22500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 15, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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 effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 12, 2012. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart O—Illinois 

■ 2. § 52.720 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(190) to read as follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(190) On November 14, 2011, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (Illinois EPA) submitted 

amendments to 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code 218.208 and 

219.208. These sections add a ‘‘small 

container exemption’’ for pleasure craft 

surface coating operations in the 

Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. These 

exemptions are consistent with EPA 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) policy. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of Illinois 

Administrative Code, Title 35: 

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: 

Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution 

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission 

Standards and Limitations for 

Stationary Sources, are incorporated by 

reference. 

(A) Part 218: Organic Material 

Emission Standards and Limitations for 

the Chicago Area, Subpart F: Coating 

Operations, Section 218.208 Exemptions 

From Emission Limitations; effective 

October 25, 2011. 

(B) Part 219: Organic Material 

Emission Standards and Limitations for 

the Metro East Area, Subpart F: Coating 

Operations, Section 219.208 Exemptions 

From Emission Limitations; effective 

October 25, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8952 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0825; FRL–9657–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Missouri: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; New 

Source Review Reform 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) relating to regulation of 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under 

Missouri’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program, and to 

other portions of Missouri’s New Source 

Review (NSR) program. The GHGrelated SIP revisions are designed to 

align Missouri’s regulations with the 

GHG emission thresholds established in 

EPA’s ‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Final Rule,’’ which EPA 

issued by notice dated June 3, 2010. The 

other NSR revisions are to the 

Construction Permits Required Rule and 

the Emissions Banking and Trading 

Rule and are intended to address 

changes to the Federal NSR regulations, 

which were promulgated by EPA on 

December 31, 2002 (the NSR Reform 

rules). In today’s action, EPA is 

approving both the GHG (as it relates to 

the PSD program) and NSR revisions 

because the Agency has determined that 

these SIP revisions, already adopted by 

Missouri as final effective rules, are in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs and NSR. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR– 

2011–0825. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov web site. 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, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, Air and Waste Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the GHG portion 

of the Missouri SIP, contact Mr. Larry 

Gonzalez, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Mr. Gonzalez’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7041, 

and his email address is 

gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the NSR Reform portion of the 

Missouri SIP, contact Ms. Amy 

Bhesania, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Ms. Bhesania’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7147, 

and her email address is 

bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What GHG-related final action is EPA 

taking in this final rule? 

II. What is the background for the GHGrelated PSD SIP approval in this final 

rule? 

III. GHG-Related Final Action 

IV. What NSR reform-related final action is 

EPA taking in this final rule? 

V. What is the background for the NSR 

reform-related approval in this final 

rule? 

VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22501 

1As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to 

address Missouri’s August 8, 2011 request to 

approve revisions to the Title V program relating to 

GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking. 

2 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

3 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

4 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

6Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those 

states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs 

but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to 

submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75 

FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings 

of failure to submit in some states which were 

unable to submit the required SIP revision by their 

deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, 

e.g. ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure 

Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because 

Missouri’s SIP already authorizes Missouri to 

regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD 

requirements on January 2, 2011, Missouri is not 

subject to the SIP Call or FIP. 

7 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What GHG-related final action is EPA 

taking in this final rule? 

In a letter dated August 8, 2011, 

MDNR submitted a request to EPA to 

approve revisions to the State’s SIP and 

Title V program to incorporate recent 

rule amendments adopted by the 

Missouri Air Conservation Commission. 

These adopted rules became effective in 

the Missouri Code of State Regulations 

on August 30, 2011. These amendments 

establish thresholds for GHG emissions 

in Missouri’s PSD and Title V 

regulations at the same emissions 

thresholds and in the same time-frames 

as those specified by EPA in the ‘‘PSD 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring; 

Final Rule’’ (75 FR 31514), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring Rule,’’ 

ensuring that smaller GHG sources 

emitting less than these thresholds will 

not be subject to permitting 

requirements for GHGs that they emit. 

The amendments to the SIP clarify the 

applicable thresholds in the Missouri 

SIP, address the flaw discussed in the 

‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans 

Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 

2010) (the ‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’), 

and incorporate state rule changes 

adopted at the state level into the 

Federally-approved SIP. 

On October 28, 2011, EPA published 

a proposed rulemaking to approve 

Missouri’s SIP revision. The proposal 

addressed SIP revisions associated with 

both the Federal ‘‘tailoring rule’’ 

revisions and ‘‘NSR reform’’ rules. See 

76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any 

public comments in response to the 

proposal. In this final rule, pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

approving these revisions into the 

Missouri SIP.1

II. What is the background for the 

GHG-related PSD SIP Approval in this 

final rule? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for this final action. 

More detailed discussion of the 

background is found in the proposal for 

this rulemaking, 76 FR 66882, and in 

the EPA rulemakings cited in the 

proposal. In particular, the background 

is contained in what we called the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule,2 and in the 

preambles to the actions cited therein. 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

are distinct from one another, establish 

the overall framework for this final 

action on the Missouri SIP. Four of 

these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,3 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 4 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 5 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

In many states, such as Missouri, PSD 

is implemented through the SIP. In 

December 2010, EPA promulgated 

several rules to implement the new GHG 

PSD SIP program. Recognizing that 

some states had approved SIP PSD 

programs that did not apply PSD to 

GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call and, for 

some of these states, a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP).6

Recognizing that other states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD 

applicability to GHGs to the higher 

thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

issued the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Under that rule, EPA withdrew its 

approval of the affected SIPs to the 

extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. EPA based its action 

primarily on the ‘‘error correction’’ 

provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6). 

B. Missouri’s Actions 

On July 27, 2010, Missouri submitted 

a letter to EPA, in accordance with a 

request to all states from EPA in the 

proposed Tailoring Rule, with 

confirmation that the State of Missouri 

has the authority to regulate GHGs in its 

PSD program. The letter also confirmed 

Missouri’s intent to amend its air 

quality rules for the PSD program for 

GHGs to match the thresholds set in the 

Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this 

final rulemaking for a copy of Missouri’s 

letter. 

In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 

published on December 30, 2010, EPA 

withdrew its approval of Missouri’s SIP 

(among other SIPs) to the extent that the 

SIP applies PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions from 

sources emitting at levels below those 

set in the Tailoring Rule.7 As a result, 

Missouri’s current approved SIP 

provides the State with authority to 

regulate GHGs, but only at and above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and 

requires new and modified sources to 

receive a Federal PSD permit based on 

GHG emissions only if they emit or have 

potential to emit at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

The basis for this SIP revision is that 

limiting PSD applicability to GHG 

sources with the higher thresholds in 

the Tailoring Rule is consistent with the 

SIP provisions that require assurances of 

adequate resources, and thereby 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
22502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31517. 

9PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR at 82540. 

10 Id. at 82542. 

11 Id. at 82544. 

12 Id. at 82540. 

13The revised rule states that all of the 

subsections of 40 CFR 52.21, other than subsections 

(a), (q), (s), and (u), promulgated as of July 1, 2009, 

including the revision published at 75 FR 31606– 

07 (effective August 2, 2010), are incorporated by 

reference into 10 CSR 10–6.060(8)(A). 

14 In sections IV through VI of this final action, 

EPA is approving several of Missouri’s other 

revisions to its rules for incorporation into the 

Missouri SIP. 

15These portions included provisions relating to 

pollution control projects, the ‘‘clean unit’’ 

exemption, and the recordkeeping requirements for 

certain sources using the ‘‘actual to projected 

actual’’ test for applicability of PSD (the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision in section 

52.21(r)(6)). See 71 FR 36487 for a more detailed 

discussion of EPA’s approval of Missouri’s NSR 

reform rule relating to PSD. We are not acting on 

those provisions, including the recordkeeping 

aspect of the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision, in 

today’s action. (See section V of this preamble for 

a more detailed discussion of the vacated and 

remanded provisions.) We are also not acting on 

Missouri’s rule incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision 

of the definition of ‘‘chemical processing plants’’ 

(the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007)) 

or EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions rule,’’ 73 FR 

77882 (December 19, 2008). See Section IV for more 

details. 

16The November 30, 2009 submittal from MDNR 

also proposed revisions to 10 CSR 10–6.350 

‘‘Emission Limitations and Emissions Trading of 

Oxides of Nitrogen’’ and 10 CSR 10–6.360 ‘‘Control 

of NOX Emissions from Electric Generating Units 

and Non-Electric Generating Boilers.’’ In a letter 

dated April 20, 2011, Missouri withdrew this 

submission of revisions to these two rules, and 

therefore today’s action does not include them. 

addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) 

includes as a requirement for SIP 

approval that states provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances that the State * * * will 

have adequate personnel [and] funding 

* * * to carry out such [SIP].’’ In the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher 

thresholds for PSD applicability to 

GHG-emitting sources, in part, because 

the states generally did not have 

adequate resources to apply PSD to 

GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds,8 and no state, 

including Missouri, asserted that it did 

have adequate resources to do so.9 In 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found 

that the affected states, including 

Missouri, had a flaw in their SIP at the 

time they submitted their PSD 

programs, which was that the 

applicability of the PSD programs was 

potentially broader than the resources 

available to them under their SIP.10

Accordingly, for each affected state, 

including Missouri, EPA concluded that 

EPA’s action in approving the SIP was 

in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), 

and EPA rescinded its approval to the 

extent the PSD program applies to GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds.11 EPA recommended 

that states adopt a SIP revision to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that 

under state law, only sources at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be 

subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding 

confusion under the Federally approved 

SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies 

only to sources at or above the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds.12

Missouri’s August 8, 2011, SIP 

submission establishes thresholds for 

determining which stationary sources 

and modification projects become 

subject to permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under Missouri’s PSD 

program. Specifically, the SIP revision 

includes changes—which are already 

effective in Missouri’s Code of State 

Regulations (CSR)—revising rule 10 CSR 

10–6.060(8)(A) to incorporate by 

reference all of the revisions of the 

Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 

published in the Tailoring Rule.13 These 

revisions specifically define the term 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ for the PSD 

program and define ‘‘greenhouse gases 

(GHGs)’’ and ‘‘tpy CO2 equivalent 

emissions (CO2e).’’ Additionally, the 

revisions to 10 CSR 10–6.060 specify the 

methodology for calculating an 

emissions increase for GHGs, the 

applicable thresholds for GHG 

emissions subject to PSD, and the 

schedule for when the applicability 

thresholds take effect. 

Missouri is currently a SIP-approved 

State for the PSD program, and has 

previously incorporated EPA’s 2002 

NSR Reform revisions for PSD into its 

SIP. See 71 FR 36486 (June 27, 2006).14

In that rulemaking, at the State’s 

request, EPA did not act on the portions 

of Missouri’s rule which reflected the 

vacated and remanded provisions in 

EPA’s NSR Reform rule.15 The changes 

to Missouri’s PSD program regulations 

are substantively the same as the 

Federal provisions amended in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. 

III. GHG-Related Final Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving Missouri’s August 8, 

2011 revisions to the Missouri SIP, 

relating to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources. EPA has made the 

determination that this SIP revision is 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations 

regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The 

detailed rationale for this action is set 

forth in the proposed rulemaking 

referenced above, and in this final rule. 

Since EPA is finalizing its approval of 

Missouri’s changes to its air quality 

regulations to incorporate appropriate 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability into Missouri’s SIP, then 

section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52, 

added in EPA’s PSD SIP Narrowing Rule 

to codify the limitation of its approval 

of Missouri’s PSD SIP to exclude the 

applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, is no longer necessary. In 

this action, EPA is also amending 

section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52 to 

remove this unnecessary regulatory 

language. 

IV. What NSR reform-related final 

action is EPA taking in this final rule? 

In this final rule, we are also 

approving MDNR’s request to include as 

a revision to Missouri’s SIP, 

amendments to rule 10 CSR 10–6.060 

‘‘Construction Permit Required’’ and 10 

CSR 10–6.410 ‘‘Emission Banking and 

Trading.’’ These rules were adopted by 

the Missouri Air Conservation 

Commission on March 26, 2009, and 

became effective under state law on July 

30, 2009. The rules were submitted to 

EPA for inclusion into the Missouri SIP 

in a letter dated November 30, 2009. 

The submission included comments on 

the rules made during the State’s 

adoption process and the State’s 

response to comments. Missouri 

submitted these revisions to align its 

rules with EPA’s revisions to the 

Federal NSR program (NSR Reform), as 

it relates to nonattainment areas in the 

State. Pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is approving these SIP 

revisions with several exceptions. First, 

in today’s final action, EPA is not taking 

action on Missouri’s submittal of 

changes to the applicability of the PSD 

program to exclude ethanol production 

facilities from the definition of 

‘‘chemical processing plants’’ (the 

Ethanol Rule) (72 FR 24060, May 1, 

2007). See letter from James L. 

Kavanaugh, Director, MDNR, to EPA, 

April 10, 2008. Second, because 

Missouri has not adopted EPA’s 

‘‘Fugitive Emissions Rule’’ (73 FR 

77882, Dec. 19, 2008), as it relates to 

NSR in nonattainment areas, today’s 

action also does not address the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule.16

On October 28, 2011, EPA published 

a proposed rulemaking to approve 

Missouri’s SIP revision. The proposal 

addressed SIP revisions associated with 

both the Federal ‘‘tailoring rule’’ 

revisions and ‘‘NSR reform’’ rules. See 

76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any 

public comments in response to the 

proposal. Therefore, in this final rule, 

pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22503 

17As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to 

address Missouri’s August 8, 2011 request to 

approve revisions to the Title V program relating to 

GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking. 

18For more background information about the 

2002 NSR Reform rules, see 67 FR 80186. 

19As stated in section II above, EPA did not act 

on the portions of Missouri’s rule which related to 

the vacated and remanded provisions of the EPA 

rule. 

EPA is approving these revisions into 

the Missouri SIP.17

V. What is the background for the NSR 

reform-related approval in this final 

rule? 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the 

CAA’s PSD and Nonattainment NSR 

programs (‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NSR); Baseline 

Emissions Determination, Actual-toFuture-Actual Methodology, Plantwide 

Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, 

Pollution Control Projects’’). On 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on the 

reconsideration of the December 31, 

2002, final rule changes. In that 

November 7, 2003, final action, EPA 

added the definition of ‘‘replacement 

unit,’’ and clarified an issue regarding 

PALs. The December 31, 2002, and the 

November 7, 2003, final actions are 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002 

NSR Reform Rules.’’ 

In brief, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

made changes to five areas of the NSR 

programs (concerning both PSD and 

nonattainment NSR).18 The 2002 Rules: 

(1) Provide a new method for 

determining baseline actual emissions; 

(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual 

methodology for determining whether a 

major modification has occurred; (3) 

allow major stationary sources to 

comply with plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs) to avoid having a 

significant emissions increase that 

triggers the requirements of the major 

NSR program; (4) provide a new 

applicability provision for emissions 

units that are designated clean units; 

and (5) exclude pollution control 

projects (PCPs) from the definition of 

‘‘physical change or change in the 

method of operation.’’ 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective, industry, 

state, and environmental petitioners 

challenged numerous aspects of the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with 

portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules (45 

FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 

2005, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit Court) issued a 

decision on the challenges to the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United 

States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In 

summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated 

portions of the rules pertaining to clean 

units and PCPs, remanded a portion of 

the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g. 

40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other 

provisions included as part of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules. 

On February 25, 2005, Missouri 

submitted a request to include EPA’s 

2002 NSR Reform Rules in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas in to the SIP, 

and EPA approved these revisions 

through a final rule published on June 

27, 2006 (71 FR 36486).19

VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving revisions to Missouri’s 

regulations 10 CSR 10–6.060 and 10 

CSR 10–6.410, as submitted on 

November 30, 2009, for inclusion in the 

Missouri SIP. EPA has determined that 

this SIP revision is approvable because 

it is in accordance with the CAA and 

EPA regulations implementing the NSR 

program, including NSR Reform. The 

detailed rationale for this action is set 

forth in the proposal for this rule, 76 FR 

66882, and in this notice. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves the State’s law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by the State’s 

law. For that reason, this 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 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). 

In addition, this final 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. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 15, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action 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 effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
22504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, New source 

review, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by 

revising the entries for 10 CSR 10–6.060 

(Construction Permits Required) and 10 

CSR 10–6.410 (Emissions Banking and 

Trading) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

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 State of 

Missouri 

*******

10–6.060 ....... Construction Permits Required.8/30/11 4/16/12 [insert FR 

page number 

where the document begins].

This revision incorporates by reference elements of EPA’s NSR reform 

rule published December 31, 2002. Provisions of the incorporated reform rule relating to the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution Control 

Projects, and exemption from recordkeeping provisions for certain 

sources using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections test 

are not SIP approved. In addition, we are not approving Missouri’s 

rule incorporating EPA’s 2007 revision of the definition of ‘‘chemical 

processing plants’’ (the ‘‘Ethanol Rule,’’ 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007) 

or EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions rule,’’ 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 

2008). 

Otherwise, this revision also incorporates by reference the other provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on August 2, 2010, which supersedes any conflicting provisions in the Missouri rule. Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is not SIP approved. 

10–6.410 ....... Emissions Banking and Trading.7/30/09 4/16/12 [insert FR 

page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

§ 52.1323 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.1323 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (n). 

[FR Doc. 2012–8920 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 173 

[Docket No. PHMSA–07–29364 (HM–231A)] 

RIN 2137–AE32 

Hazardous Materials; Packages 

Intended for Transport by Aircraft 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations to 

require closures of inner packagings 

containing liquids within a combination 

packaging intended for transportation 

by aircraft to be secured by a secondary 

means or, where a secondary closure 

cannot be applied or it is impracticable 

to apply, permit the use of a leakproof 

liner. These amendments are consistent 

with the 2011–2012 edition of the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization Technical Instructions for 

the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods 

by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective July 1, 2012. 

Voluntary Compliance Date: 

Voluntary compliance with all 

amendments are authorized May 16, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael G. Stevens, Standards and 

Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, telephone (202) 366–8553, or 

Janet McLaughlin, Office of Security 

and Hazardous Materials Safety, Federal 

Aviation Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 490 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 8100, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 

385–4897. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Current Requirements in the HMR 

B. Summary of Proposals in NPRM 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES