Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 19599 

[FR Doc. 2013–07391 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100; FRL–9795–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing its 

proposal to approve revisions to the 

Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria 

(HGB) 1997 8-Hour ozone 

nonattainment Area (Area). The HGB 

Area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, 

Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, 

Montgomery and Waller counties. 

Specifically, we are finalizing our 

proposed approval of portions of two 

revisions to the Texas SIP submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as 

meeting certain Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC), and Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX) in the HGB Area. We are 

also finalizing our proposal to approve 

the 2007 Voluntary Mobile Emission 

Reduction Program (VMEP) 

commitments for the HGB Area. This 

action is in accordance with section 110 

of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, 

CAA). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

May 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30am and 

4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6691, fax (214) 665–7263, 

email address shar.alan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Outline 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we approving? 

1. The June 13, 2007 submittal 

2. The April 6, 2010 submittal 

B. When did the public comment period 

expire? 

II. Evaluation 

A. What are the public comments and 

EPA’s response to them? 

B. What is TCEQ’s approach and analysis 

to RACT in the June 13, 2007 submittal? 

C. What CTG source categories are we 

addressing in this action? 

D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter 115 

of the June 13, 2007 submittal meet 

RACT for liquid storage sources in the 

HGB Area? 

E. Is Texas’ approach to major Non-CTG 

sources for RACT determination in the 

HGB Area acceptable? 

F. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for CTG source categories 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

G. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for NOX sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

H. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for VOC and NOX sources 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we approving? 

In EPA’s September 19, 2012 (77 FR 

58063) rulemaking action we proposed 

to approve portions of revisions to the 

Texas SIP submitted to EPA in two 

separate letters dated June 13, 2007 and 

April 6, 2010 from TCEQ. We are 

finalizing our proposed approval as 

described below. 

1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal 

We are finalizing our proposal to 

approve the June 13, 2007 submittal, 

sent to EPA from TCEQ, which in part, 

included the Voluntary Mobile 

Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) 

commitments as strategies to 

complement existing regulatory 

programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine composition. 

Economic incentive provisions are also 

available in sections 182 and 108 of the 

Act. Credits generated through VMEP 

can be counted toward attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Due to the 

voluntary nature of this program, only 

up to 3% of the total future year 

emissions reductions required to attain 

an appropriate NAAQS may be claimed 

under the VMEP policy guidance. 

In addition, the June 13, 2007 

submittal included an analysis intended 

to demonstrate RACT was being 

implemented in the HGB Area as 

required by the CAA (Appendix D of the 

submittal). 

2. The April 6, 2010 Submittal 

Texas supplemented the RACT 

analysis contained in the June 13, 2007 

submittal as a part of the April 6, 2010 

revision to the Texas SIP. We are 

finalizing the proposal to find, based on 

the analysis in Appendix D of the April 

6, 2010 submittal, in conjunction with 

the June 13, 2007 submission, that 

Texas has met certain RACT 

requirements under section 182(b). 

Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 

submittal is titled ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology 

Analysis.’’ See section B of the 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) 

proposal for more information on RACT 

evaluation for the HGB Area. 

B. When did the public comment period 

expire? 

The public comment period for the 77 

FR 58063 proposed approval ended on 

October 19, 2012, and we received 

relevant comments from TCEQ and the 

8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition (the 

Coalition) on this rulemaking action 

during its comment period. See section 

II below. 

II. Evaluation 

A. What are the public comments and 

EPA’s response to them? 

Comment: TCEQ and the Coalition 

both expressed their support for the 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) 

rulemaking action. TCEQ stated that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA should expedite approval of RACT 

SIP for other CTG categories not 

included in the proposal. 

Response: The EPA appreciates the 

commenters’ support of our proposed 

approval. The EPA is cognizant of other 

VOC CTG categories in the HGB Area. 

As stated in the proposal, EPA intends 

to act upon other VOC CTG categories 

(including the negative declarations) 

separately in a different rulemaking 

action. 

Comment: TCEQ requested that the 

EPA provide clarification on how long 

the VMEP measures submitted on June 

13, 2007 must remain in place. TCEQ 

interprets this time period to be through 

the year 2009. 

Response: The basic framework for 

ensuring SIP credit for VMEPs is spelled 

out in guidance issued under a 

memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997, 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating 

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction Programs in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs).’’ (the 

Policy). For VMEP credits to be 

approvable they should be quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable, permanent, and 

adequately supported. The Policy states 

that ‘‘emission reductions produced by 

the VMEP must continue at least for as 

long as the time period in which they 

are used by applicable SIP 

demonstrations. The VMEP need not 

continue forever to generate permanent 

emissions reductions, but must specify 

an appropriate period of 

implementation in the SIP.’’ See page 19 

of the Policy. In addition, ‘‘the 

voluntary program should be permanent 

unless it is replaced by another measure 

(through a SIP revision) or the State 

demonstrates in a SIP revision that the 

emission reductions from the voluntary 

program are no longer needed.’’ See 

page 5 of the Policy. The VMEP for an 

area can be revised by a SIP revision 

that substitutes or adds other VMEP 

measures, if needed. The 2007 VMEP 

measures are considered permanent and 

remain part of Texas SIP until the states 

revises its SIP, or demonstrates in a SIP 

revision that the emission reductions 

(for example; the 2.82 tons per day of 

NOX reductions) from the voluntary 

program are no longer needed. In 2010, 

Texas revised the 2007 VMEP measures 

as a part of the HGB Area attainment 

demonstration plan. See section 4.6.2.2: 

Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction 

Program (VMEP) and Appendix H of the 

2010 submittal. Based on above Policy 

statements and the supporting record/ 

documentation, the 2010 VMEP 

measures, submitted with the 2010 HGB 

Area attainment demonstration plan, 

supersede and replace the 2007 VMEP 

measures. We will be taking action on 

the 2010 VMEP measures in a different 

rulemaking. In short, EPA interprets the 

2007 VMEP measures remain in place 

through the year 2009 (that is until the 

year 2010) when the State updated its 

HGB Area attainment demonstration 

plan. 

This concludes our response to the 

comments received on the September 

19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) proposal during 

comment period. As a result of 

comments received no changes were 

made to the proposed approval action. 

B. What is TCEQ’s approach and 

analysis to RACT in the June 13, 2007 

submittal? 

Under sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B), 

states must insure RACT is in place for 

each source category for which EPA 

issued a CTG. As a part of its June 13, 

2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a 

RACT analysis to demonstrate that the 

RACT requirements for CTG sources in 

the HGB 8-Hour ozone nonattainment 

Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ 

revised and supplemented this analysis 

in the April 6, 2010 submittal. For 

information on how TCEQ conducted its 

RACT analysis see section E of the 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58065) 

proposal. We are finalizing our proposal 

finding that TCEQ has properly 

conducted its analysis, and their 

approach to control requirements are in 

agreement with the CAA RACT 

requirements for VOC sources in the 

HGB Area listed in Table 1 below. 

C. What CTG source categories are we 

addressing in this action? 

Table 1 below contains a list of VOC 

CTG source categories, and their 

corresponding sections of 30 TAC 

Chapter 115 that fulfill the applicable 

RACT requirements. 

TABLE 1—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING TEXAS VOC RACT RULES

Source category in HGB area Fulfilling RACT requirement, 30 

TAC Chapter 115 

Bulk Gasoline Plants .............................................................................................................................................. § 115.211–219 

Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing .......................................................................................................................... § 115.352–359 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry–Polymer & Resin Manufacturing ........................................ § 115.352–359 

Gasoline Tank Trucks & Vapor Collection Systems .............................................................................................. § 115.211–219 and § 115.234– 

239 

Refineries—Leaks from Equipment ........................................................................................................................ § 115.352–359 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—High Density Resins ......................................................... § 115.120–129 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products ............................. § 115.531–539 

Petroleum Liquid Storage—External Floating Roof Tanks .................................................................................... § 115.112–119 

Refineries—Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, Unit Turnarounds ........................................ § 115.311–319 and § 115.131– 

139 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Air Oxidation Processes ................................................... § 115.120–129 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Reactor Processes & Distillation Operations ................... § 115.120–129 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair ................................................................................................................................. § 115.420–429 

Solvent Metal Cleaning .......................................................................................................................................... § 115.412–419 and § 115.420– 

429 

Gasoline Service Stations ...................................................................................................................................... § 115.221–229 

Petroleum Liquid Storage—Fixed Roof Tanks ....................................................................................................... § 115.112–119 

Tank Trucks—Gasoline Loading Terminals ........................................................................................................... § 115.211–219 or § 115.221–229 

In addition, Texas declared that there 

are no existing major sources of rubber 

tire manufacturing, identified with the 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

3011, in the HGB Area. As such, TCEQ 

does not have to adopt VOC regulations 

for this source category at this time for 

the HGB Area. We are also finalizing our 

proposed approval of Texas’ negative 

declaration for this source category. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 19601 

D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter 

115 of the June 13, 2007 submittal meet 

RACT for liquid storage sources in the 

HGB Area? 

On March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15348) we 

approved revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 

115 Control of Air Pollution from 

Volatile Organic Compounds. On 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063), we 

proposed approval of these revisions as 

satisfying RACT requirements for liquid 

storage sources in the HGB Area. We are 

now finalizing our proposed approval of 

these revisions and finding that by 

implementing these measures Texas is 

meeting the VOC RACT for liquid 

storage sources in the HGB Area. 

E. Is Texas’ approach to major Non-CTG 

sources for RACT determination in the 

HGB Area acceptable? 

Under section 182(b)(2)(C), states 

must assure that major sources not 

covered by a CTG have RACT in place. 

Texas has identified a list, in its 

Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 

submittal, of major VOC sources in the 

HGB Area to determine if any do not 

have RACT level controls in place and 

do not fall into the identified sectors for 

which EPA has issued a CTG. For 

information on how TCEQ reviewed the 

point source emissions inventory and 

title V databases to identify all major 

sources of VOC emissions see section I 

of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 

58063). As a part of our approval of the 

1-Hour ozone attainment demonstration 

plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, 

October 5, 2005, and 71 FR 52676, 

September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas 

has met RACT for VOC and NOX

sources. In its April 06, 2010, submittal 

to EPA Texas identified major Non-CTG 

sources, certified that it has RACT in 

place, and we proposed approval of 

their determination at September 19, 

2012 (77 FR 58063). We are finalizing 

our proposed approval finding that the 

Texas SIP meets the RACT requirements 

for the major Non-CTG sources of VOC 

in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

F. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for CTG source categories 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

As a part of our action on the 1-Hour 

ozone attainment demonstration plan 

for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, 

October 5, 2005; and 71 FR 52676, 

September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas 

has met RACT for VOC and NOX

sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ 

stated that it has reviewed the HGB VOC 

rules, certified that they satisfy RACT 

requirements for the 8-Hour ozone 

standard by the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility, and we proposed approval of 

their determination on September 19, 

2012 (77 FR 58063). For more 

information see section J of the 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). We 

are finalizing the proposed approval 

that VOC control measures in Chapter 

115 meet RACT requirements for CTG 

sources of VOC in the HGB Area under 

the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. By 

implementing these control 

requirements (Chapter 115), Texas is 

satisfying the RACT requirements for 

CTG source categories identified in 

Table 1 of this document in the HGB 

Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

standard. 

G. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for NOX sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

As a part of our approval of the 1- 

Hour ozone attainment demonstration 

plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, 

October 5, 2005; and 71 FR 52676, 

September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas 

has met RACT for VOC and NOX

sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ 

stated that it has reviewed the HGB NOX

rules, certified that they satisfy RACT 

requirements for the 8-Hour ozone 

standard by the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility, and we proposed approval of 

their determination on September 19, 

2012 (77 FR 58063). For more 

information see section L of the 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). We 

are finalizing the proposed approval 

that NOX control measures in Chapter 

117 meet RACT requirements for major 

sources of NOX in the HGB Area under 

the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. By 

implementing these control 

requirements (Chapter 117), Texas is 

satisfying the RACT requirements for 

NOX source in the HGB Area under the 

1997 8-Hour ozone standard. 

H. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for VOC and NOX sources 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

The purpose of 30 TAC Chapter 115 

and 117 rules for the HGB Area is to 

establish reasonable controls on the 

emissions of ozone precursors. Texas 

reviewed its VOC and NOX rules and 

certified that its rules satisfy RACT 

requirements, and we proposed 

approval of their determination at 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). For 

more information see sections K and L 

of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 

58063). As such, and based upon the 

above 3 sections (sections E, F, and G), 

we are finalizing our proposed approval 

finding that, for major sources of NOX, 

CTG VOC categories identified in Table 

1, and Non-CTG VOC sources, Texas has 

RACT-level controls in place for the 

HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

standard. 

III. Final Action 

Today, we are finalizing our proposal 

to find that for VOC CTG categories 

identified in Table 1 and all major NonCTG VOC sources, and for NOX, Texas 

has RACT-level controls in place for the 

HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

standard. The EPA had previously 

approved RACT for VOC and NOX into 

Texas’ SIP under the 1-Hour ozone 

standard. We are also finalizing our 

proposal to approve the 2007 VMEP into 

Texas SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews: 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19602 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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; 

• 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); and 

• 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 3, 2013. 

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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 20, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. In Section 52.2270, the second table 

in paragraph (e) entitled ‘‘EPAApproved Nonregulatory Provisions and 

Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas 

SIP’’ is amended by adding three new 

entries at the end. 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area State submittal/effective date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Program (VMEP).Brazoria, Chambers, Fort 

Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and 

Waller Counties, TX.

June 13, 2007 ........................ 4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

NOX RACT finding for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort 

Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and 

Waller Counties, TX.

April 6, 2010 ........................... 4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

VOC RACT finding for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort 

Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and 

Waller Counties, TX.

April 6, 2010 ........................... 4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].For selected 

categories. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07388 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0749; FRL–9795–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Operating 

Permits Program; State of Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Operating Permits Program to amend 

the definitions provisions of the rules. 

This SIP revision and revision to the 

Missouri operating permits program add 

the compounds propylene carbonate 

and dimethyl carbonate to the list of 

compounds which are excluded from 

the definition of Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) for consistency with 

the Federal definition of VOC. The SIP 

revision also corrects two asbestos 

method subpart references. This 

revision also approves Missouri’s 

request to amend the SIP to meet the 

2008 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

implementation requirements of the 

May 16, 2008, New Source Review 

(NSR) PM2.5 Rule. In this SIP revision, 

Missouri adopted rule revisions to 

establish the requirement for NSR 

permits to address directly emitted 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; and 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide 

(NOX)). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES