14062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. EPA 

believes that VCS are inapplicable to 

this action. Today’s action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not change the level of 

environmental protection for any 

affected populations. 

Dated: March 4, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06143 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0123; FRL–9924–54– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri, Construction Permits 

Required 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the State of Missouri 

submitted on October 2, 2013. This 

proposed rulemaking will amend the 

SIP to update the construction permits 

rule to incorporate by reference recent 

EPA actions related to plantwide 

applicability limitations (PALs) for 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to correct 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ Other revisions include 

modifying the notification period for 

initial equipment start-up and clarifying 

de minimis permit air quality analysis 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0123, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Higbee.paula@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula 

Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0123. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding 

legal holidays. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7028 

or by email at Higbee.paula@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Background 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 14063 

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

2See 705 F.3d 458, 469 

3 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

revision submitted by the state of 

Missouri for 10 CSR 10–6.060, 

‘‘Construction Permits Required’’. On 

October 3, 2013, EPA received a request 

to amend the SIP to incorporate by 

reference all sections of title 40 part 

52.21 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) except for subsections (a), (q) and 

(s) through July 1, 2012. Missouri is also 

requesting to amend the SIP to 

incorporate by reference EPA’s July 12, 

2012, final rule finalizing PALs for 

GHGs (77 FR 41051) and EPA’s October 

25, 2012, final rule amending the 

definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ 

concerning condensable particulate 

matter (77 FR 65107). In Missouri’s 

letter to EPA, Missouri also requested to 

amend the SIP to incorporate EPA’s May 

18, 2011, rule repealing the 

grandfathering provisions for particulate 

matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) 

under the PSD program, but because the 

state has an already approved PSD 

program which incorporates by 

reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

through July 1, 2011, Missouri’s 

Federally approved program already 

incorporates this action. Other revisions 

to Missouri’s rule which we are 

proposing to take action on include 

clarifying the requirements for 

conducting an air quality analysis in 

section 5, De Minimis Permits and 

making minor administrative 

clarifications as well as revising the 

notification period for initial start-up in 

section 6, General Permits. 

II. Background 

Missouri implements its PSD program 

by incorporating by reference section 

52.21 of the CFR in its rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.060, ‘‘Construction Permits Required’’. 

In a previous action on June 21, 2013, 

EPA approved the most recent 

amendment to Missouri’s PSD program 

(78 FR 37457). Missouri’s currently 

approved PSD program incorporates by 

reference (IBR) the Federal regulations 

as promulgated July 1, 2011, in the CFR, 

and incorporates the July 20, 2011, rule 

‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Programs’’ 

(‘‘Biomass Deferral’’ 76 FR 43490). 

Missouri’s currently approved PSD 

program contains a number of important 

required elements, including those 

related to the 2008 ‘‘Implementation of 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule; 73 FR 28321). For PSD sources in 

Missouri, PSD permits must address 

direct PM2.5 emissions as well as 

precursor emissions (including sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX)), establish significant emission 

rates for PM2.5 and precursor emissions, 

and establish the requirement to 

account for condensable particulate 

matter. On January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, issued a decision that remanded 

the EPA’s rules implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The court’s remand of 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule is relevant to 

this final rulemaking. This rule 

promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). The D.C. Circuit found that 

EPA erred in implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title 1 of the CAA, rather 

than pursuant to the additional 

implementation provisions specific to 

particulate matter nonattainment areas 

in subpart 4. The Court ordered EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

(Id. at 437). However, as the 

requirements of subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, it is EPA’s 

position that the portions of the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas are not affected 

by the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in NRDC 

v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with 

the court’s decision. Accordingly, EPA’s 

approval of Missouri’s SIP as to the PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with 

the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA 

promulgated additional PSD regulations 

relating to PM2.5: ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and 

Significant Monitoring Concentrations 

(SMC)’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, 73 FR 

64864). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. 

Circuit, in Sierra Club v. EPA, issued a 

judgment that, inter alia, vacated and 

remanded the SIL provisions at section 

52.21(k)(2). Additionally, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated the SMC provisions at 

section 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c).2 In response to 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA took 

final action on December 9, 2013, to 

remove the SIL provisions from the 

Federal PSD regulations, and to revise 

the SMC for PM2.5 to zero (78 FR 73698). 

