Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revisions to the General Conformity Rules, 59-61 [2019-28332]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed 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).
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 23, 2019.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–28329 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2019–0658; FRL–10003–
16–Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revisions
to the General Conformity Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted on February 15,
2019. The submission revises the State’s
general conformity rule. Specifically,
the proposed action revises the rule to
add definitions specific to the rule,
remove references to a rule that is being
rescinded, remove the unnecessary use
of restrictive words and make other
clarifying changes. The revision does
not have an adverse effect on air quality.
The EPA’s proposed approval of this
rule revision is being done in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2019–0658 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed
Wolkins, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality
Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number (913) 551–7588;
email address wolkins.jed@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2019–
0658, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to approve a
revision to Missouri’s rule 10–6.300
‘‘Conformity of General Federal Actions
to State Implementation Plans.’’ There
are several proposed revisions to the
rule. The proposed revisions modify
text that Missouri has determined make
the rule more understandable while
retaining the intent of the rule. The
following changes to the rule have been
made:
10–6.300(1) the title changed from
‘‘General’’ to ‘‘Applicability’’;
10–6.300(1)(B) insertion of ‘‘de
minimis’’;
10–6.300(1)(C) change from ‘‘shall’’ to
‘‘do’’;
10–6.300(1)(C)2. and 2.V. insertion
‘‘below the’’ and ‘‘levels identified in
subsection (1)(B) of this rule’’;
10–6.300(1)(C)2.H. and I. change from
‘‘required’’ to ‘‘necessary’’;
10–6.300(1)(C)2.J. removal of
‘‘Actions’’;
10–6.300(1)(K) removal of ‘‘shall’’;
10–6.300(2) removal of existing
incorporation by reference and insertion
of rule specific definitions (A) thru (JJ);
10–6.300(3)(A)1. change from ‘‘shall’’
to ‘‘may’’;
10–6.300(3)(E)3. change from ‘‘may’’
to ‘‘will’’;
10–6.300(3)(E)4. and (3)(F)1., 2., 3.,
and 4. change from ‘‘required’’ to
‘‘conducted’’;
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
60
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
10–6.300(3)(F)2.A.(II) change form
‘‘shall apply’’ to ‘‘applies’’;
10–6.300(3)(I)2. change from ‘‘shall’’
to ‘‘may’’;
10–6.300(3)(J)2.B. change from ‘‘must
not’’ to ‘‘cannot’’;
10–6.300(3)(J)3. change from ‘‘they are
not required’’ to ‘‘they are under no
obligation’’;
10–6.300(3)(L)2.E. change from ‘‘the
time frame for the reductions must be
specified’’ to ‘‘have a specific time
frame for the reductions’’;
10–6.300(3)(L)3. correction of the
spelling of ‘‘credits’’;
10–6.300(3)(L)3.A. and B. change
from ‘‘as required in’’ to ‘‘under’’;
10–6.300(4)(C) change from ‘‘shall be’’
to ‘‘is’’.
The full text of these changes can be
found in the State’s submission which
is in the docket for this action.
The EPA has analyzed these wording
changes, specifically focusing on the
language changes that might alter the
stringency or intent such as using ‘‘de
minimus’’ or changes from ‘‘shall’’ to
‘‘may’’. Although the EPA takes no
position regarding whether the altered
text is clearer to the reader, the EPA
finds the full rule language does not
alter the intent of the rule. For example,
10–6.300(3)(A)1. now reads, ‘‘No
department, agency, or instrumentality
may engage in’’ rather than ‘‘shall
engage in’’. The EPA believes that the
change from ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may’’ does not
alter the intent of the language to
prohibit an action from occurring.
Another example is the insertion of ‘‘de
minimus’’, which refers to a table being
used to establish a threshold floor, or de
minimus level in this context. The EPA
believes the use of de minimus is
appropriate in this context and that this
language does not alter the intent.
Therefore, the EPA does not believe that
these specific examples and other
language changes represent a relaxation
of the rule.
Then, Missouri revised its rule to
incorporate general conformity rulespecific definitions into the rule itself.
These added rule definitions come from
10–6.020 which is already approved
into the SIP. The EPA provided one
specific comment during the public
comment period regarding the
definition of precursors to fine
particulate matter (PM2.5).1 The EPA
asked Missouri to update the State
general conformity rule to match
updates to the Federal general
conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93. These
updates include changes to the
applicability tables clarifying that
1 The EPA also provided a general comment on
several Missouri rulemakings around the same time.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
ammonia (NH3) are presumed
precursors of PM2.5. Missouri did not
change the rule in response to this
comment. While Missouri did not
update the rule to reflect changes to the
Federal general conformity rule, the
EPA believes the SIP revision is
approvable. The changes to the Federal
general conformity rule stem from the
January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Court
ruling that we erred when not
considering the particulate matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of part
D of title I of the CAA.2 In response, on
March 23, 2015, we proposed the Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements (80
FR 15340, March 23, 2015). In that
action, we defined PM2.5 precursors as
‘‘sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and ammonia (NH3).’’ The EPA
finalized this rule on August 24, 2016
(81 FR 58010).
10–6.300(2)(DD)(3)(C) states VOC and
NH3 are PM2.5 precursors ‘‘only in PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance areas
where either the State or the EPA
determines that they are significant
precursors.’’ The EPA has now
determined that VOC and NH3 are PM2.5
precursors presumptively subject to
regulation, therefore any General
Transportation Conformity review in a
PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance
area in Missouri would need to consider
VOC and NH3 as PM2.5 precursors. This
determination that VOC and NH3 are
precursors to PM2.5 subject to regulation
applies in any current and future PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area in
the State of Missouri until such time
that Missouri adequately demonstrates,
and the EPA agrees, that these
pollutants do not need to be regulated
in a particular plan despite the fact that
they are PM2.5 precursors.
Finally, at 10–6.300(1)A. and
(E)1.E.(II), Missouri revised its rule to
remove a reference to 10–2.390, which
has been rescinded. The EPA approved
rescission of this rule from the Missouri
SIP in a separate action.3
The EPA has evaluated the changes
made by Missouri and is proposing to
approve these changes in the SIP. The
EPA believes that these changes will not
have an adverse impact on air quality.
2 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v.
EPA, Nos. 08–1250, 09–1102, 11–1430 (D.C. Circuit
2013).
3 See 84 FR 54035, October 9, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The State’s submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The State provided
public notice on this SIP revision from
May 2, 2018 to August 2, 2018 and
received two public comments, both
from the EPA.4 Missouri’s response to
our general comment is sufficient. As
discussed above, while Missouri did not
update the rule for the definition of
precursors of PM2.5, the revision is still
approvable. We highly encourage
Missouri to make such update in the
future. The revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve
Missouri’s revisions to 10–6.300. We are
processing this as a proposed action
because we are soliciting comments on
this proposed action. Final rulemaking
will occur after consideration of any
comments.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to include regulatory text in
an EPA final rule that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri
Regulations described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 7 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VI. 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, the
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:
4 Missouri
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
DNR staff also made a comment.
02JAP1
61
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide the 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 the 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).
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 19, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart-AA Missouri
2. In § 52.1230, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘10–6.300’’ to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
§ 52.1320
*
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
*
10–6.300 ........
*
*
Conformity of General Federal Actions to
State Implementation Plans.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2/28/2019
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–28332 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].
*
*
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
47 CFR Part 54
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
[WC Docket Nos. 18–143, 10–90 and 14–
58; Report No. 3138; FRS 16364]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Petition for Reconsideration.
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
A Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) has been filed in the
Commission’s proceeding listed below
by Geraldine Pitt, on behalf of Virgin
Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Viya.
SUMMARY:
Oppositions to the Petition must
be filed on or before January 17, 2020.
Replies to an opposition must be filed
on or before January 27, 2020.
DATES:
Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Minard, Telecommunications
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59-61]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28332]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0658; FRL-10003-16-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revisions to the General Conformity
Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted on February 15, 2019. The submission revises the State's
general conformity rule. Specifically, the proposed action revises the
rule to add definitions specific to the rule, remove references to a
rule that is being rescinded, remove the unnecessary use of restrictive
words and make other clarifying changes. The revision does not have an
adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule
revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0658 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed Wolkins, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-7588; email
address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0658, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Missouri's rule 10-
6.300 ``Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation
Plans.'' There are several proposed revisions to the rule. The proposed
revisions modify text that Missouri has determined make the rule more
understandable while retaining the intent of the rule. The following
changes to the rule have been made:
10-6.300(1) the title changed from ``General'' to
``Applicability'';
10-6.300(1)(B) insertion of ``de minimis'';
10-6.300(1)(C) change from ``shall'' to ``do'';
10-6.300(1)(C)2. and 2.V. insertion ``below the'' and ``levels
identified in subsection (1)(B) of this rule'';
10-6.300(1)(C)2.H. and I. change from ``required'' to
``necessary'';
10-6.300(1)(C)2.J. removal of ``Actions'';
10-6.300(1)(K) removal of ``shall'';
10-6.300(2) removal of existing incorporation by reference and
insertion of rule specific definitions (A) thru (JJ);
10-6.300(3)(A)1. change from ``shall'' to ``may'';
10-6.300(3)(E)3. change from ``may'' to ``will'';
10-6.300(3)(E)4. and (3)(F)1., 2., 3., and 4. change from
``required'' to ``conducted'';
[[Page 60]]
10-6.300(3)(F)2.A.(II) change form ``shall apply'' to ``applies'';
10-6.300(3)(I)2. change from ``shall'' to ``may'';
10-6.300(3)(J)2.B. change from ``must not'' to ``cannot'';
10-6.300(3)(J)3. change from ``they are not required'' to ``they
are under no obligation'';
10-6.300(3)(L)2.E. change from ``the time frame for the reductions
must be specified'' to ``have a specific time frame for the
reductions'';
10-6.300(3)(L)3. correction of the spelling of ``credits'';
10-6.300(3)(L)3.A. and B. change from ``as required in'' to
``under'';
10-6.300(4)(C) change from ``shall be'' to ``is''.
The full text of these changes can be found in the State's
submission which is in the docket for this action.
The EPA has analyzed these wording changes, specifically focusing
on the language changes that might alter the stringency or intent such
as using ``de minimus'' or changes from ``shall'' to ``may''. Although
the EPA takes no position regarding whether the altered text is clearer
to the reader, the EPA finds the full rule language does not alter the
intent of the rule. For example, 10-6.300(3)(A)1. now reads, ``No
department, agency, or instrumentality may engage in'' rather than
``shall engage in''. The EPA believes that the change from ``shall'' to
``may'' does not alter the intent of the language to prohibit an action
from occurring. Another example is the insertion of ``de minimus'',
which refers to a table being used to establish a threshold floor, or
de minimus level in this context. The EPA believes the use of de
minimus is appropriate in this context and that this language does not
alter the intent. Therefore, the EPA does not believe that these
specific examples and other language changes represent a relaxation of
the rule.
Then, Missouri revised its rule to incorporate general conformity
rule-specific definitions into the rule itself. These added rule
definitions come from 10-6.020 which is already approved into the SIP.
The EPA provided one specific comment during the public comment period
regarding the definition of precursors to fine particulate matter
(PM2.5).\1\ The EPA asked Missouri to update the State
general conformity rule to match updates to the Federal general
conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93. These updates include changes to the
applicability tables clarifying that volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and ammonia (NH3) are presumed precursors of
PM2.5. Missouri did not change the rule in response to this
comment. While Missouri did not update the rule to reflect changes to
the Federal general conformity rule, the EPA believes the SIP revision
is approvable. The changes to the Federal general conformity rule stem
from the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Court ruling that we erred when
not considering the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4
of part D of title I of the CAA.\2\ In response, on March 23, 2015, we
proposed the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (80 FR 15340, March
23, 2015). In that action, we defined PM2.5 precursors as
``sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).'' The
EPA finalized this rule on August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA also provided a general comment on several Missouri
rulemakings around the same time.
\2\ Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, Nos. 08-
1250, 09-1102, 11-1430 (D.C. Circuit 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-6.300(2)(DD)(3)(C) states VOC and NH3 are
PM2.5 precursors ``only in PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance areas where either the State or the EPA determines that
they are significant precursors.'' The EPA has now determined that VOC
and NH3 are PM2.5 precursors presumptively
subject to regulation, therefore any General Transportation Conformity
review in a PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area in
Missouri would need to consider VOC and NH3 as
PM2.5 precursors. This determination that VOC and
NH3 are precursors to PM2.5 subject to regulation
applies in any current and future PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance area in the State of Missouri until such time that Missouri
adequately demonstrates, and the EPA agrees, that these pollutants do
not need to be regulated in a particular plan despite the fact that
they are PM2.5 precursors.
Finally, at 10-6.300(1)A. and (E)1.E.(II), Missouri revised its
rule to remove a reference to 10-2.390, which has been rescinded. The
EPA approved rescission of this rule from the Missouri SIP in a
separate action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 84 FR 54035, October 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has evaluated the changes made by Missouri and is proposing
to approve these changes in the SIP. The EPA believes that these
changes will not have an adverse impact on air quality.
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for
SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from May 2, 2018 to
August 2, 2018 and received two public comments, both from the EPA.\4\
Missouri's response to our general comment is sufficient. As discussed
above, while Missouri did not update the rule for the definition of
precursors of PM2.5, the revision is still approvable. We
highly encourage Missouri to make such update in the future. The
revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Missouri DNR staff also made a comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's revisions to 10-6.300.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting
comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations described in the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
VI. 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, the 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:
[[Page 61]]
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, 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: December 19, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart-AA Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1230, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.300'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Missouri citation Title effective date 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.300................ Conformity of General 2/28/2019 [Date of publication
Federal Actions to of the final rule in
State Implementation the Federal
Plans. Register], [Federal
Register citation of
the final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-28332 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
