66882 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the contact person under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a. 

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

Eduardo M. Ochoa, 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27982 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0825, FRL–9484–4] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

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 two New Source Review (NSR) 

revisions. The GHG-related SIP 

revisions incorporate 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. These 

revisions were submitted by the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) to EPA in a letter 

dated August 8, 2011. The 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. These revisions were 

submitted by MDNR to EPA in a letter 

dated November 30, 2009. EPA is 

proposing to approve the GHG and NSR 

revisions because the Agency has made 

the preliminary determination 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: Comments must be received on 

or before November 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0825, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (913) 551–7844. 

4. Mail: 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: 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. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011– 

0825. 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 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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, 

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 in 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; 

email address: 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66883 

1EPA intends to address Missouri’s 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). 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Ms. Bhesania’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7147; 

email address: bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What GHG-related action is EPA proposing 

in today’s notice? 

II. What is the background for the GHGrelated PSD SIP approval proposed by 

EPA in today’s notice? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

proposed GHG-related SIP revision? 

IV. GHG-Related Proposed Action 

V. What NSR-related action is EPA proposing 

in today’s notice? 

VI. Why is EPA proposing this NSR-related 

action? 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

proposed NSR Reform-related SIP 

revisions? 

VIII. NSR-Related Proposed Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What GHG-related action is EPA 

proposing in today’s notice? 

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), hereafter 

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. In today’s 

notice, pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these 

revisions into the Missouri SIP.1

II. What is the background for the 

GHG-related PSD SIP approval 

proposed by EPA in today’s notice? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for today’s proposed 

actions. More detailed discussion of the 

background is found in the preambles 

for those actions. 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 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s proposed 

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. 

PSD is implemented through the SIP 

system. 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 

proposed 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66884 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 V through VIII. of this proposed 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve 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 VI. 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). 

16EPA also notes that Missouri’s incorporation by 

reference of EPA’s PSD rule includes revisions by 

EPA made in 2005 (70 FR 71612, November 29, 

2005) and 2008 (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). We 

are proposing to approve those updates to the PSD 

rule in conjunction with the proposal regarding 

Missouri’s incorporation of the Tailoring Rule 

provisions discussed in this notice. 

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 proposed 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 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 GHG-emitting 

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

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

proposed GHG-related SIP revision? 

In a letter dated August 8, 2011, 

MDNR submitted a revision of its 

regulations to EPA for processing and 

approval into the SIP. This SIP revision 

puts in place the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability set 

forth in EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA’s 

approval of Missouri’s GHG-related SIP 

revision will incorporate the revisions 

of the Missouri regulations into the 

Federally-approved SIP. Doing so will 

clarify the applicable thresholds in the 

Missouri SIP. 

The State of Missouri’s August 8, 

2011, proposed SIP revision establishes 

thresholds for determining which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Missouri’s PSD program. Specifically, 

Missouri’s August 8, 2011, proposed SIP 

revision includes changes—which are 

already effective—to Missouri’s Code of 

State Regulations (CSR), revising rule 10 

CSR 10–6.060(8)(A) to incorporate by 

reference all of the revisions to 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, these 

revisions 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. See 75 FR at 

31606–07. 

Missouri is currently a SIP-approved 

State for the PSD program, and has 

previously incorporated some elements 

of 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. As part of its 

review of Missouri’s submittal, EPA 

performed a line-by-line review of 

Missouri’s proposed revision and has 

preliminarily determined that it is 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule.16

IV. GHG-Related Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve Missouri’s 

August 8, 2011 revisions to the Missouri 

SIP, relating to PSD requirements for 

GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, 

Missouri’s August 8, 2011, proposed SIP 

revision establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability to new and modified 

GHG-emitting sources in accordance 

with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP revision is approvable 

because it is in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

If EPA approves 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, as included in EPA’s PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule—which codifies EPA’s 

limiting its approval of Missouri’s PSD 

SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD 

to GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds—is no longer 

necessary. In today’s proposed action, 

EPA is also proposing to amend section 

52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove 

this unnecessary regulatory language. 

V. What NSR-related action is EPA 

proposing in today’s notice? 

In this rulemaking, we are also 

proposing to approve 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66885 

17See letter from James L. Kavanaugh, Director, 

MDNR, to EPA, April 10, 2008. 

18The 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. 

19For more background information about the 

2002 NSR Reform rules, see 67 FR 80186. 

20As stated in section III. above, EPA did not act 

on the portions of Missouri’s rule which related to 

the vacated and remanded provisions of the EPA 

rule. 

adoption process and the State’s 

response to comments. Missouri 

submitted these revisions to adopt 

EPA’s revisions to the Federal NSR 

program. Pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is now proposing to approve 

these SIP revisions with several 

exceptions. First, in today’s proposed 

rulemaking, 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’’).17 EPA intends to address this 

revision in a separate rulemaking. 

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.18 We are 

presently soliciting comments on this 

proposed action. Final rulemaking will 

occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

VI. Why is EPA proposing this NSRrelated action? 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (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-to-Future-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).19 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).20

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Missouri’s proposed NSR reformrelated SIP revisions? 

Missouri’s SIP submittals consist of 

several amendments to rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.060 and one amendment to 10 CSR 

10–6.410 that became State-effective on 

July 30, 2009. Copies of the Missouri 

revised NSR rules can be obtained from 

the Docket, as discussed in the 

ADDRESSES section above. A discussion 

of the specific changes to Missouri’s 

rules comprising the proposed SIP 

revision follows. 

The amendments to 10 CSR 10–6.060 

implement EPA’s 2002 New Source 

Review Reform rules in nonattainment 

areas. These rule amendments create 

consistency between the attainment and 

nonattainment area permitting programs 

in Missouri in three areas: Baseline 

emissions determinations, actual-toprojected actual emissions calculation 

methodology, and PALs. The 

amendment to 10 CSR 10–6.410 will 

remove a reference to Clean Unit 

projects. As discussed previously, these 

provisions were vacated by the DC 

Circuit Court of Appeals in the New 

York case in 2005. 

EPA’s evaluation of Missouri’s NSR 

Reform-related SIP submittal included a 

line-by-line comparison of the proposed 

revisions with the Federal requirements. 

As a general matter, state agencies may 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, 

with different but equivalent 

regulations. 

After evaluation of Missouri’s 

proposed SIP revision, EPA has 

determined that the revised rule 

language at 10 CSR 10–6.060(7) 

(Nonattainment Area Permits) is 

substantially similar to the language in 

the equivalent Federal regulation (i.e., 

40 CFR 51.165). It also employs 

incorporation by reference to the 

applicable Federal regulations whenever 

practical in order to ensure consistency 

and clarity and to facilitate future 

required updates to this rule. 

Furthermore, EPA has previously 

determined in a Supplemental 

Environmental Analysis that the 

implementation of the Federal NSR 

Reform rules will be environmentally 

beneficial. See 68 FR 44620 (July 30, 

2003). EPA has no reason to believe that 

the environmental impacts of Missouri’s 

proposed SIP revision will be 

substantially different from those 

discussed in the Supplemental 

Environmental Analysis. Therefore, 

Missouri’s revisions do not make 

Missouri’s NSR program less stringent 

than the current Federally-approved 

SIP. Accordingly, EPA believes that 

these changes are consistent with the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193, and are consistent with the Federal 

program requirements for the 

preparation, adoption and submittal of 

implementation plans for NSR set forth 

at 40 CFR 51.165, and are therefore 

approvable. 

VIII. NSR-Related Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Missouri’s changes to its regulations 10 

CSR 10–6.060 and 10 CSR 10–6.410, as 

submitted by Missouri on November 30, 

2009, for inclusion in the Missouri SIP. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66886 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

implementing the NSR program, 

including NSR Reform. 

IX. 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), 7661a(d); 40 CFR 

52.02(a); 40 CFR 70.1(c). 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 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, the proposed 

approvals of Missouri’s revision to its 

SIP: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and are therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are 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 

• Do 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

program 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27987 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9484–3] 

RIN 2060–AP76 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New 

Source Performance Standards and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews; 

Extension of Comment Period Closing 

Date 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that 

the period for providing public 

comments on the August 23, 2011 

proposed rule titled, ‘‘Oil and Natural 

Gas Sector: New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Reviews,’’ is being extended to 

November 30, 2011. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rules published 

on August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52738) closes 

on November 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0505, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the Air and Radiation 

Docket Web site. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0505 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Facsimile: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for the EPA, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Delivery: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0505. The 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 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 email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the EPA without 

going through http:// 

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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS