Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66013 

Explanation of Provisions 

Removal of De Minimis Partner Rule in 

§ 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii)(e) 

The de minimis partner rule in 

§ 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii)(e) (TD 9398, 73 FR 

28699–01) was promulgated on May 19, 

2008, as part of final regulations with 

respect to partners that are look-through 

entities. The de minimis partner rule 

provides that for purposes of applying 

the substantiality rules, the tax 

attributes of de minimis partners need 

not be taken into account and defines a 

de minimis partner as any partner, 

including a look-through entity that 

owns, directly or indirectly, less than 10 

percent of the capital and profits of a 

partnership, and who is allocated less 

than 10 percent of each partnership item 

of income, gain, loss, deduction, and 

credit. The intent of the de minimis 

partner rule was to allow partnerships 

to avoid the complexity of testing the 

substantiality of insignificant 

allocations to partners owning very 

small interests in the partnership. It was 

not intended to allow partnerships to 

entirely avoid the application of the 

substantiality regulations if the 

partnership is owned by partners each 

of whom owns less than 10 percent of 

the capital or profits, and who are 

allocated less than 10 percent of each 

partnership item of income, gain, loss, 

deduction, and credit. The IRS and the 

Treasury Department have determined 

that the de minimis partner rule should 

be removed in order to prevent 

unintended tax consequences. The IRS 

and the Treasury Department request 

comments on how to reduce the burden 

of complying with the substantial 

economic effect rules, with respect to 

look-through partners, without 

diminishing the safeguards the rules 

provide. 

Proposed Effective Date 

These regulations are proposed to be 

effective the date final regulations are 

published in the Federal Register. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a 

regulatory assessment is not required. It 

has also been determined that § 553(b) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these 

regulations, and because the regulation 

does not impose a collection of 

information on small entities, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 

§ 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, 

this notice of proposed rulemaking has 

been submitted to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for comment on its 

impact on small business. 

Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing 

Before the proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

written (a signed original and eight (8) 

copies) or electronic comments that are 

submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS 

and the Treasury Department request 

comments on the clarity of the proposed 

rules and how they can be made easier 

to understand. All comments will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying. A public hearing may be 

scheduled if requested in writing by any 

person that timely submits written or 

electronic comments. If a public hearing 

is scheduled, notice of the date, time, 

and place for the public hearing will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

regulations is Michala Irons, Office of 

the Associate Chief Counsel 

(Passthroughs and Special Industries). 

However, other personnel from the IRS 

and the Treasury Department 

participated in its development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 2. In § 1.704–1 paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(e) is removed. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27575 Filed 10–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0859; FRL–9482–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Missouri; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Missouri to 

EPA on January 17, 2007, with a 

supplemental revision submitted to EPA 

on June 1, 2011. The purpose of these 

SIP revisions is to satisfy the RACT 

requirements for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) set forth by the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with respect 

to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition 

to proposing approval on the 2007 

submission, EPA is also proposing to 

approve several VOC rules adopted by 

Missouri and submitted to EPA in a 

letter dated August 16, 2011 for 

approval into its SIP. We are approving 

these revisions because they enhance 

the Missouri SIP by improving VOC 

emission controls in Missouri. EPA’s 

proposal to conditionally approve the 

SIP submittal is consistent with section 

110(k)(4) of the CAA. As part of the 

conditional approval, Missouri would 

have up to twelve months from the date 

of EPA’s final conditional approval of 

the SIP revisions in which to revise its 

rules to be consistent with the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0589, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kemp.lachala@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 7, 901 North 

5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011– 

0859. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1See letter from MDNR to EPA, dated September 

30, 2011. 

2For a moderate nonattainment area, a major 

stationary source is one which emits, or has the 

potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or 

more of VOCs. See CAA section 302(j). 

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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101, from 8 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. EPA requests 

that you contact the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section to schedule your inspection. 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: Ms. 

Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101; telephone number (913) 

551–7214; e-mail address: 

kemp.lachala@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

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

provides additional information by 

addressing the following questions: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

III. Summary of Missouri’s SIP Revision 

IV. Missouri’s VOC RACT Rules 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve a SIP revision submitted by the 

State of Missouri to EPA on January 17, 

2007, and June 1, 2011. The purpose of 

these revisions is to control the 

emissions of VOCs, consistent with 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) 

issued by EPA. EPA is also proposing to 

approve several VOC rules approved by 

Missouri and submitted to EPA in a 

letter dated August 16, 2011 for 

approval into its SIP. The purpose of 

these rules is to satisfy the RACT 

requirements of the CAA for the 

Missouri portion of the St. Louis 

metropolitan 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. As explained 

further below, at this time, EPA is 

unable to fully approve the State’s 

RACT SIP revision because the current 

submittal does not yet meet all RACT 

requirements. Specifically, at this time, 

Missouri has not submitted a RACT rule 

for inclusion into the Missouri SIP to 

address one CTG: Solvent Cleanup 

Operations. However, based on 

Missouri’s commitment to do so by 

December 31, 2012,1 pursuant to section 

110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve Missouri’s 

proposed SIP revision at this time. 

Under that section, EPA may approve a 

SIP revision based on a commitment of 

the State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain, but not later 

than 1 year after the date of approval of 

the SIP. This conditional approval 

would be treated as a disapproval if 

Missouri fails to comply with this 

commitment. 

We are proposing to conditionally 

approve these revisions because they 

represent RACT under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These requirements are based 

on (1) Missouri’s RACT analysis and 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in Missouri’s SIP that 

were previously approved by EPA under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to 

represent RACT; (2) the adoption by 

Missouri of new or more stringent 

regulations that represent RACT control 

levels for CTGs issued by EPA after 

2006; and (3) a negative declaration that 

certain categories of sources that do not 

exist in Missouri. 

II. Statutory and Regulatory 

Background 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

SIPs for nonattainment areas ‘‘provide 

for the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ The St. 

Louis metropolitan area—which 

includes the counties of Franklin, 

Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis and 

the city of St. Louis in Missouri—is 

currently designated as a moderate 

nonattainment area under the 8-hour 

ozone standard. For areas in moderate 

nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS, 

section 182(b)(2) requires states to 

submit SIP revisions to EPA that require 

sources of VOCs that are subject to a 

CTG issued by EPA, and all other major 

stationary sources,2 in the 

nonattainment area to implement RACT. 

EPA has defined RACT as the lowest 

emissions limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available, considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). EPA 

provides states with guidance 

concerning what types of controls could 

constitute RACT for a given source 

category through the issuance of a CTG. 

See 71 FR 58745, 58747 (Oct. 5, 2006). 

Section 182(f) of the CAA requires 

that all SIP provisions required for 

major stationary sources of VOCs shall 

also apply to major stationary sources of 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). With respect to 

NOX, section 182(f) authorizes EPA to 

exempt the sources in an area from the 

NOX RACT requirements through a 

‘‘waiver,’’ if EPA finds that additional 

reductions of NOX would not contribute 

to attainment of the NAAQS for ozone 

in that area. On June 9, 2011, EPA 

published a final determination that the 

St. Louis Metropolitan area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone standard based on 

three years of complete, quality assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data. See 

76 FR 33647. On July 21, 2011, EPA 

approved Missouri’s request for such a 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66015 

3Under section 183(b), EPA is required to 

periodically review and, as necessary, update CTGs. 

‘‘NOX waiver,’’ effective September 19, 

2011. 76 FR 43598. Based on this rule, 

on September 9, 2011, Missouri 

withdrew the portion of its 2007 

submission relating to NOX RACT. 

Therefore, today’s action only addresses 

Missouri’s RACT obligations for VOCs. 

