Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations, 45568-45571 [2020-15500]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45568
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
named in the agreement or direction
respectively within 5 business days after
the approval of the agreement or
issuance of the direction unless a longer
time is specified in the agreement or
direction. The list of names shall be
alphabetized (overall or by department)
and be in an electronic format approved
by the General Counsel unless the
employer certified that it does not
possess the capacity to produce the list
in the required form. When feasible, the
list shall be filed electronically with the
Regional Director and served
electronically on the other parties
named in the agreement or direction. A
certificate of service on all parties shall
be filed with the Regional Director when
the voter list is filed. The employer’s
failure to file or serve the list within the
specified time or in proper format shall
be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper and timely objections
are filed under the provisions of
§ 102.69(a)(8). The employer shall be
estopped from objecting to the failure to
file or serve the list within the specified
time or in the proper format if it is
responsible for the failure. The parties
shall not use the list for purposes other
than the representation proceeding,
Board proceedings arising from it, and
related matters.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 102.67(l) to read as
follows:
§ 102.67 Proceedings before the Regional
Director; further hearing; action by the
Regional Director; appeals from actions of
the Regional Director; statement in
opposition; requests for extraordinary
relief; Notice of Election; voter list.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Voter list. Absent extraordinary
circumstances specified in the direction
of election, the employer shall, within 5
business days after issuance of the
direction, provide to the Regional
Director and the parties named in such
direction a list of the full names, work
locations, shifts, job classifications, and
home addresses of all eligible voters.
The employer shall also include in
separate sections of that list the same
information for those individuals who
will be permitted to vote subject to
challenge. In order to be timely filed
and served, the list must be received by
the Regional Director and the parties
named in the direction respectively
within 5 business days after issuance of
the direction of election unless a longer
time is specified therein. The list of
names shall be alphabetized (overall or
by department) and be in an electronic
format approved by the General Counsel
unless the employer certifies that it does
not possess the capacity to produce the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
list in the required form. When feasible,
the list shall be filed electronically with
the Regional Director and served
electronically on the other parties
named in the direction. A certificate of
service on all parties shall be filed with
the Regional Director when the voter list
is filed. The employer’s failure to file or
serve the list within the specified time
or in proper format shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever
proper and timely objections are filed
under the provisions of § 102.69(a)(8).
The employer shall be estopped from
objecting to the failure to file or serve
the list within the specified time or in
the proper format if it is responsible for
the failure. The parties shall not use the
list for purposes other than the
representation proceeding, Board
proceedings arising from it, and related
matters.
■ 4. Revise § 102.69(a)(1), (2), and (7) to
read as follows:
§ 102.69 Election procedure; tally of
ballots; objections; certification by the
Regional Director; hearings; Hearing Officer
reports on objections and challenges;
exceptions to Hearing Officer reports;
Regional Director decisions on objections
and challenges.
(a) Election procedure; tally;
objections. (1) Unless otherwise directed
by the Board, all elections shall be
conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director in whose Region the
proceeding is pending.
(2) All elections shall be by secret
ballot. The Regional Director shall
provide absentee mail ballots for eligible
voters or individuals permitted to vote
subject to challenge who are on military
leave upon timely notice from any party
or person that such voters or individuals
will otherwise be unable to vote in the
election. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, such notification will be
timely if received by the Regional
Director within 5 business days of the
direction of election or approval of
election agreement, and if accompanied
by the mailing address at which the
person can be reached while on leave.
This paragraph (a)(2) does not in any
way modify the requirement that the
employer provide the voter list
information required in § 102.62(d) or
§ 102.67(l). A party that was aware of a
person on military leave but did not
timely notify the Regional Director shall
be estopped from objecting to the failure
to provide such person with an absentee
ballot. Absentee ballots must be
returned to and received at the regional
office within 30 calendar days from the
date they are mailed to the employees
by the Regional Director.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(7) Upon conclusion of the election
the ballots will be counted and a tally
of ballots prepared and immediately
made available to the parties. If the
Regional Director has provided absentee
ballots to employees on military leave,
the time for returning such ballots
remains open at the conclusion of the
election, and absentee ballots remain
outstanding, the tally of ballots shall
include the number of absentee ballots
that remain outstanding. If the
outstanding absentee ballots are
potentially dispositive, after the time for
returning absentee ballots has passed
the Regional Director shall determine
whether the number of outstanding
absentee ballots received since the
initial tally of ballots is dispositive; if
so, the Regional Director shall open and
count any absentee ballots received
since the election, and shall issue a
revised tally of ballots. If the number of
outstanding absentee ballots received
since the initial tally of ballots is not
dispositive, the initial tally of ballots
shall be deemed final.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 15, 2020.
Roxanne L. Rothschild,
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board.
[FR Doc. 2020–15596 Filed 7–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0356; FRL–10012–
14–Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal
of Control of Emissions From
Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Missouri on January 15, 2019, and
supplemented by letter on July 11, 2019.
Missouri requests that the EPA remove
a rule related to the control of emissions
from polyethylene bag sealing
operations in the St. Louis, Missouri
area from its SIP. This removal does not
have an adverse effect on air quality.
The EPA’s proposed approval of this
rule revision is in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Comments must be received on
or before August 28, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2020–0356 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:
David Peter, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting
and Standards Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number: (913) 551–7397;
email address: peter.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
DATES:
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Background
IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s
SIP revision request?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020–
0356 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 the
removal of 10 Code of State Regulations
(CSR) 10–5.360, Control of Emissions
from Polyethylene Bag Sealing
Operations, from the Missouri SIP.
According to the July 11, 2019 letter
from the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, available in the
docket for this proposed action,
Missouri rescinded the rule because, of
the only two facilities that were initially
subject to the rule, neither facility is
currently subject to the rule. One facility
shutdown and the other facility no
longer meets the applicability of the
rule, specifically the facility no longer
has a potential-to-emit (PTE) of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) greater than
100 tons per year (tpy). Therefore, the
rule is no longer necessary for
attainment and maintenance of the
1979, 1997, 2008, or 2015 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for Ozone.
III. Background
The EPA established a 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April 30,
1971). On March 3, 1978, the entire St.
Louis Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR) (070) was identified as being in
nonattainment of the 1971 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, as required by the CAA
Amendments of 1977. 43 FR 8962
(March 3, 1978). On the Missouri side,
the St. Louis nonattainment area
included the city of St. Louis and
Jefferson, St. Charles, Franklin and St.
Louis Counties (hereinafter referred to
in this document as the ‘‘St. Louis
Area’’). On February 8, 1979, the EPA
revised the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
referred to as the 1979 ozone NAAQS.
44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On May
26, 1988, the EPA notified Missouri that
the SIP was substantially inadequate
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘SIP
Call’’) to attain the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in the St. Louis Area. See 54 FR
43183 (October 23, 1989). To address
the inadequacies identified in the SIP
Call, Missouri submitted VOC control
regulations on June 14, 1985; November
19, 1986; and March 30, 1989. The EPA
subsequently approved the revised
control regulations for the St. Louis
Area on March 5, 1990. The VOC
control regulations approved by EPA
into the SIP included reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
rules as required by CAA section
172(b)(2), including 10 CSR 10–5.360
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45569
Control of Emissions from Polyethylene
Bag Sealing Operations.
The EPA redesignated the St. Louis
Area to attainment of the 1979 1-hour
ozone standard on May 12, 2003. 68 FR
25418. Pursuant to section 175A of the
CAA, the first 10-year maintenance
period for the 1-hour ozone standard
began on May 12, 2003, the effective
date of the redesignation approval. On
April 30, 2004, the EPA published a
final rule in the Federal Register stating
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would no
longer apply (i.e., would be revoked) for
an area one year after the effective date
of the area’s designation for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004). The effective date of the
revocation of the 1979 1-hour ozone
standard for the St. Louis Area was June
15, 2005. See 70 FR 44470 (August 3,
2005).
As noted above, 10 CSR 10–5.360,
Control of Emissions from Polyethylene
Bag Sealing Operations, was approved
into the Missouri SIP as a RACT rule on
March 5, 1990.1 55 FR 7712 (March 5,
1990). At the time the rule was
approved into the SIP, 10 CSR 10–5.360
applied to all installations throughout
St. Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles,
Franklin and St. Louis Counties that
utilized polyethylene bag sealing
operations.
By letter dated January 15, 2019,
Missouri requested that the EPA remove
10 CSR 10–5.360 from the SIP. Section
110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from
approving a SIP revision that interferes
with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. The
State supplemented its SIP revision
with a July 11, 2019 letter in order to
address the requirements of section
110(l) of the CAA.
IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of
Missouri’s SIP revision request?
In its July 11, 2019 letter, Missouri
states that it intended its RACT rules,
such as 10 CSR 10–5.360, to solely
apply to existing sources in accordance
with section 172(c)(1) of the CAA.2
Missouri states that although the
applicability section of 10 CSR 10–5.360
specifies that the rule applies to all
installations located throughout St.
1 10 CSR 10–5.360 was initially approved into
Missouri’s SIP on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40164)
but was ultimately revised as part of the updated
control strategy and this revision was approved on
March 5, 1990.
2 The EPA agrees with Missouri’s interpretation of
CAA section 172(c)(1) in regard to whether RACT
is required for existing sources, but also notes that
the State regulation establishing RACT may apply
to new sources as well, dependent upon the State
regulation’s language.
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
45570
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles,
Franklin and St. Louis Counties, the
only two facilities that met the
applicability criteria of the rule were
Bemis Bag Company and Crown
Zellerbach (Gaylord Container) which is
currently being operated as
International Paper St. Louis
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Bemis’’ and
‘‘International Paper’’, respectively).
Missouri, in its July 11, 2019 letter,
indicated that Bemis is no longer in
operation. The EPA confirmed that
Bemis is no longer in operation 3 and is
therefore no longer subject to 10 CSR
10–5.360. Missouri further indicated in
the July 11, 2019 letter that International
Paper was not operating under a Part
70/Title V Operating Permit.4 Facilities
with a PTE greater than or equal to 100
tpy are required to obtain a Part 70/Title
V Operating Permit.5 To be subject to 10
CSR 10–5.360, the facility must also
have a PTE greater than or equal 100
tpy. Since the PTE from International
Paper does not exceed 100 tpy, the
facility is no longer subject to 10 CSR
10–5.360.6
As stated above, Missouri contends
that 10 CSR 10–5.360 may be removed
from the SIP because section 172(c)(1) of
the CAA requires RACT for existing
sources, and because 10 CSR 10–5.360
was applicable to only two sources 7
that are no longer subject to the rule
and, therefore, the rule no longer
reduces VOC emissions. Because these
two facilities are no longer subject to the
rule, the EPA believes the rule no longer
provides an emission reduction benefit
to the St. Louis Area and is proposing
to remove it from the SIP.
3 The EPA reviewed MDNR’s website that lists
active, issued permits to facilities in Missouri and
did not observe a permit for Bemis. Further, the
EPA reviewed EPA’s ICIS-Air database which
indicated that the facility was no longer in
operation.
4 Missouri confirmed the operating permit status
in an email from Shelly Reimer of MDNR to David
Peter of EPA Region 7 dated June 12, 2020, which
is included in the rulemaking docket. Missouri
further indicated in this email that the highest
annual emissions from the facility from 2003 to
2019 was approximately 3 tons. The EPA reviewed
MDNR’s website that lists active, issued permits
and did not observe a permit for the International
Paper.
5 10 CSR 10–6.065(2)(R).
6 In Missouri’s June 12, 2020 email, Missouri
further indicated that the construction permits
issued to the facility showed no indication of
polyethylene bag sealing operations. International
Paper would be required to obtain the appropriate
construction permits before starting up any new
polyethylene bag sealing operations.
7 The EPA indicated in the February 3, 1983
Federal Register document (48 FR 5022), which
proposed to approve 10 CSR 10–5.360 into
Missouri’s SIP, that two facilities were subject to
this rule but did not specifically name the two
facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
Missouri’s July 11, 2019 letter states
that any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources are
subject to new source review (NSR)
permitting. Under NSR, a new major
source or major modification of an
existing source with a PTE of 250 tpy 8
or more of any NAAQS pollutant is
required to obtain a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
when the area is in attainment or
unclassifiable, which requires an
analysis of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in addition to an air
quality analysis and an additional
impacts analysis. Sources with a PTE
greater than 100 tpy, but less than 250
tpy,9 are required to obtain a minor
permit in accordance with Missouri’s
New Source Review permitting
program, which is approved into the
SIP.10 Further, a new major source or
major modification of an existing source
with a PTE of 100 tpy or more of any
NAAQS pollutant is required to obtain
a nonattainment (NA) NSR permit when
the area is in nonattainment, which
requires an analysis of Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) in
addition to an air quality analysis, an
additional impacts analysis and
emission offsets. The EPA agrees with
this analysis.
Missouri has demonstrated that
removal of 10 CSR 10–5.360 will not
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS,
RFP 11 or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA because the two
sources ever subject to the rule are no
longer subject and the removal of the
rule will not cause VOC emissions to
increase. Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve the removal of 10 CSR 10–5.360
from the SIP.
V. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The State 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
8 The PSD major source threshold for certain
sources is 100 tpy rather than 250 tpy (see 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and 10 C.S.R. 10–6.060(8)(A)).
9 Except for those sources with a PSD major
source threshold of 100 tpy.
10 EPA’s latest approval of Missouri’s NSR
permitting program rule was published in the
Federal Register on October 11, 2016. 81 FR 70025.
11 RFP is not applicable to the St. Louis Area
because for marginal ozone nonattainment areas,
such as the St. Louis Area, the specific
requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the
attainment planning requirements that would
otherwise apply under section 172(c), including the
attainment demonstration and reasonably available
control measures (RACM) under section 172(c)(1),
reasonable further progress (RFP) under section
172(c)(2), and contingency measures under section
172(c)(9).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51, appendix V. The State provided
public notice on this SIP revision from
May 15, 2018, to August 2, 2018, and
received eleven comments from the EPA
that related to Missouri’s lack of an
adequate demonstration that the rule
could be removed from the SIP in
accordance with section 110(l) of the
CAA, whether the rule applied to new
sources and other implications related
to rescinding the rule. Missouri’s July
11, 2019 letter and December 3, 2018
response to comments on the state
rescission rulemaking addressed the
EPA’s comments. In addition, the
revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing
regulations.
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve
Missouri’s request to rescind 10 CSR
10–5.360 from the SIP because the rule
applied to two facilities that are no
longer subject and because the rule is
not applicable to any other source.
Therefore, the rule no longer serves to
reduce emissions in the St. Louis Area.
Furthermore, any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources in the
St. Louis Area are subject to NSR
permitting.12 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.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. As
described in the proposed amendments
to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the
EPA is proposing to remove provisions
of the EPA-Approved Missouri
Regulation from the Missouri State
Implementation Plan, which is
incorporated by reference in accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
12 ‘‘NSR Permitting’’ includes PSD permitting in
areas designated attainment and unclassifiable, NA
NSR in areas designated nonattainment and minor
source permitting.
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
Dated: July 13, 2020.
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
§ 52.1320
[Amended]
2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by removing the entry
‘‘10–5.360’’ under the heading ‘‘Chapter
5-Air Quality Standards and Air
Pollution Control Regulations for the St.
Louis Metropolitan Area’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2020–15500 Filed 7–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
RIN 0648–BJ18
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States;
Amendment 21 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of
proposed fishery management plan
amendment; request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council has submitted
Amendment 21 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan to NMFS.
Amendment 21 proposes revisions to
the summer flounder commercial state
quota allocation percentages and the
fishery management plan goals and
objectives. Amendment 21 is intended
to increase equity in state allocations
when annual coastwide commercial
quotas are at or above historical
averages, while recognizing the
economic reliance coastal communities
have on the state allocation percentages
currently in place.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45571
Public comments must be
received on or before September 28,
2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2020–0107, by the following
method:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20200107;
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon
and complete the required fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by us. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of Amendment 21, including
the Environmental Impact Statement,
the Regulatory Impact Review, and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of
this action are available from Dr.
Christopher M. Moore, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Suite 201, 800
North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
The supporting documents are also
accessible via the internet at: https://
www.mafmc.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9116, or email: Emily.Keiley@
noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
The summer flounder fishery is
managed cooperatively under the
provisions of the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) developed by
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, in consultation
with the New England Fishery
Management Council. The management
unit specified in the FMP includes
summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic
Ocean from the southern border of
North Carolina northward to the U.S./
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45568-45571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15500]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0356; FRL-10012-14-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From
Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Missouri on January 15, 2019, and supplemented by letter on
July 11, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA remove a rule related to
the control of emissions from polyethylene bag sealing operations in
the St. Louis, Missouri area from its SIP. This removal does not have
an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this
rule revision is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
[[Page 45569]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0356 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: David Peter, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Standards Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7397; 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. Background
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0356 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 the removal of 10 Code of State
Regulations (CSR) 10-5.360, Control of Emissions from Polyethylene Bag
Sealing Operations, from the Missouri SIP.
According to the July 11, 2019 letter from the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources, available in the docket for this proposed action,
Missouri rescinded the rule because, of the only two facilities that
were initially subject to the rule, neither facility is currently
subject to the rule. One facility shutdown and the other facility no
longer meets the applicability of the rule, specifically the facility
no longer has a potential-to-emit (PTE) of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) greater than 100 tons per year (tpy). Therefore, the rule is no
longer necessary for attainment and maintenance of the 1979, 1997,
2008, or 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone.
III. Background
The EPA established a 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April
30, 1971). On March 3, 1978, the entire St. Louis Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR) (070) was identified as being in nonattainment of the
1971 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as required by the CAA Amendments of 1977. 43
FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). On the Missouri side, the St. Louis
nonattainment area included the city of St. Louis and Jefferson, St.
Charles, Franklin and St. Louis Counties (hereinafter referred to in
this document as the ``St. Louis Area''). On February 8, 1979, the EPA
revised the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1979 ozone NAAQS. 44
FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On May 26, 1988, the EPA notified Missouri
that the SIP was substantially inadequate (hereinafter referred to as
the ``SIP Call'') to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the St. Louis
Area. See 54 FR 43183 (October 23, 1989). To address the inadequacies
identified in the SIP Call, Missouri submitted VOC control regulations
on June 14, 1985; November 19, 1986; and March 30, 1989. The EPA
subsequently approved the revised control regulations for the St. Louis
Area on March 5, 1990. The VOC control regulations approved by EPA into
the SIP included reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules
as required by CAA section 172(b)(2), including 10 CSR 10-5.360 Control
of Emissions from Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations.
The EPA redesignated the St. Louis Area to attainment of the 1979
1-hour ozone standard on May 12, 2003. 68 FR 25418. Pursuant to section
175A of the CAA, the first 10-year maintenance period for the 1-hour
ozone standard began on May 12, 2003, the effective date of the
redesignation approval. On April 30, 2004, the EPA published a final
rule in the Federal Register stating the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would no
longer apply (i.e., would be revoked) for an area one year after the
effective date of the area's designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 69
FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). The effective date of the revocation of the
1979 1-hour ozone standard for the St. Louis Area was June 15, 2005.
See 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
As noted above, 10 CSR 10-5.360, Control of Emissions from
Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations, was approved into the Missouri SIP
as a RACT rule on March 5, 1990.\1\ 55 FR 7712 (March 5, 1990). At the
time the rule was approved into the SIP, 10 CSR 10-5.360 applied to all
installations throughout St. Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles,
Franklin and St. Louis Counties that utilized polyethylene bag sealing
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 10 CSR 10-5.360 was initially approved into Missouri's SIP
on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40164) but was ultimately revised as part
of the updated control strategy and this revision was approved on
March 5, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated January 15, 2019, Missouri requested that the EPA
remove 10 CSR 10-5.360 from the SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA
prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that interferes with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The
State supplemented its SIP revision with a July 11, 2019 letter in
order to address the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?
In its July 11, 2019 letter, Missouri states that it intended its
RACT rules, such as 10 CSR 10-5.360, to solely apply to existing
sources in accordance with section 172(c)(1) of the CAA.\2\ Missouri
states that although the applicability section of 10 CSR 10-5.360
specifies that the rule applies to all installations located throughout
St.
[[Page 45570]]
Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles, Franklin and St. Louis Counties,
the only two facilities that met the applicability criteria of the rule
were Bemis Bag Company and Crown Zellerbach (Gaylord Container) which
is currently being operated as International Paper St. Louis
(hereinafter referred to as ``Bemis'' and ``International Paper'',
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The EPA agrees with Missouri's interpretation of CAA section
172(c)(1) in regard to whether RACT is required for existing
sources, but also notes that the State regulation establishing RACT
may apply to new sources as well, dependent upon the State
regulation's language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri, in its July 11, 2019 letter, indicated that Bemis is no
longer in operation. The EPA confirmed that Bemis is no longer in
operation \3\ and is therefore no longer subject to 10 CSR 10-5.360.
Missouri further indicated in the July 11, 2019 letter that
International Paper was not operating under a Part 70/Title V Operating
Permit.\4\ Facilities with a PTE greater than or equal to 100 tpy are
required to obtain a Part 70/Title V Operating Permit.\5\ To be subject
to 10 CSR 10-5.360, the facility must also have a PTE greater than or
equal 100 tpy. Since the PTE from International Paper does not exceed
100 tpy, the facility is no longer subject to 10 CSR 10-5.360.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EPA reviewed MDNR's website that lists active, issued
permits to facilities in Missouri and did not observe a permit for
Bemis. Further, the EPA reviewed EPA's ICIS-Air database which
indicated that the facility was no longer in operation.
\4\ Missouri confirmed the operating permit status in an email
from Shelly Reimer of MDNR to David Peter of EPA Region 7 dated June
12, 2020, which is included in the rulemaking docket. Missouri
further indicated in this email that the highest annual emissions
from the facility from 2003 to 2019 was approximately 3 tons. The
EPA reviewed MDNR's website that lists active, issued permits and
did not observe a permit for the International Paper.
\5\ 10 CSR 10-6.065(2)(R).
\6\ In Missouri's June 12, 2020 email, Missouri further
indicated that the construction permits issued to the facility
showed no indication of polyethylene bag sealing operations.
International Paper would be required to obtain the appropriate
construction permits before starting up any new polyethylene bag
sealing operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, Missouri contends that 10 CSR 10-5.360 may be
removed from the SIP because section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires RACT
for existing sources, and because 10 CSR 10-5.360 was applicable to
only two sources \7\ that are no longer subject to the rule and,
therefore, the rule no longer reduces VOC emissions. Because these two
facilities are no longer subject to the rule, the EPA believes the rule
no longer provides an emission reduction benefit to the St. Louis Area
and is proposing to remove it from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The EPA indicated in the February 3, 1983 Federal Register
document (48 FR 5022), which proposed to approve 10 CSR 10-5.360
into Missouri's SIP, that two facilities were subject to this rule
but did not specifically name the two facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri's July 11, 2019 letter states that any new sources or
major modifications of existing sources are subject to new source
review (NSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new major source or major
modification of an existing source with a PTE of 250 tpy \8\ or more of
any NAAQS pollutant is required to obtain a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit when the area is in attainment or
unclassifiable, which requires an analysis of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in addition to an air quality analysis and an
additional impacts analysis. Sources with a PTE greater than 100 tpy,
but less than 250 tpy,\9\ are required to obtain a minor permit in
accordance with Missouri's New Source Review permitting program, which
is approved into the SIP.\10\ Further, a new major source or major
modification of an existing source with a PTE of 100 tpy or more of any
NAAQS pollutant is required to obtain a nonattainment (NA) NSR permit
when the area is in nonattainment, which requires an analysis of Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) in addition to an air quality analysis,
an additional impacts analysis and emission offsets. The EPA agrees
with this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The PSD major source threshold for certain sources is 100
tpy rather than 250 tpy (see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and 10 C.S.R.
10-6.060(8)(A)).
\9\ Except for those sources with a PSD major source threshold
of 100 tpy.
\10\ EPA's latest approval of Missouri's NSR permitting program
rule was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2016. 81
FR 70025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri has demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 10-5.360 will not
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP \11\ or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA because the two sources ever subject
to the rule are no longer subject and the removal of the rule will not
cause VOC emissions to increase. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve
the removal of 10 CSR 10-5.360 from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ RFP is not applicable to the St. Louis Area because for
marginal ozone nonattainment areas, such as the St. Louis Area, the
specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the
attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply under
section 172(c), including the attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measures (RACM) under section
172(c)(1), reasonable further progress (RFP) under section
172(c)(2), and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The State 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 15, 2018, to
August 2, 2018, and received eleven comments from the EPA that related
to Missouri's lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule could be
removed from the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA,
whether the rule applied to new sources and other implications related
to rescinding the rule. Missouri's July 11, 2019 letter and December 3,
2018 response to comments on the state rescission rulemaking addressed
the EPA's comments. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to rescind 10
CSR 10-5.360 from the SIP because the rule applied to two facilities
that are no longer subject and because the rule is not applicable to
any other source. Therefore, the rule no longer serves to reduce
emissions in the St. Louis Area. Furthermore, any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources in the St. Louis Area are subject to
NSR permitting.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``NSR Permitting'' includes PSD permitting in areas
designated attainment and unclassifiable, NA NSR in areas designated
nonattainment and minor source permitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is proposing to
remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulation from the
Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond
[[Page 45571]]
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 13, 2020.
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
Sec. 52.1320 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry ``10-5.360'' under the heading ``Chapter 5-Air Quality
Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis
Metropolitan Area''.
[FR Doc. 2020-15500 Filed 7-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
