Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Construction Permits Required, 14062-14066 [2015-06153]

Download as PDF 14062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 because it does not change the level of environmental protection for any affected populations. Dated: March 4, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2015–06143 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0123; FRL–9924–54– Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Construction Permits Required Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. This proposed rulemaking will amend the SIP to update the construction permits rule to incorporate by reference recent EPA actions related to plantwide applicability limitations (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to correct the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Other revisions include modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements. SUMMARY: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2015–0123, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: Higbee.paula@epa.gov. 3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 0123. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7028 or by email at Higbee.paula@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following: I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Background III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules IV. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document? EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri for 10 CSR 10–6.060, ‘‘Construction Permits Required’’. On October 3, 2013, EPA received a request to amend the SIP to incorporate by reference all sections of title 40 part 52.21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) except for subsections (a), (q) and (s) through July 1, 2012. Missouri is also requesting to amend the SIP to incorporate by reference EPA’s July 12, 2012, final rule finalizing PALs for GHGs (77 FR 41051) and EPA’s October 25, 2012, final rule amending the definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ concerning condensable particulate matter (77 FR 65107). In Missouri’s letter to EPA, Missouri also requested to amend the SIP to incorporate EPA’s May 18, 2011, rule repealing the grandfathering provisions for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) under the PSD program, but because the state has an already approved PSD program which incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 1, 2011, Missouri’s Federally approved program already incorporates this action. Other revisions to Missouri’s rule which we are proposing to take action on include clarifying the requirements for conducting an air quality analysis in section 5, De Minimis Permits and making minor administrative clarifications as well as revising the notification period for initial start-up in section 6, General Permits. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS II. Background Missouri implements its PSD program by incorporating by reference section 52.21 of the CFR in its rule 10 CSR 10– 6.060, ‘‘Construction Permits Required’’. In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA approved the most recent amendment to Missouri’s PSD program (78 FR 37457). Missouri’s currently approved PSD program incorporates by reference (IBR) the Federal regulations as promulgated July 1, 2011, in the CFR, and incorporates the July 20, 2011, rule ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Programs’’ (‘‘Biomass Deferral’’ 76 FR 43490). Missouri’s currently approved PSD program contains a number of important required elements, including those related to the 2008 ‘‘Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule; 73 FR 28321). For PSD sources in Missouri, PSD permits must address direct PM2.5 emissions as well as precursor emissions (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)), establish significant emission rates for PM2.5 and precursor emissions, and establish the requirement to account for condensable particulate matter. On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, issued a decision that remanded the EPA’s rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The court’s remand of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this final rulemaking. This rule promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The D.C. Circuit found that EPA erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 1 of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The Court ordered EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ (Id. at 437). However, as the requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is EPA’s position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 in attainment and unclassifiable areas are not affected by the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the court’s decision. Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Missouri’s SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. On October 20, 2010, EPA promulgated additional PSD regulations relating to PM2.5: ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC)’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, 73 FR 64864). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, issued a judgment that, inter alia, vacated and remanded the SIL provisions at section 52.21(k)(2). Additionally, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SMC provisions at section 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c).2 In response to the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA took final action on December 9, 2013, to remove the SIL provisions from the Federal PSD regulations, and to revise the SMC for PM2.5 to zero (78 FR 73698). On March 19, 2013, and October 21, 2013, Missouri submitted additional information to amend their September 5, 2012, SIP submission to clarify that they no longer intended to include the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions (see 78 FR 37457, June 21, 2013, for more information). Specifically, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will not apply either the PM2.5 SILs provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2), or the PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to pending or future PSD permit actions. It is the state’s intent that PM2.5 will remain on the list of pollutants but that the associated concentration level would be blank or zero. In other words, pre-construction monitoring will continue to apply but without de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the provisions with which the court took issue are not in effect in Missouri. On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.3 The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court’s decision pending further judicial action before the D.C. Circuit to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state’s SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant, (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thesholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from 2 See 1 See PO 00000 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 14063 3 134 E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 705 F.3d 458, 469 S.Ct. 2427. 18MRP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 14064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. This can be accomplished as soon as EPA revises the Federal PSD rules in states that allow future revisions to the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into the SIP. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. EPA is not expecting states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture, before the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before EPA has revised its regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. However, EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to assure that the state’s program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. Missouri’s existing approved SIP contains the GHG permitting requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 after EPA issued the Tailoring Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Missouri previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT when sources emit or increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent). Although the approved Missouri PSD permitting program may also currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent EPA from approving the submission addressed in this rule. Missouri’s 2013 SIP submission does not add any GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision. While this submission incorporates all of section 52.21 for completeness, except for subsections (a), (q) and (s), the submission mostly reincorporates PSD permitting requirements for GHG’s that are already in the Missouri SIP. This proposed revision does add to the Missouri SIP the elements of EPA’s July 12, 2012, rulemaking, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits, ‘‘Step 3 Tailoring Rule’’ (77 FR 41051), which implements Step 3 of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 phase in of PSD permitting requirements for GHGs. This rule became effective on August 13, 2012. Specifically, the incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHGemitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG-emitting sources on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of the Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme Court has determined that sources and modifications may not be defined as ‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of the level of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for GHGs may no longer have value in some situations where a source might have triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may still have a role to play in determining whether a modification that triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to BACT for GHGs. These provisions, like the other GHG provisions discussed previously, will likely be revised pending further legal action. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in section 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to approve these provisions into the Missouri SIP at this juncture. EPA is proposing to revise Missouri’s SIP to incorporate by reference EPA’s October 25, 2012 rule, ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Condensable Particulate Matter’’. This revision is appropriate and necessary to ensure that the inadvertent error which was contained in EPA’s 2008 rule, which was previously SIP approved in the Missouri rule (78 FR 37457) is corrected. EPA’s 2008 rule, ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).’’ See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), inadvertently included a requirement to consider condensable PM when measuring one of the emissions-related indicators for PM known as ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ in the context of the PSD and NSR regulations. EPA’s 2012 rule corrects the error in the 2008 rule and therefore it is appropriate and necessary to incorporate by reference the 2012 rule PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 and related corrections to the definition of ‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? As stated above, Missouri’s incorporation by reference of all sections of title 40 section 52.21 of the CFR except for subsections (a), (q) and (s) and EPA’s July 12, 2012, final rule on PALs for GHGs (77 FR 41051) and EPA’s October 25, 2012, final rule amending the definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ concerning condensable particulate matter (77 FR 65107) are appropriate even in light of recent court actions and ensure that the state PSD program is in agreement with Federal requirements. Missouri also requested to amend the SIP to incorporate EPA’s May 18, 2011, rule repealing the grandfathering provisions for PM2.5 under the PSD program, but because the state has an already approved PSD program which incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 1, 2011, Missouri’s Federally approved program already incorporates this action. Additional revisions include, in paragraph (5)(D)(1) of the rule, Missouri is adding subparagraphs A. and B. which provide clear and specific requirements for when an air quality analysis is required for De Minimis permits. In (5)(D)(2) of the rule, Missouri is adding subparagraphs A., B., and C. which provide clear and specific requirements for when the director may require an air quality analysis. These revisions strengthen Missouri’s PSD program. MDNR is making minor administrative edits to subsections (6)(A) and (6)(A)(2). In (6)(E)(1)(A) Missouri is modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up. This revision shortens the timeframe for which notification is provided to the state prior to initial start-up. The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. MDNR received five (5) comments from one source: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Missouri responded to each of the comments and made revisions to the rule as appropriate. Overall, these actions strengthen the Missouri SIP, by ensuring the state PSD program incorporates recent Federal PSD updates. These revisions do not E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules negatively impact air quality, nor relax the SIP. IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the SIP. These revisions update the construction permits rule to incorporate by reference recent EPA actions related to PALs for GHGs, and amend the definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant.’’ Other revisions include modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements. We are processing this rule as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Missouri 10 CSR 10–6.060 ‘‘Construction Permits Required’’ described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). 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’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 14065 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 effectivess of such future rule or action. This proposed 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: March 9, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq. Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 10–6.060 to read as follows: ■ § 52.1320 * Identification of Plan. * * (c) * * * E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1 * * 14066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 Entire State of Missouri 10 CSR 10–6.060 Construction Permits Required. * * * * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–06153 Filed 3–17–15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 150227200–5200–01] RIN 0648–BE79 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management Reference Point Updates for Three Stocks of Pacific Salmon National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho, as recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Mar 17, 2015 10/30/13 Jkt 235001 3/18/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD—Increments, SILs and SMCs rule (75 FR 64865, October 20, 2010) relating to SILs and SMCs that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals decision are not SIP approved. Provisions of the 2002 NSR reform rule relating to the Clean Unit Exemption and Pollution Control Projects are not SIP approved. In addition, we have not approve Missouri’s rule incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision fo the definition of ‘‘chemical processing plants’’ (the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007). Although exemptions previously listed in 10 CSR 10–6.060 have been transferred to 10 CSR 10– 6.061, the Federally-approved SIP continues to include the following exemption, ‘‘Livestock and livestock handling systems from which the only potential contaminant is odorous gas.’’ Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is not SIP approved. * measures beginning in 2015. This update is implemented as part of the 2014 methodology review where the Council and its advisory bodies considered new information on the three stocks of salmon to make a determination on whether changes to reference points for these stocks were warranted. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before April 2, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0014, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150014, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070. Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 * * the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Council manages West Coast ocean salmon fisheries under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP has long used stockspecific conservation objectives to manage fishery impacts to Councilmanaged salmon stocks. Conservation objectives are, generally, fixed quantities intended to provide the necessary guidance during the course of the annual preseason planning process to establish salmon fishing seasons that achieve optimum yield. Under the FMP, conservation objectives can be added or E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14062-14066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06153]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0123; FRL-9924-54-Region 7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri, Construction Permits Required

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 
of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. This proposed rulemaking will 
amend the SIP to update the construction permits rule to incorporate by 
reference recent EPA actions related to plantwide applicability 
limitations (PALs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to correct the 
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Other revisions include 
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and 
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0123, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: Higbee.paula@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0123. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine 
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at 
Higbee.paula@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by 
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Background
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

[[Page 14063]]

IV. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state 
of Missouri for 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction Permits Required''. On 
October 3, 2013, EPA received a request to amend the SIP to incorporate 
by reference all sections of title 40 part 52.21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) except for subsections (a), (q) and (s) through July 
1, 2012. Missouri is also requesting to amend the SIP to incorporate by 
reference EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule finalizing PALs for GHGs (77 
FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable 
particulate matter (77 FR 65107). In Missouri's letter to EPA, Missouri 
also requested to amend the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule 
repealing the grandfathering provisions for particulate matter less 
than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) under the PSD program, but 
because the state has an already approved PSD program which 
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates 
this action. Other revisions to Missouri's rule which we are proposing 
to take action on include clarifying the requirements for conducting an 
air quality analysis in section 5, De Minimis Permits and making minor 
administrative clarifications as well as revising the notification 
period for initial start-up in section 6, General Permits.

II. Background

    Missouri implements its PSD program by incorporating by reference 
section 52.21 of the CFR in its rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, ``Construction 
Permits Required''. In a previous action on June 21, 2013, EPA approved 
the most recent amendment to Missouri's PSD program (78 FR 37457). 
Missouri's currently approved PSD program incorporates by reference 
(IBR) the Federal regulations as promulgated July 1, 2011, in the CFR, 
and incorporates the July 20, 2011, rule ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions 
from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration and Title V Programs'' (``Biomass Deferral'' 
76 FR 43490). Missouri's currently approved PSD program contains a 
number of important required elements, including those related to the 
2008 ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 
NSR PM2.5 Rule; 73 FR 28321). For PSD sources in Missouri, 
PSD permits must address direct PM2.5 emissions as well as 
precursor emissions (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX)), establish significant emission 
rates for PM2.5 and precursor emissions, and establish the 
requirement to account for condensable particulate matter. On January 
4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(D.C. Circuit), in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, issued a 
decision that remanded the EPA's rules implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The court's remand of the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this final rulemaking. This rule 
promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in 
both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). The D.C. Circuit found that EPA erred in 
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 1 of the CAA, 
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions 
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The 
Court ordered EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 
consistent with this opinion.'' (Id. at 437). However, as the 
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is 
EPA's position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 
that address requirements for PM2.5 in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas are not affected by the D.C. Circuit's opinion in 
NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any 
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in 
order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval 
of Missouri's SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 
NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the D.C. Circuit's 
opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2010, EPA promulgated additional PSD regulations 
relating to PM2.5: ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and 
Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC)'' (2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule, 73 FR 64864). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. 
Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, issued a judgment that, inter alia, 
vacated and remanded the SIL provisions at section 52.21(k)(2). 
Additionally, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SMC provisions at section 
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c).\2\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA 
took final action on December 9, 2013, to remove the SIL provisions 
from the Federal PSD regulations, and to revise the SMC for 
PM2.5 to zero (78 FR 73698). On March 19, 2013, and October 
21, 2013, Missouri submitted additional information to amend their 
September 5, 2012, SIP submission to clarify that they no longer 
intended to include the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions (see 
78 FR 37457, June 21, 2013, for more information). Specifically, 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will not apply either 
the PM2.5 SILs provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 
52.21(k)(2), or the PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR 
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to pending or future PSD permit actions. It is the 
state's intent that PM2.5 will remain on the list of 
pollutants but that the associated concentration level would be blank 
or zero. In other words, pre-construction monitoring will continue to 
apply but without de minimis thresholds. Therefore, the provisions with 
which the court took issue are not in effect in Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 705 F.3d 458, 469
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision 
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions.\3\ The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not 
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a 
source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a 
PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that 
PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other 
than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the 
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to 
act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending 
further judicial action before the D.C. Circuit to effectuate the 
decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would 
require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme 
Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the 
requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that 
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant, (i) that 
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source 
thesholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase 
and a significant net emissions increase from

[[Page 14064]]

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the 
Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states 
will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the 
Supreme Court's decision. This can be accomplished as soon as EPA 
revises the Federal PSD rules in states that allow future revisions to 
the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into the SIP. 
The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the 
EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal 
processes before the D.C. Circuit. EPA is not expecting states to have 
revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture, before 
the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before EPA has revised 
its regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. However, EPA is evaluating PSD 
program submissions to assure that the state's program correctly 
addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    Missouri's existing approved SIP contains the GHG permitting 
requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 after EPA issued the Tailoring 
Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Missouri previously 
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits 
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) 
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT 
when sources emit or increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 
tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent). Although the 
approved Missouri PSD permitting program may also currently contain 
provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court 
decision, this does not prevent EPA from approving the submission 
addressed in this rule. Missouri's 2013 SIP submission does not add any 
GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court decision. While this submission incorporates all of section 52.21 
for completeness, except for subsections (a), (q) and (s), the 
submission mostly reincorporates PSD permitting requirements for GHG's 
that are already in the Missouri SIP.
    This proposed revision does add to the Missouri SIP the elements of 
EPA's July 12, 2012, rulemaking, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 
Plantwide Applicability Limits, ``Step 3 Tailoring Rule'' (77 FR 
41051), which implements Step 3 of the phase in of PSD permitting 
requirements for GHGs. This rule became effective on August 13, 2012. 
Specifically, the incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will 
allow GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits 
(PALs) for their GHG-emitting sources on a carbon dioxide equivalent 
(CO2e) basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include 
some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme Court has determined that 
sources and modifications may not be defined as ``major'' solely on the 
basis of the level of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for GHGs may no 
longer have value in some situations where a source might have 
triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may 
still have a role to play in determining whether a modification that 
triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to 
BACT for GHGs. These provisions, like the other GHG provisions 
discussed previously, will likely be revised pending further legal 
action. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for 
sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the 
major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in section 
52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased 
flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a 
PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at 
least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to 
approve these provisions into the Missouri SIP at this juncture.
    EPA is proposing to revise Missouri's SIP to incorporate by 
reference EPA's October 25, 2012 rule, ``Implementation of the New 
Source Review Program for Condensable Particulate Matter''. This 
revision is appropriate and necessary to ensure that the inadvertent 
error which was contained in EPA's 2008 rule, which was previously SIP 
approved in the Missouri rule (78 FR 37457) is corrected. EPA's 2008 
rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).'' See 
73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), inadvertently included a requirement to 
consider condensable PM when measuring one of the emissions-related 
indicators for PM known as ``particulate matter emissions'' in the 
context of the PSD and NSR regulations. EPA's 2012 rule corrects the 
error in the 2008 rule and therefore it is appropriate and necessary to 
incorporate by reference the 2012 rule and related corrections to the 
definition of ``particulate matter emissions.''

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    As stated above, Missouri's incorporation by reference of all 
sections of title 40 section 52.21 of the CFR except for subsections 
(a), (q) and (s) and EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule on PALs for GHGs 
(77 FR 41051) and EPA's October 25, 2012, final rule amending the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' concerning condensable 
particulate matter (77 FR 65107) are appropriate even in light of 
recent court actions and ensure that the state PSD program is in 
agreement with Federal requirements. Missouri also requested to amend 
the SIP to incorporate EPA's May 18, 2011, rule repealing the 
grandfathering provisions for PM2.5 under the PSD program, 
but because the state has an already approved PSD program which 
incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 through July 
1, 2011, Missouri's Federally approved program already incorporates 
this action.
    Additional revisions include, in paragraph (5)(D)(1) of the rule, 
Missouri is adding subparagraphs A. and B. which provide clear and 
specific requirements for when an air quality analysis is required for 
De Minimis permits. In (5)(D)(2) of the rule, Missouri is adding 
subparagraphs A., B., and C. which provide clear and specific 
requirements for when the director may require an air quality analysis. 
These revisions strengthen Missouri's PSD program.
    MDNR is making minor administrative edits to subsections (6)(A) and 
(6)(A)(2). In (6)(E)(1)(A) Missouri is modifying the notification 
period for initial equipment start-up. This revision shortens the 
timeframe for which notification is provided to the state prior to 
initial start-up.
    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP 
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing 
regulations. MDNR received five (5) comments from one source: The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Missouri responded to each of the 
comments and made revisions to the rule as appropriate. Overall, these 
actions strengthen the Missouri SIP, by ensuring the state PSD program 
incorporates recent Federal PSD updates. These revisions do not

[[Page 14065]]

negatively impact air quality, nor relax the SIP.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the SIP. These 
revisions update the construction permits rule to incorporate by 
reference recent EPA actions related to PALs for GHGs, and amend the 
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant.'' Other revisions include 
modifying the notification period for initial equipment start-up and 
clarifying de minimis permit air quality analysis requirements.
    We are processing this rule as a proposed action because we are 
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will 
occur after consideration of any comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.060 ``Construction Permits Required'' 
described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).
    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'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not 
affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 effectivess of such 
future rule or action. This proposed 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
 Mark Hague,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising 
the entry for 10-6.060 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 14066]]



                                        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 Entire State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CSR 10-6.060..............  Construction          10/30/13  3/18/15 [Insert    Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5
                                Permits Required.               Federal Register   PSD--Increments, SILs and
                                                                citation].         SMCs rule (75 FR 64865,
                                                                                   October 20, 2010) relating to
                                                                                   SILs and SMCs that were
                                                                                   affected by the January 22,
                                                                                   2013 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                   decision are not SIP
                                                                                   approved.
                                                                                  Provisions of the 2002 NSR
                                                                                   reform rule relating to the
                                                                                   Clean Unit Exemption and
                                                                                   Pollution Control Projects
                                                                                   are not SIP approved.
                                                                                  In addition, we have not
                                                                                   approve Missouri's rule
                                                                                   incorporating EPA's 2007
                                                                                   revision fo the definition of
                                                                                   ``chemical processing
                                                                                   plants'' (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                   Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1,
                                                                                   2007).
                                                                                  Although exemptions previously
                                                                                   listed in 10 CSR 10-6.060
                                                                                   have been transferred to 10
                                                                                   CSR 10-6.061, the Federally-
                                                                                   approved SIP continues to
                                                                                   include the following
                                                                                   exemption, ``Livestock and
                                                                                   livestock handling systems
                                                                                   from which the only potential
                                                                                   contaminant is odorous gas.''
                                                                                  Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                   hazardous air pollutants, is
                                                                                   not SIP approved.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-06153 Filed 3-17-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.