III. Summary of Missouri’s SIP 

Revision 

On January 17, 2007, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) submitted to EPA proposed SIP 

revisions demonstrating compliance 

with the RACT requirements set forth by 

the CAA under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This submittal addressed all 

source categories for which a CTG had 

been issued by EPA at the time, and 

addressed the controls in place for all 

other major stationary sources in the 

nonattainment area. Since the initial 

submittal, EPA has issued a number of 

new CTGs in 2006, 2007, and 2008.3

On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four 

CTGs which states were required to 

address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 

58745): Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing Materials; Flexible 

Packaging Printing Materials; Flat Wood 

Paneling Coatings; and Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents. Also, on October 9, 

2007, EPA issued three CTGs which 

states were required to address by 

October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215): Paper, 

Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture 

Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings. 

Furthermore, on October 7, 2008, EPA 

issued four CTGs which states were 

required to address by October 7, 2009 

(73 FR 58481): Miscellaneous Metal and 

Plastic Parts Coatings; Auto and LightDuty Truck Assembly Coatings; 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials; and Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives. As a result of these new 

CTGs, Missouri submitted an 

amendment to its prior RACT 

demonstration on June 1, 2011. In 

addition, on August 16, 2011, Missouri 

submitted proposed revisions to its SIP 

to EPA. These revisions will ensure that 

the requirements of the new CTGs will 

be incorporated into the VOC RACT 

rules for the St. Louis moderate ozone 

nonattainment area. 

IV. Missouri’s VOC RACT Rules 

Missouri’s SIP submittals dated 

January 17, 2007, and June 1, 2011, 

include an analysis of its VOC rules for 

the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 

metropolitan 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment area. Table 1 summarizes 

the CTGs issued by EPA both prior to 

2006 and after 2006, and the 

corresponding Missouri VOC rules 

which address these CTGs. 

TABLE 1—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND APPLICABLE MISSOURI VOC RACT RULES

Missouri State rule CTG Source category 

10 CSR 10–5.295 Control of Emissions From Aerospace Manufacture 

and Rework Facilities.

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations & Coating Operations. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Bulk Gasoline Plants. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Can Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Coil Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.310 Liquefied Cutback Asphalt Paving Restricted ......... Cutback Asphalt. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Fabric Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.340 Control of Emissions From Rotogravure and Flexographic Printing Facilities.Flexible Package Printing. 

10 CSR 10–5.340 Control of Emissions From Rotogravure and Flexographic Printing Facilities.Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Gasoline Dispensing Stage II Vapor Recovery. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Gasoline Service Stations. 

10 CSR 10–5.390 Control of Emissions From Manufacture of Paints, 

Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels and Other Allied Surface Coating Operations.

Ink and Paint Manufacturing. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Large Appliance Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Magnet Wire, Surface Coating. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Metal Furniture Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.442 Control of Emissions From Lithographic and Letterpress Printing Operations.Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing. 

10 CSR 10–5.330 Control of Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations.Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66016 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4At this time, Missouri has not submitted this 

rule revision to EPA for inclusion into the SIP. 

However, as discussed previously, Missouri has 

committed to doing so by December 31, 2012. 

TABLE 1—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND APPLICABLE MISSOURI VOC RACT RULES—Continued 

Missouri State rule CTG Source category 

10 CSR 10–5.350 Control of Emissions From Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products.Pharmaceutical Products. 

10 CSR 10–5.410 Control of Emissions From Manufacture of Polystyrene Resin.Polyester Resin. 

10 CSR 10–5.455 Control of Emissions From Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning Operations.

Solvent Cleanup Operations.4

10 CSR 10–5.300 Control of Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning Solvent Metal Cleaning. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks. 

10 CSR 10–5.420 Control of Equipment Leaks From Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Plants.Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing. 

10 CSR 10–5.550 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

From Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry.

Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment, 

Equipments Leaks from. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals. 

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and 

Transfer.

Tank Trucks, Gasoline, and Vapor Collection Systems. 

10 CSR 10–5.500 Control of Emissions From Volatile Organic Liquid 

Storage.

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks. 

10 CSR 10–5.530 Control of Emissions From Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.Wood Furniture Manufacturing. 

A. CTGs Issued Prior to 2006 

With respect 4 to Missouri’s VOC 

RACT rules that address CTGs issued by 

EPA prior to 2006, EPA has previously 

approved these rules into the Missouri 

SIP as RACT for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. In its June 1, 2011, submittal 

to EPA, MDNR reviewed all of the St. 

Louis area VOC rules and certified that 

they still satisfy RACT requirements for 

the 8-hour ozone standard by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

certification in today’s rulemaking. 

B. CTGs Issued After 2006 

With respect to addressing CTGs 

issued by EPA after 2006, Missouri 

submitted three revised rules to EPA for 

inclusion into the Missouri SIP. EPA 

has reviewed these new VOC rule 

revisions with respect to the RACT 

requirements and the recommendations 

in the new CTGs and proposes to find 

that these revisions meet RACT. A brief 

description of the VOC rules that are 

proposed for approval in this action is 

provided below. 

1. 10 CSR 10–5.330 Industrial Surface 

Coating Operations 

This rule amendment exempts 

facilities that are regulated under other 

rules that limit emissions of VOCs and 

incorporates changes in RACT for 

surface coating operations in the St. 

Louis ozone nonattainment area to be 

consistent with the current federal 

RACT CTGs. Compliance with these 

rules is required by March 1, 2012. 

These revised requirements are based 

on and consistent with the following 

CTG documents issued by EPA since 

2006: 

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

• Large Appliance Coatings 

• Metal Furniture Coatings 

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings 

• Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings 

The revisions to this rule either create 

new source categories that are subject to 

VOC limits (the first three CTG source 

categories on this list) or strengthen 

limits that are already existing for other 

source categories (the last four CTG 

source categories on this list). The rule 

revisions also specify work practices for 

sources that are subject to this rule. 

2. 10 CSR 10–5.340 Rotogravure and 

Flexographic Printing 

This rule amendment adds specific 

limits of VOCs for flexible package 

printing operations in the St. Louis 

ozone nonattainment area. The rule 

amendment will add stricter emission 

limits and lower applicability limits, as 

well as add flexible package printing 

presses as a source subcategory. These 

changes are intended to make the limits 

consistent with the current federal 

RACT CTGs. Compliance with these 

rules is required by March 1, 2012. 

These revised requirements are based 

on and consistent with the following 

CTG document issued by EPA since 

2006: 

• Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

3. 10 CSR 10–5.442 Lithographic 

Printing Operations 

This rule amendment adds specific 

emission limits of VOCs for both offset 

lithographic and letterpress printing 

operations in the St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area. The rule also 

lowers the applicability limit and adds 

letterpress printing as a new category. 

These changes are intended to make the 

limits consistent with the current 

Federal RACT CTGs. Compliance with 

these rules is required by March 1, 2012. 

These revised requirements are based 

on and consistent with the following 

CTG document issued by EPA since 

2006: 

• Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing Materials 

4. 10 CSR 10–5.455 Solvent Cleanup 

Operations 

At this time, Missouri has not 

submitted this proposed rule revision to 

EPA for approval into the Missouri SIP. 

However, in a letter dated September 

30, 2011, Missouri has committed to 

submit this rule to EPA by December 31, 

2012 for inclusion into the SIP. The 

intent of this rule is to reduce the VOC 

emissions from industrial cleaning 

operations that use organic solvents. 

The rule amendment will lower the 

allowable emissions threshold for VOCs 

released per day from the use, storage 

and disposal of industrial cleaning 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66017 

5We note that other regulatory mechanisms 

within the CAA affect sources in the St. Louis 

ozone nonattainment area, such as Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT), New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS). Because these standards are 

generally more stringent than RACT, emission 

sources subject to these standards were determined 

to also fulfill RACT requirements. 

solvents. It will also add requirements 

for facilities that have VOC emission 

levels that exceed the threshold, 

including placing limitations on the 

VOC content of the cleaning materials. 

C. Non-CTG Major Stationary Sources 

Major sources not subject to a specific 

CTG, but for which RACT is required, 

are referred to as non-CTG sources. 

Table 2 summarizes the Missouri’s VOC 

rules that address non-CTG sources. All 

of these rules have previously been 

approved by EPA into the Missouri SIP. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF ST. LOUIS

AREA NON-CTG VOC RACT RULES

Missouri State rule 

10 CSR 10–5.360 Control of Emissions 

From Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations. 

10 CSR 10–5.370 Control of Emissions 

From the Application of Deadeners and 

Adhesives. 

10 CSR 10–5.450 Control of VOC Emissions From Traffic Coatings. 

10 CSR 10–5.451 Control of Emissions 

From Aluminum Foil Rolling. 

10 CSR 10–5.490 Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. 

10 CSR 10–5.520 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Existing 

Major Sources. 

10 CSR 10–5.540 Control of Emissions 

From Batch Process Operations. 

In particular, Missouri promulgated 

10 CSR 10–5.520 (Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from 

Existing Major Sources). This generic 

rule applies to all major sources of VOC 

located in the St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area that are not subject 

to individual RACT rules and have the 

potential to emit greater than 100 tons 

per year of VOCs. Sources subject to this 

rule must submit a detailed engineering 

RACT proposal to MDNR for each VOC 

emission unit at the facility. In its 

submittal to EPA, MDNR noted that in 

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, 

no sources have been identified that are 

subject to this generic RACT rule. 

Therefore, the State believes that the 

requirements of section 182(b)(2)(C) 

have been met.5

D. Negative Declarations 

In addition, the June 1, 2011, 

submittal from MDNR also states that 

Missouri has made a negative 

declaration that there are no applicable 

sources of VOC located in the St. Louis 

portion of the ozone nonattainment area 

for the following CTG categories 

identified by EPA in CTG documents: 

1. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials (EPA–453/R–08–004). 

2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations (See 61 FR 44050). 

3. Petroleum Refinery Equipment 

(EPA–450/2–78–036). 

4. Application of Agriculture 

Pesticides (EPA–453/R–92–011). 

5. Pneumatic Rubber Tires (EPA–450/ 

2–78–030). 

6. Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing 

Plants (EPA–450/3–83–007). 

7. Plywood Veneer Dryers (EPA–450/ 

3–83–012). 

E. Summary 

The purpose of Missouri’s RACT rules 

in the St. Louis area is to establish 

reasonable controls on the emissions of 

ozone precursors. As new RACT rules 

have been added and other RACT rules 

have been expanded with new source 

categories or stricter limits, Missouri has 

continuously reviewed and updated its 

VOC rules in order satisfy all RACT 

requirements. Based on EPA’s review of 

Missouri’s submittal, EPA is proposing 

to find that for the CTG and non-CTG 

source categories included in this 

rulemaking, Missouri has RACT-level 

controls. 

V. Proposed Action 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing several actions. First, with 

respect to Missouri’s VOC RACT rules 

that EPA previously approved into 

Missouri’s SIP under the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA is proposing to approve 

Missouri’s certification that these RACT 

controls continue to represent RACT 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to three of Missouri’s VOC 

rules (10 CSR 10–5.330; 10 CSR 10– 

5.340; 10 CSR 10–5.442) into Missouri’s 

SIP, as these rules satisfy RACT for the 

Missouri portion of the St. Louis 

nonattainment area. Third, pursuant to 

CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve the Missouri 

SIP revisions that addresses the 

requirements of RACT under the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Missouri would have up 

to twelve months from the date of EPA’s 

final conditional approval of the SIP 

revisions in which to revise its rules to 

be consistent with the CAA. This 

conditional approval shall be treated as 

a disapproval if Missouri fails to comply 

with this commitment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66018 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 17, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27601 Filed 10–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0084; 

92220–1113–0000; ABC Code: C6] 

RIN 1018–AH53 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Delisting of the Plant 

Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston’s 

frankenia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

document availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), notify the 

public that we are reopening the 

comment period on the May 22, 2003, 

proposed rule to remove the plant 

Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston’s 

frankenia) from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants (List) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Comments submitted 

during the 2003 comment period will be 

considered and do not need to be 

resubmitted now. However, we invite 

comments on the new information 

presented in this announcement 

relevant to our consideration of the 

status of F. johnstonii. We encourage 

those who may have commented 

previously to submit additional 

comments, if appropriate, in light of this 

new information. We are also making 

available for public review the Draft 

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for F. 

johnstonii. 

DATES: To ensure that we are able to 

consider your comments and 

information, we request that we receive 

them no later than December 27, 2011. 

Please note that, if you are using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

Eastern Standard Time on this date. We 

may not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. We must 

receive requests for public hearings, in 

writing, at the address shown in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

December 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

2003 proposed delisting of the plant 

Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston’s 

frankenia), comments received on that 

proposal, and the Draft Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plan for Frankenia 

johnstonii can be obtained from the Web 

sites http://www.regulations.gov or 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

Library/. Also, you may submit 

comments and information by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is FWS–R2–ES–2011–0084 . Choose the 

Action that reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ 

Please ensure that you have found the 

correct rulemaking before submitting 

your comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– 

ES–2011–0084; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments and 

information we receive on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Shaughnessy, Assistant 

Regional Director, Ecological Services, 

Southwest Regional Office, P.O. Box 

1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103, by 

telephone (505–248–6671), or by 

facsimile (505–248–6788). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

Frankenia johnstonii was listed 

August 7, 1984 (49 FR 31418), as an 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). At the 

time F. johnstonii was listed, we 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat was not prudent because if 

localities were published in the Federal 

Register, the species might be 

additionally threatened by taking and 

vandalism. A recovery plan was 

completed for F. johnstonii in 1988 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plan/880524.pdf), but it did 

not quantify criteria for downlisting or 

delisting due to a lack of knowledge 

about the species (Service 1988, p. 14). 

Threats identified in the recovery plan 

were the small number of individuals, 

the restricted distribution, the low 

reproductive potential, and the impacts 

of heavy grazing and land management 

practices, such as road construction or 

maintenance and bulldozing of woody 

vegetation (Service 1988, p. 11). 

Since the recovery plan was 

completed, our knowledge of F. 

johnstonii has greatly increased. Based 

on what we learned about the species’ 

known range, the number of newly 

discovered populations, the life history 

requirements of this species, 

clarification of the degrees of threats, 

and the protection offered by several 

landowners who control those 

populations, we proposed delisting the 

F. johnstonii on May 22, 2003 (68 FR 

27961), due to recovery. Please see the 

May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961), proposed 

delisting rule (also posted on our Web 

sites) for a detailed analysis of factors 

affecting the species. Because of the 

amount of time that has lapsed since the 

2003 delisting proposal, we are 

reopening the public comment period 

for that proposal, and inviting comment 

on new information presented in this 

announcement as well as on the draft 

post-delisting monitoring plan for 

Johnston’s frankenia (Frankenia 

johnstonii). 

Background 

In this document, we will only 

discuss new information pertinent to 

the proposed delisting of Frankenia 

johnstonii. For a more detailed 

description of F. johnstonii, its current 

status and its threats, please refer to the 

May 23, 2003, proposed rule to delist 

the species (68 FR 27961 and posted on 

our Web sites with this docket; see 

ADDRESSES above) and the recovery plan 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plan/880524.pdf). 

At the time of listing F. johnstonii, 5 

populations were known, 4 in Texas 

and 1 in Mexico, and the total number 

of individual plants was estimated to be 

approximately 1,500. Threats to the 

species at the time of listing were 

considered to be small number of 

plants, their restricted distribution, the 

impacts of grazing on them, and low 

reproductive potential (49 FR 31418). 

The May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961), 

proposal to remove Frankenia 

johnstonii from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants was based on 

results of field work conducted between 

1993 and 1999 that included extensive 

population surveys, landowner 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS