
rule. Section 9, pertaining to hazardous
air pollutants, is not SIP approved.
10-6.410.......... Emissions Banking 7/30/09 4/16/12 [insert
and Trading. FR page number
where the
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.1323 [Amended]
0
3. Section 52.1323 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (n).
[FR Doc. 2012-8920 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