On March 19, 2013, and October 21, 

2013, Missouri submitted additional 

information to amend their September 

5, 2012, SIP submission to clarify that 

they no longer intended to include the 

PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions (see 78 

FR 37457, June 21, 2013, for more 

information). Specifically, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) will not apply either the PM2.5

SILs provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) 

and 52.21(k)(2), or the PM2.5 SMC 

provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to 

pending or future PSD permit actions. It 

is the state’s intent that PM2.5 will 

remain on the list of pollutants but that 

the associated concentration level 

would be blank or zero. In other words, 

pre-construction monitoring will 

continue to apply but without de 

minimis thresholds. Therefore, the 

provisions with which the court took 

issue are not in effect in Missouri. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, issued a decision addressing 

the application of PSD permitting 

requirements to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions.3 The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source (or modification thereof) 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action before the D.C. Circuit to 

effectuate the decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, EPA is not applying the 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant, (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thesholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. This can be 

accomplished as soon as EPA revises 

the Federal PSD rules in states that 

allow future revisions to the Federal 

PSD program to be automatically 

incorporated into the SIP. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to the EPA regulations is 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. 

EPA is not expecting states to have 

revised their existing PSD program 

regulations at this juncture, before the 

D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues 

and before EPA has revised its 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. However, 

EPA is evaluating PSD program 

submissions to assure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

decision. 

Missouri’s existing approved SIP 

contains the GHG permitting 

requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 

after EPA issued the Tailoring Rule. As 

a result, the PSD permitting program in 

Missouri previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT when sources emit or increase 

greenhouse gases in the amount of 

75,000 tons per year (measured as 

carbon dioxide equivalent). Although 

the approved Missouri PSD permitting 

program may also currently contain 

provisions that are no longer necessary 

in light of the Supreme Court decision, 

this does not prevent EPA from 

approving the submission addressed in 

this rule. Missouri’s 2013 SIP 

submission does not add any GHG 

permitting requirements that are 

inconsistent with the Supreme Court 

decision. While this submission 

incorporates all of section 52.21 for 

completeness, except for subsections (a), 

(q) and (s), the submission mostly 

reincorporates PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG’s that are already 

in the Missouri SIP. 

This proposed revision does add to 

the Missouri SIP the elements of EPA’s 

July 12, 2012, rulemaking, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 

and GHG Plantwide Applicability 

Limits, ‘‘Step 3 Tailoring Rule’’ (77 FR 

41051), which implements Step 3 of the 

phase in of PSD permitting 

requirements for GHGs. This rule 

became effective on August 13, 2012. 

Specifically, the incorporation of the 

Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHGemitting sources to obtain plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) for their 

GHG-emitting sources on a carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. The 

GHG PAL provisions, as currently 

written, include some provisions that 

may no longer be appropriate in light of 

the Supreme Court decision. Since the 

Supreme Court has determined that 

sources and modifications may not be 

defined as ‘‘major’’ solely on the basis 

of the level of GHGs emitted or 

increased, PALs for GHGs may no 

longer have value in some situations 

where a source might have triggered 

PSD based on GHG emissions alone. 

However, PALs for GHGs may still have 

a role to play in determining whether a 

modification that triggers PSD for a 

pollutant other than GHGs should also 

be subject to BACT for GHGs. These 

provisions, like the other GHG 

provisions discussed previously, will 

likely be revised pending further legal 

action. However, these provisions do 

not add new requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

GHGs above the major source threshold 

or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in section 

52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs 

provisions provide increased flexibility 

to sources that wish to address their 

GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this 

flexibility may still be valuable to 

sources in at least one context described 

above, we believe that it is appropriate 

to approve these provisions into the 

Missouri SIP at this juncture. 

EPA is proposing to revise Missouri’s 

SIP to incorporate by reference EPA’s 

October 25, 2012 rule, ‘‘Implementation 

of the New Source Review Program for 

Condensable Particulate Matter’’. This 

revision is appropriate and necessary to 

ensure that the inadvertent error which 

was contained in EPA’s 2008 rule, 

which was previously SIP approved in 

the Missouri rule (78 FR 37457) is 

corrected. EPA’s 2008 rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5).’’ See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 

2008), inadvertently included a 

requirement to consider condensable 

PM when measuring one of the 

emissions-related indicators for PM 

known as ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ in the context of the PSD 

and NSR regulations. EPA’s 2012 rule 

corrects the error in the 2008 rule and 

therefore it is appropriate and necessary 

to incorporate by reference the 2012 rule 

and related corrections to the definition 

of ‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ 

III. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

As stated above, Missouri’s 

incorporation by reference of all 

sections of title 40 section 52.21 of the 

CFR except for subsections (a), (q) and 

(s) and EPA’s July 12, 2012, final rule on 

PALs for GHGs (77 FR 41051) and EPA’s 

October 25, 2012, final rule amending 

the definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant’’ concerning condensable 

particulate matter (77 FR 65107) are 

appropriate even in light of recent court 

actions and ensure that the state PSD 

program is in agreement with Federal 

requirements. Missouri also requested to 

amend the SIP to incorporate EPA’s May 

18, 2011, rule repealing the 

grandfathering provisions for PM2.5

under the PSD program, but because the 

state has an already approved PSD 

program which incorporates by 

reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

through July 1, 2011, Missouri’s 

Federally approved program already 

incorporates this action. 

Additional revisions include, in 

paragraph (5)(D)(1) of the rule, Missouri 

is adding subparagraphs A. and B. 

which provide clear and specific 

requirements for when an air quality 

analysis is required for De Minimis 

permits. In (5)(D)(2) of the rule, 

Missouri is adding subparagraphs A., B., 

and C. which provide clear and specific 

requirements for when the director may 

require an air quality analysis. These 

revisions strengthen Missouri’s PSD 

program. 

MDNR is making minor 

administrative edits to subsections 

(6)(A) and (6)(A)(2). In (6)(E)(1)(A) 

Missouri is modifying the notification 

period for initial equipment start-up. 

This revision shortens the timeframe for 

which notification is provided to the 

state prior to initial start-up. 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfies the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. In addition, as explained 

above, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. MDNR 

received five (5) comments from one 

source: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Missouri responded 

to each of the comments and made 

revisions to the rule as appropriate. 

Overall, these actions strengthen the 

Missouri SIP, by ensuring the state PSD 

program incorporates recent Federal 

PSD updates. These revisions do not 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 14065 

negatively impact air quality, nor relax 

the SIP. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to the SIP. These revisions 

update the construction permits rule to 

incorporate by reference recent EPA 

actions related to PALs for GHGs, and 

amend the definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant.’’ Other revisions include 

modifying the notification period for 

initial equipment start-up and clarifying 

de minimis permit air quality analysis 

requirements. 

We are processing this rule as a 

proposed action because we are 

soliciting comments on this proposed 

action. Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Missouri 10 CSR 10–6.060 

‘‘Construction Permits Required’’ 

described in the proposed amendments 

to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this proposed rule 

does not affect the finality of this 

rulemaking for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectivess of such future 

rule or action. This proposed action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

10–6.060 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title 

State 

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 Entire 

State of Missouri 

10 CSR 10–6.060 Construction Permits Required.10/30/13 3/18/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD—Increments, 

SILs and SMCs rule (75 FR 64865, October 20, 

2010) relating to SILs and SMCs that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court of 

Appeals decision are not SIP approved. 

Provisions of the 2002 NSR reform rule relating to 

the Clean Unit Exemption and Pollution Control 

Projects are not SIP approved. 

In addition, we have not approve Missouri’s rule 

incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision fo the definition of ‘‘chemical processing plants’’ (the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007). 

Although exemptions previously listed in 10 CSR 

10–6.060 have been transferred to 10 CSR 10– 

6.061, the Federally-approved SIP continues to 

include the following exemption, ‘‘Livestock and 

livestock handling systems from which the only 

potential contaminant is odorous gas.’’ 

Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is 

not SIP approved. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06153 Filed 3–17–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 150227200–5200–01] 

RIN 0648–BE79 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management 

Reference Point Updates for Three 

Stocks of Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes updates to 

management reference point values for 

Southern Oregon coastal Chinook 

salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook 

salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho, 

as recommended by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) for use 

in developing annual management 

measures beginning in 2015. This 

update is implemented as part of the 

2014 methodology review where the 

Council and its advisory bodies 

considered new information on the 

three stocks of salmon to make a 

determination on whether changes to 

reference points for these stocks were 

warranted. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before April 2, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0014, 

by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0014, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, West Coast 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Council manages West Coast 

ocean salmon fisheries under the Pacific 

Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The FMP has long used stockspecific conservation objectives to 

manage fishery impacts to Councilmanaged salmon stocks. Conservation 

objectives are, generally, fixed 

quantities intended to provide the 

necessary guidance during the course of 

the annual preseason planning process 

to establish salmon fishing seasons that 

achieve optimum yield. Under the FMP, 

conservation objectives can be added or 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS