Air Plan Approval; MO; Restriction of Visible Air Contaminant Emissions, 55739-55743 [2022-19622]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules
The FAA estimates that it would take
64 work-hours (at $85 per work-hour) to
replace an engine, if required based on
the results of any required actions. The
FAA has received no definitive data on
which to base the estimate for the cost
of a replacement engine or any
necessary additional on-condition
actions that would be required by this
proposed AD. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that
might need these on-condition actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
44701: General requirements. Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA
with promoting safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce.
This regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it addresses an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate
aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive:
■
Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA–2022–1155;
Project Identifier MCAI–2022–00655–T.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
airworthiness directive (AD) by October 27,
2022.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model
A321–251N, A321–251NX, A321–252N,
A321–252NX, A321–253N, and A321–253NX
airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 71, Powerplant.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by a stress analysis
on the engine structure that indicated that
the fail-safe lug may not be able to sustain,
during one inspection interval, as currently
specified in airworthiness limitation item
(ALI) task 712232–01–1, the loads deriving
from the engagement of the secondary load
path within that inspection interval for the
aft engine mount system. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address potential failure of the
LEAP–1A aft engine mount waiting fail-safe
male lug, which could lead to engine mount
rupture, possibly resulting in engine loss
during flight and loss of control of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Requirements
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this
AD: Comply with all required actions and
compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022–0089, dated
May 17, 2022 (EASA AD 2022–0089).
(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022–0089
(1) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022–
0089 specifies corrective action if
‘‘discrepancies are detected, as defined in the
SB,’’ for purposes of this AD, discrepancies
include a fail safe pin that does not rotate
freely, or has damage (dents, scratches, nicks,
corrosion, or cracks).
(2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD
2022–0089 does not apply to this AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55739
(i) Additional AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible
Flight Standards Office.
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain instructions
from a manufacturer, the instructions must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
(j) Related Information
(1) For EASA AD 2022–0089, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet
easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD
on the EASA website atad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
206–231–3195. This material may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–
2022–1155.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax 206–231–3225; email dan.rodina@
faa.gov.
Issued on September 2, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–19442 Filed 9–9–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0746; FRL–10184–
01–R7]
Air Plan Approval; MO; Restriction of
Visible Air Contaminant Emissions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
55740
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) received on
November 29, 2016, and March 7, 2019.
The revision was submitted by Missouri
in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy and SIP call published on
June 12, 2015, for a provision in the
Missouri SIP related to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) events. In the
submissions, Missouri requests to revise
a regulation related to restriction of
emissions of visible air contaminants.
The revisions to the rule include:
removing a statement from the
compliance and performance testing
provisions that does not meet Clean Air
Act requirements, adding exemptions
for emission units regulated by stricter
federal and state regulations or that do
not have the capability of exceeding the
emission limits of the rule, adding an
alternative test method and making
other administrative changes. Approval
of these revisions will ensure
consistency between state and federally
approved rules.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 12, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2022–0746 to
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
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:
Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality
Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number: (913) 551–7629;
email address: keas.ashley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. Background
III. What is being addressed in this
document?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
V. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2022–
0746, at 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
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
II. Background
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued
a Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking outlining EPA’s policy at
the time with respect to SIP provisions
related to periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction (SSM). EPA analyzed
specific SSM SIP provisions and
explained how each one either did or
did not comply with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to excess emission
events.1 For each SIP provision that
EPA determined to be inconsistent with
the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the
existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements
and thus proposed to issue a SIP call
under CAA section 110(k)(5).
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State
Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls
To Amend Provisions Applying to
Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’
(80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter
1 State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460
(Feb. 22, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP
Action.’’ The 2015 SSM SIP Action
clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s
interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are
inconsistent with CAA requirements.
The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that
certain SIP provisions in 36 states were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and issued a SIP call to
those states to submit SIP revisions to
address the inadequacies. The 2015
SSM SIP Action identified specific
provisions of this Missouri rule, 10
Code of State Regulation (CSR) 10–
6.220, Restriction of Emissions of
Visible Air Contaminants as being
substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements. EPA established an 18month deadline by which the affected
states had to submit such SIP revisions.
States were required to submit
corrective revisions to their SIPs in
response to the SIP calls by November
22, 2016.
EPA issued a Memorandum in
October 2020 (2020 Memorandum),
which stated that certain provisions
governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA
requirements.2 Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ‘‘did not
alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that
identified specific state SIP provisions
that were substantially inadequate to
meet the requirements of the Act.’’
Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum
had no direct impact on the SIP call
issued to Missouri in 2015. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate
EPA’s intent at the time to review SIP
calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action to determine whether EPA
should maintain, modify, or withdraw
particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
On September 30, 2021, EPA’s Deputy
Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA’s
return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021
Memorandum).3 As articulated in the
2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that
contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent
with CAA requirements and, therefore,
generally are not approvable if
contained in a SIP submission. This
2 October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of
Provisions Governing Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
3 September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal
of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans and Implementation of the
Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy
Administrator.
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules
policy approach is intended to ensure
that all communities and populations,
including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and
environmental protections provided by
the CAA.4 The 2021 Memorandum also
retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans to
review and potentially modify or
withdraw particular SIP calls. That
statement no longer reflects EPA’s
intent. EPA intends to implement the
principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action as the agency takes action on SIP
submissions, including this SIP
submittal provided in response to the
2015 SIP call.
With regard to the Missouri SIP, in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that a provision of 10 Code
of State Regulations (CSR) 10–6.220
Restriction of Emissions of Visible Air
Contaminants was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements
(80 FR 33840, 33969). Specifically, 10–
6.220(3)(c) provided: ‘‘Visible emissions
over the limitations shown in
subsection (3)(B) of this rule are in
violation of this rule unless the director
determines that the excess emissions do
not warrant enforcement action based
on data submitted under 10 CSR 10–
6.050 Start-Up, Shutdown and
Malfunction Conditions.’’ The rationale
underlying EPA’s determination that the
provision was substantially inadequate
to meet CAA requirements, and
therefore to issue a SIP call to Missouri
to remedy the provision, is fully
detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action
and the accompanying proposals.
Specifically, EPA agreed with
petitioners on the basis that this
provision could be read to allow for
exemptions from the otherwise
applicable SIP emission limitations
through a state official’s unilateral
exercise of discretionary authority that
is insufficiently bounded and includes
no additional public process at the state
or federal level. In summary, EPA
agreed with petitioners that this
provision would allow the state director
to circumvent EPA authority and/or
citizen suit authority to enforce the
emissions limitations, which is
inconsistent with the CAA and EPA’s
policy outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action.
Missouri submitted a SIP revision on
November 29, 2016, in response to the
SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. In its submission, Missouri
requests that EPA revise the Missouri
SIP by removing the provision 10–
6.220(3)(c) from the SIP, thereby
correcting the deficiency identified in
4 80
FR 33985.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
addressing the SIP Call for Missouri.
III. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to approve
Missouri’s revisions to 10 CSR 10–
6.220, Restriction of Emissions of
Visible Air Contaminants, in the
Missouri SIP. The EPA received two SIP
revision submissions related to this state
rule from the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MoDNR) on
November 29, 2016, and March 7, 2019.
The full text of these changes as well as
EPA’s analysis of the changes can be
found in the technical support
document (TSD), which is included in
the docket for this action.
In its November 29, 2016, submission,
MoDNR requested to remove the
provision that was identified by EPA as
being substantially inadequate to meet
CAA requirements in EPA’s 2015 SSM
SIP Action. EPA is proposing to
determine that removal of this provision
is consistent with EPA’s policy outlined
in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
sufficiently addresses the deficiencies
identified by the 2015 SSM SIP Call.
In addition to the removal of the
identified SSM deficiency, MoDNR, in
both the 2016 and 2019 submissions,
also requested revisions related to
opacity monitoring requirements and
exemptions from the opacity limits and
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of 10 CSR 10–6.220 for
certain source types. Specifically,
MoDNR exempted specific, limited,
emission units regulated by stricter
federal and state regulations. MoDNR
also provided an exemption for certain
emission units that do not have the
capability of exceeding the emission
limits of the rule. One example of an
added exemption is for units regulated
under 40 CFR 63 subpart UUUUU—
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, that
demonstrate compliance with a
particulate matter continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) as the limits
in this federal rule are more stringent
than the opacity limits contained in the
state rule. The newly added exemptions
for sources that already comply with
more stringent state or federal
requirements will remove the
duplicative monitoring and reporting
requirements associated with the less
stringent requirements of the state
opacity rule.
Missouri provided a demonstration
pursuant to CAA section 110(l) to
ensure the rule revisions, including the
added exemptions, do not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55741
requirement of the Act. EPA reviewed
MoDNR’s section 110(l) demonstration
which explains the sources that will be
newly exempt from the opacity limits of
this state rule remain subject to more
stringent federal or state regulations that
apply on a continuous basis. For this
reason, the emissions change associated
with the rule revisions is expected to be
relatively small if any. Additionally, the
opacity limits contained in this rule,
and more specifically for the units being
exempted from the limits of this state
rule, are not relied upon for attainment
or maintenance purposes.
Opacity is often used as an indicator
of the degree of particulate matter
emissions. All PM2.5 monitors in the
state are measuring compliance with the
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards and
all counties in Missouri are designated
as unclassifiable/attainment for both the
2012 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Further, the sources are not
exempt from all opacity requirements
and, in fact, are subject to the more
stringent requirements found in the
applicable federal rules. The expected
change in emissions associated with
these rule revisions is relatively small if
any and therefore would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Further, EPA is proposing to approve
removal of the prior deficient exemption
for excess emissions during periods of
SSM from this rule. EPA believes that
any emission limit or requirement relied
upon as being more stringent to exempt
a source from this rule must apply
continuously, that is without any
exemptions for periods of SSM, to be
more stringent than the limits contained
in this rule.
MoDNR also provided information to
support the exemption for emission
units burning certain fuels that are not
capable of exceeding the opacity limits
contained in the rule by estimating
maximum emissions based on EPA
emissions factors for each fuel type.
EPA reviewed MoDNR’s demonstration
and proposes to agree that this added
exemption would result in a relatively
small emissions change if any and
therefore would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Based on EPA’s review of Missouri’s
section 110(l) demonstration and our
analysis of these changes as fully
described in the TSD in the docket for
this proposed rule, the expected change
in emissions associated with these rule
revisions is relatively small if any and
therefore EPA proposes to find the
revisions will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
55742
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules
NAAQS or other CAA requirements
consistent with CAA Section 110(l).
MoDNR also added an alternative test
method and made other administrative
wording changes such as adding rule
specific definitions. EPA proposes to
find these edits do not adversely impact
the stringency of the SIP and are
consistent with CAA requirements.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
these revisions as further detailed in the
TSD.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IV. 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 the November 29, 2016,
SIP revision from June 1, 2016, to
August 4, 2016, and held a public
hearing on July 28, 2016. During the
public comment period, the State
received seven comments from five
sources, consisting primarily of
supportive or clarifying comments from
industry groups. The State addresses the
comments in its submittal included in
the docket for this proposal. The State
provided public notice on the March 7,
2019, SIP revision from August 1, 2018,
to October 4, 2018, and held a public
hearing on September 27, 2018. During
the public comment period, the State
received nine comments, seven of
which were from EPA. The State
addresses the comments in its submittal.
Further discussion of the state responses
to comments received is included in the
TSD and the state submittal documents
in the docket. In addition, as explained
above and in the TSD, the revision
meets the substantive SIP requirements
of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
V. What action is the EPA proposing to
take?
The EPA proposes to approve the
revisions to 10 CSR 10–6.220 as
requested by Missouri in submissions
dated November 29, 2016 and March 7,
2019. We are soliciting comments on
this proposed action. We are soliciting
comments solely on the proposed
revisions to the rule and not on the
existing text that is approved into
Missouri’s SIP. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any
comments.
VI. Environmental Justice
Considerations
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The state did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. While EPA did not perform
an area-specific EJ analysis for purposes
of this action, due to the nature of the
action being taken here, i.e. to remove
an exemption for excess emissions
during periods of SSM and add
exemptions for sources subject to
equivalent or more stringent limits, as
explained in this preamble and the
technical support document in this
docket, this action is expected to have
a neutral to positive impact on air
quality. Because consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, there
is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O
12898 of achieving environmental
justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
This action approves revisions to a
Missouri state rule concerning visible
emissions. As explained in the preamble
and technical support document, the
emissions change associated with the
revisions requested by Missouri is
expected to be small if any. Therefore,
we expect that this action will not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable
further progress, or other CAA
requirements. For these reasons, this
action is not expected to have a
disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects
on a particular group of people.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to include regulatory text in
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 discussed in Section III of
this preamble and as set forth below in
the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 52. 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).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act (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:
• 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);
• 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
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
55743
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• This action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples,
as specified in Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
basis for this determination is contained
in Section VI of this action,
‘‘Environmental Justice Concerns.’’
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
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
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.
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
‘‘10–6.220’’ to read as follows:
■
Dated: September 6, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
§ 52.1320
*
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
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
*
*
*
10–6.220 ................................. Restriction of Emission of
Visible Air Contaminants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3/30/2019
*
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal
Register], [Federal Register citation of the final
rule].
*
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2022–19622 Filed 9–9–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PHMSA, in coordination with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
proposes to amend the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to maintain
alignment with international regulations
and standards governing the
transportation of Class 7 radioactive
materials. Specifically, PHMSA
proposes to adopt changes contained in
the International Atomic Energy Agency
standards. Additionally, PHMSA
proposes regulatory amendments
identified through internal regulatory
review processes to update, clarify,
correct, or streamline certain regulatory
requirements applicable to the
transportation of Class 7 (radioactive)
materials.
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,
176, and 177
[Docket No. PHMSA–2018–0081 (HM–250A)]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
RIN 2137–AF42
Hazardous Materials: Compatibility
With the Regulations of the
International Atomic Energy Agency
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
Comments must be received by
December 12, 2022. To the extent
possible, PHMSA will consider late-
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
Subsection (1)(I) referring to
the open burning rule, 10
CSR 10–6.045, is not SIP
approved.
*
filed comments as a final rule is
developed.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System.
• U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590–0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Include the agency name
and docket number PHMSA–2018–0081
(HM–250A) or RIN 2137–AF42 for this
rulemaking at the beginning of your
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55739-55743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19622]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0746; FRL-10184-01-R7]
Air Plan Approval; MO; Restriction of Visible Air Contaminant
Emissions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 55740]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP)
received on November 29, 2016, and March 7, 2019. The revision was
submitted by Missouri in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy and SIP call published on June 12, 2015, for a provision in
the Missouri SIP related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) events. In the submissions, Missouri requests to
revise a regulation related to restriction of emissions of visible air
contaminants. The revisions to the rule include: removing a statement
from the compliance and performance testing provisions that does not
meet Clean Air Act requirements, adding exemptions for emission units
regulated by stricter federal and state regulations or that do not have
the capability of exceeding the emission limits of the rule, adding an
alternative test method and making other administrative changes.
Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between state and
federally approved rules.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2022-0746 to 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 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: Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7629;
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. Background
III. What is being addressed in this document?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
V. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0746, at 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
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
II. Background
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction
(SSM). EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each
one either did or did not comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA) with
regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP provision that EPA
determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that
the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section
110(k)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. The 2015 SSM SIP Action identified specific
provisions of this Missouri rule, 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR) 10-
6.220, Restriction of Emissions of Visible Air Contaminants as being
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. EPA established an
18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP
revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their
SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Missouri in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This
[[Page 55741]]
policy approach is intended to ensure that all communities and
populations, including overburdened communities, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\4\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular
SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends
to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the
agency takes action on SIP submissions, including this SIP submittal
provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\4\ 80 FR 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Missouri SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that a provision of 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-
6.220 Restriction of Emissions of Visible Air Contaminants was
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements (80 FR 33840, 33969).
Specifically, 10-6.220(3)(c) provided: ``Visible emissions over the
limitations shown in subsection (3)(B) of this rule are in violation of
this rule unless the director determines that the excess emissions do
not warrant enforcement action based on data submitted under 10 CSR 10-
6.050 Start-Up, Shutdown and Malfunction Conditions.'' The rationale
underlying EPA's determination that the provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and therefore to issue a SIP call
to Missouri to remedy the provision, is fully detailed in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action and the accompanying proposals. Specifically, EPA agreed
with petitioners on the basis that this provision could be read to
allow for exemptions from the otherwise applicable SIP emission
limitations through a state official's unilateral exercise of
discretionary authority that is insufficiently bounded and includes no
additional public process at the state or federal level. In summary,
EPA agreed with petitioners that this provision would allow the state
director to circumvent EPA authority and/or citizen suit authority to
enforce the emissions limitations, which is inconsistent with the CAA
and EPA's policy outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
Missouri submitted a SIP revision on November 29, 2016, in response
to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its submission,
Missouri requests that EPA revise the Missouri SIP by removing the
provision 10-6.220(3)(c) from the SIP, thereby correcting the
deficiency identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and addressing the SIP
Call for Missouri.
III. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's revisions to 10 CSR 10-
6.220, Restriction of Emissions of Visible Air Contaminants, in the
Missouri SIP. The EPA received two SIP revision submissions related to
this state rule from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) on November 29, 2016, and March 7, 2019. The full text of these
changes as well as EPA's analysis of the changes can be found in the
technical support document (TSD), which is included in the docket for
this action.
In its November 29, 2016, submission, MoDNR requested to remove the
provision that was identified by EPA as being substantially inadequate
to meet CAA requirements in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is proposing
to determine that removal of this provision is consistent with EPA's
policy outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and sufficiently addresses
the deficiencies identified by the 2015 SSM SIP Call.
In addition to the removal of the identified SSM deficiency, MoDNR,
in both the 2016 and 2019 submissions, also requested revisions related
to opacity monitoring requirements and exemptions from the opacity
limits and recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 10 CSR 10-6.220
for certain source types. Specifically, MoDNR exempted specific,
limited, emission units regulated by stricter federal and state
regulations. MoDNR also provided an exemption for certain emission
units that do not have the capability of exceeding the emission limits
of the rule. One example of an added exemption is for units regulated
under 40 CFR 63 subpart UUUUU--Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, that
demonstrate compliance with a particulate matter continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) as the limits in this federal rule are more
stringent than the opacity limits contained in the state rule. The
newly added exemptions for sources that already comply with more
stringent state or federal requirements will remove the duplicative
monitoring and reporting requirements associated with the less
stringent requirements of the state opacity rule.
Missouri provided a demonstration pursuant to CAA section 110(l) to
ensure the rule revisions, including the added exemptions, do not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. EPA reviewed MoDNR's section 110(l) demonstration which explains
the sources that will be newly exempt from the opacity limits of this
state rule remain subject to more stringent federal or state
regulations that apply on a continuous basis. For this reason, the
emissions change associated with the rule revisions is expected to be
relatively small if any. Additionally, the opacity limits contained in
this rule, and more specifically for the units being exempted from the
limits of this state rule, are not relied upon for attainment or
maintenance purposes.
Opacity is often used as an indicator of the degree of particulate
matter emissions. All PM2.5 monitors in the state are
measuring compliance with the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
standards and all counties in Missouri are designated as
unclassifiable/attainment for both the 2012 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Further, the sources are not exempt from all
opacity requirements and, in fact, are subject to the more stringent
requirements found in the applicable federal rules. The expected change
in emissions associated with these rule revisions is relatively small
if any and therefore would not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS.
Further, EPA is proposing to approve removal of the prior deficient
exemption for excess emissions during periods of SSM from this rule.
EPA believes that any emission limit or requirement relied upon as
being more stringent to exempt a source from this rule must apply
continuously, that is without any exemptions for periods of SSM, to be
more stringent than the limits contained in this rule.
MoDNR also provided information to support the exemption for
emission units burning certain fuels that are not capable of exceeding
the opacity limits contained in the rule by estimating maximum
emissions based on EPA emissions factors for each fuel type. EPA
reviewed MoDNR's demonstration and proposes to agree that this added
exemption would result in a relatively small emissions change if any
and therefore would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Based on EPA's review of Missouri's section 110(l) demonstration
and our analysis of these changes as fully described in the TSD in the
docket for this proposed rule, the expected change in emissions
associated with these rule revisions is relatively small if any and
therefore EPA proposes to find the revisions will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
[[Page 55742]]
NAAQS or other CAA requirements consistent with CAA Section 110(l).
MoDNR also added an alternative test method and made other
administrative wording changes such as adding rule specific
definitions. EPA proposes to find these edits do not adversely impact
the stringency of the SIP and are consistent with CAA requirements.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve these revisions as further detailed
in the TSD.
IV. 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 the November 29, 2016, SIP revision
from June 1, 2016, to August 4, 2016, and held a public hearing on July
28, 2016. During the public comment period, the State received seven
comments from five sources, consisting primarily of supportive or
clarifying comments from industry groups. The State addresses the
comments in its submittal included in the docket for this proposal. The
State provided public notice on the March 7, 2019, SIP revision from
August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on
September 27, 2018. During the public comment period, the State
received nine comments, seven of which were from EPA. The State
addresses the comments in its submittal. Further discussion of the
state responses to comments received is included in the TSD and the
state submittal documents in the docket. In addition, as explained
above and in the TSD, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.
V. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
The EPA proposes to approve the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.220 as
requested by Missouri in submissions dated November 29, 2016 and March
7, 2019. We are soliciting comments on this proposed action. We are
soliciting comments solely on the proposed revisions to the rule and
not on the existing text that is approved into Missouri's SIP. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. While EPA
did not perform an area-specific EJ analysis for purposes of this
action, due to the nature of the action being taken here, i.e. to
remove an exemption for excess emissions during periods of SSM and add
exemptions for sources subject to equivalent or more stringent limits,
as explained in this preamble and the technical support document in
this docket, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on air quality. Because consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, there is no information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goals of E.O 12898 of achieving environmental justice
for people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.
This action approves revisions to a Missouri state rule concerning
visible emissions. As explained in the preamble and technical support
document, the emissions change associated with the revisions requested
by Missouri is expected to be small if any. Therefore, we expect that
this action will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. For
these reasons, this action is not expected to have a disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular
group of people.
VII. 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 discussed in Section
III of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments
to 40 CFR part 52. 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).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act (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:
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);
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
[[Page 55743]]
rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The basis for
this determination is contained in Section VI of this action,
``Environmental Justice Concerns.''
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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 6, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
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. 52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``10-6.220'' 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.220......................... Restriction of 3/30/2019 [Date of Subsection (1)(I)
Emission of publication of the referring to the
Visible Air final rule in the open burning rule,
Contaminants. Federal Register], 10 CSR 10-6.045,
[Federal Register is not SIP
citation of the approved.
final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-19622 Filed 9-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
