[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55918-55925]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19621]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0419; FRL-9830-02-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; St. Louis Area Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve, through parallel processing, revisions to the
Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the St. Louis
area's vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program received on
November 12, 2019, March 2, 2022, and May 24, 2022. In the submissions,
Missouri requests the EPA's approval of revisions to a regulation and
related plan that implement the St. Louis area's Inspection and
Maintenance program called, Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program (GVIP).
We are approving Missouri's removal of vehicles registered in Franklin
County, unless the vehicle is primarily operated in the rest of the
area, from the Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program. The revisions to
this rule include amending the rule exemption section for vehicles
subject to the rule, removing unnecessary words, amending definitions
specific to the rule, updates due to technology changes, and other
minor edits. These revisions do not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
reasonable further progress, or other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.
Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between state and
federally approved rules.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0419. 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, 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 through www.regulations.gov or
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7588; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Parallel Processing
II. History and Current Status of St. Louis Area Air Quality
III. Background of Missouri's I/M Program
IV. What is being addressed in this document?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. The EPA's Response to Comments
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations
IX. Incorporation by Reference
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Parallel Processing

    The EPA is using parallel processing to approve this SIP. Parallel
processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent state and
federal proposed rulemaking actions, consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Generally, the state submits a copy of the
proposed regulation or other revisions to the EPA before conducting its
public hearing and completing its public comment process under state
law. The EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under federal law.\1\ If, after the state
completes its public comment process and after the EPA's public comment
process, the state changes its final submittal from the proposed
submittal, the EPA evaluates those changes and decides whether to
publish another NPRM in light of those changes or to proceed to taking
final action on its proposed action and describe the state's changes in
its final rulemaking action. Final rulemaking action by the EPA only
occurs after the final submittal has been adopted by the state and
formally submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although not the case in our proposed rulemaking on May 19,
2022, in some instances, the EPA's NPRM is published in the Federal
Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its
public hearing and conducting its public comment process. The state
and the EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on
both the state action and federal action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri provided its state-approved nonregulatory changes to the
EPA on November 12, 2019. On March 2, 2022, Missouri submitted a
supplemental revision, containing the not yet finalized revised
regulation and supplemental emission controls to the EPA. Missouri's
public comment process was completed for this revision, but the
implementing state regulation in the submittal had not been formally
submitted by the state to the EPA at the time of our May 19, 2022,
proposed approval.
    In accordance with the parallel processing provisions in section
2.3.1 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, the State has been provided an
opportunity to consider the EPA's comments prior to submission of a
final plan for the EPA's review and has submitted a schedule for final
submittal of the state regulation. Specifically, Missouri's schedule
included publication of the order of rulemaking in the Missouri
Register on April 15, 2022. The final state regulation was published in
Missouri's Code of State Regulations (CSR) on April 30, 2022 and became
effective on May 30, 2022.
    Because the State had satisfied all requirements for parallel
processing concerning the March 2, 2022, submittal, the EPA proposed to
approve the submittal through parallel processing on May 19, 2022.
    Missouri formally submitted the final regulation package to the EPA
on May 24, 2022. The May 24, 2022, submittal contained two changes to
10 CSR 10-5.381. The changes are:
    1. In 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(B)8. Missouri changed ``biennial'' to
``biennially''. The sentence in the March 2, 2022 submittal was ``Motor
vehicles driven fewer than twelve thousand (12,000) miles biennial that
receive a mileage based exemption described in subsection (4)(H) of
this rule;'' (emphasis added). The sentence now is ``Motor vehicles
driven fewer than twelve thousand (12,000) miles biennially that
receive a mileage based exemption described in subsection (4)(H) of
this rule;'' (emphasis added).
    2. 10 CSR 10-5.381 (2)(O) Missouri moved ``pounds'' behind the
numeric version of 8,500. The sentence in the March 2, 2022 submission
was ``Light Duty Truck (LDT)--Any motor vehicle rated at eight thousand
five hundred pounds (8,500). . .'' (emphasis added). The sentence is
now ``Light Duty Truck (LDT)--Any motor vehicle rated at eight thousand
five hundred (8,500) pounds . . .''(emphasis added).
    The EPA has evaluated these revisions and finds them to be
grammatical in nature, not substantially changing the purpose and
intent of the rule, and not requiring another proposal or comment
period. Therefore, in this final action, the EPA is approving these
changes to the rule.

II. History and Current Status of St. Louis Area Air Quality

A. The Ozone NAAQS

    The St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois bi-state area, which has been
designated as nonattainment for several Ozone NAAQS, has historically
included the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.
Louis, and St. Louis City in Missouri, and the counties of Madison,
Monroe and St. Clair in Illinois (hereafter referred to as the St.
Louis area unless otherwise noted). For all Ozone NAAQS, except for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS, the St. Louis area has been redesignated to
attainment as described in this section.
    On May 12, 2003, the EPA redesignated the St. Louis area from
Serious nonattainment to attainment for the 1979 Ozone NAAQS. (68 FR
25418). On June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the 1979 1-hour Ozone NAAQS
for all areas except the 8-hour Ozone nonattainment early action
compact (EAC) areas. (70 FR 44470). The St. Louis area did not
participate in the EAC and therefore, the 1-hour standard was revoked
for all areas in Missouri effective June 15, 2005.
    On February 20, 2015, the EPA redesignated the St. Louis area from
Moderate nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
(80 FR 9207). On March 6, 2015, the EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS. (80 FR 12264).
    On September 20, 2018, the EPA redesignated the St. Louis area from
Moderate nonattainment to attainment and approved a maintenance plan
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (83 FR 47572). The 2008 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS has not been revoked.
    On November 16, 2017, the EPA designated all areas of Missouri
except the St. Louis area as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS. (82 FR 54232). On April 30, 2018, the EPA designated
Boles Township of Franklin County, St. Charles County, St. Louis
County, and St. Louis City as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS. (83 FR 25776). As part of that same action, the EPA designated
Jefferson County and the remaining portion of Franklin County as
attainment/unclassifiable. On July 10, 2020, the District of Columbia
Circuit Court remanded the Jefferson County designation (among other
designations) back to the EPA. The Court upheld the EPA's designation
of Boles Township as nonattainment and the remainder of Franklin County
as attainment/unclassifiable.\2\ In response to the Court remand, the
EPA revised the Jefferson County designation to nonattainment on May
26, 2021. (86 FR 31438).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Clean Wisconsin v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other NAAQS

    On March 29, 1999, the EPA redesignated a portion of St. Louis
County and St. Louis City from

nonattainment to attainment for the 1971 Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS (64
FR 3855).
    On August 3, 2018, the EPA redesignated Franklin County, Jefferson
County, St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS (83 FR 38033).
    A portion of Jefferson County is currently designated nonattainment
for both the 2008 and 1978 Lead NAAQS. This nonattainment area is
currently monitoring compliance with both the 1978 and 2008 Lead
NAAQS.\3\ The rest of the St. Louis Area is designated attainment/
unclassifiable for both the 2008 and 1978 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See file titled Herculaneum AQS Report in Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 28, 2022, the EPA redesignated a portion of Jefferson
County from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS (87 FR 4508). The rest of the St. Louis Area is
designated as either attainment or unclassifiable for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    The St. Louis Area is designated attainment/unclassifiable for all
other NAAQS.

III. Background of Missouri's I/M Program

    Under sections 182 (b)(4) and (c)(3) of the CAA, vehicle I/M
programs are required for areas that are classified as Moderate or
above nonattainment for Ozone. As a result, Missouri has previously
submitted, and the EPA has previously approved into the SIP an I/M
program for the St. Louis Area of Franklin County, Jefferson County,
St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City.\4\ At the
time of the program's inception, the program was based on tailpipe
testing. In 2000, the EPA approved Missouri's switch to Onboard
Diagnostic testing for the same geographic area, consistent with our
regulations and section 182 of the CAA.\5\ In 2015, the EPA approved
revising and recodification of the I/M program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 50 FR 32411, August 12, 1985.
    \5\ 65 FR 62295, May, 18, 2000.
    \6\ Missouri recodified the I/M regulations from 10 CSR 10-5.380
to 10 CSR 10-5.381. 80 FR 11323, March 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving, through parallel processing, revisions to the
Missouri SIP received on November 12, 2019, March 2, 2022, and May 24,
2022. In the November 12, 2019, submission, Missouri requested the
EPA's approval of revisions to the vehicle I/M Program also known as
GVIP, for the St. Louis area. The revisions remove both Franklin and
Jefferson Counties from the GVIP; however, the EPA is only taking
action on the removal of Franklin County from the GVIP in accordance
with a subsequent request from Missouri.
    At the time of the November 12, 2019 submission, Missouri had not
yet revised the implementing GVIP regulations nor provided supplemental
emission controls to offset the emission increases resulting from
ceasing vehicle emission inspections in the Boles Township portion of
the nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section 110(l), 42
U.S.C. 7410(l).
    At the time of Missouri's November 12, 2019, submission, Jefferson
County was designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS. When the EPA designated Jefferson County to nonattainment on May
26, 2021 (86 FR 31438), Missouri requested that the EPA act on the
removal of Franklin County from the GVIP plan and postpone action on
the removal of Jefferson County from the GVIP plan by letter dated
December 6, 2021.\7\ As stated in the EPA's comments during Missouri's
public notice on their draft rulemaking, Missouri would need to provide
further supplemental emission controls for the EPA to be able to
propose approving the removal of I/M in Jefferson County as long as the
County remains designated nonattainment.\8\ The EPA's longstanding
position is that the implementing rule revision and supplemental
emission controls, for the nonattainment area, are needed for the EPA's
approval. This position is consistent with the CAA, our implementing
regulations, and our previous approvals of I/M removal across the
nation. Additionally, in response to comment from the EPA on the draft
rulemaking, Missouri limited the implementing regulation's exemption to
Franklin County as opposed to exempting both Franklin and Jefferson
Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Missouri's December 6, 2021 letter to EPA is included in the
docket for this action.
    \8\ A summary of the EPA's comments and Missouri's response can
be found in the docket for this action in the November 12, 2019
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2022, Missouri submitted a draft SIP revision
supplementing the November 12, 2019, submittal, along with a parallel
processing request. The March 2, 2022, submittal included both the
revised implementing rule, 10 CSR 10-5.381, and supplemental emission
controls to offset the increased emissions in the Boles Township
portion of Franklin County that is designated as nonattainment for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS. The revision to 10 CSR 10-5.381 adds an exemption for
vehicles registered in Franklin County from the program unless the
vehicles are primarily operated in the remainder of nonattainment area.
The revisions to this rule include amending the rule exemption section
for vehicles subject to the rule, removing unnecessary words, amending
definitions specific to the rule, and other minor edits. The EPA is
approving the portion of the November 12, 2019, March 2, 2022, and May
24, 2022, GVIP Plan relating to Franklin County, St. Charles County,
St. Louis County, and St. Louis City, by approving the removal of
Franklin County from the I/M Program, and fully approving the revisions
to 10 CSR 10-5.381.
    In accordance with Missouri's December 6, 2021, letter, the EPA is
not taking action on Missouri's November 12, 2019, request to remove
Jefferson County from the I/M Program for the St. Louis Area. Missouri
states in the 2021 letter that it views the requests in the 2019 SIP
revision to remove inspection and maintenance requirements in Franklin
and Jefferson Counties as severable. The EPA agrees the removal of
inspection and maintenance requirements in Franklin and Jefferson
Counties are severable. Missouri also states in the letter that the
implementing regulation, 10 CSR 10-5.381, continues to require the
inspection and maintenance program to operate in Jefferson County.
    As a result of this action, the nonregulatory 1999 Implementation
Plan for the Missouri Inspection and Maintenance Program, originally
approved into the SIP on May 18, 2000, 65 FR 31480, remains approved
into the SIP for Jefferson County. The EPA approves the nonregulatory
Inspection and Maintenance Program for the St. Louis Area--2019
Revision, into the SIP, which removes requirements for Franklin County.
The EPA also approves the revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.381.
    The EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the ``What is
the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP request?'' section of our proposed
approval and in the technical support document (TSD), which is included
in this docket.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 87 FR 30437, May 19, 2022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    Both the 2019 and 2022 State submissions have met the public notice
requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The
submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. The State provided public notice on the November 12, 2019
SIP revision from July 29, 2019 to August 29, 2019 and on the March 2,
2022 \10\ SIP revision from October 15, 2021 to December 9, 2021. The
State received ten comments during the 2019 public notice. The State
received four comments on the 2021 public notice. The EPA finds
Missouri has adequately addressed the comments received in its
submissions. Please see the TSD for our proposal for more discussion on
Missouri's responses to comments.\11\ In addition, as explained in our
proposal and in more detail in the TSD which is part of this docket,
the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Final Formal submission on May 24, 2022.
    \11\ See www.regulations.gov, document id: EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0419-0013.
    \12\ 87 FR 30437, May 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened May 19,
2022, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on
June 21, 2022. During this period, the EPA received one comment letter
from an anonymous commenter.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that the state lacks the legal
authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement.
    Response 1: The EPA disagrees. The Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MoDNR) has legal authority to implement and enforce the
vehicle inspection and maintenance program as stated in 10 CSR 10-
5.381, which it submitted on March 2, 2022, and May 24, 2022. The MoDNR
relies on the Missouri Department of Revenue (MDOR) for registration
denial. MoDNR is identified as the agency responsible for implementing
the GVIP along with the MDOR for registration data and enforcement of
registration denial. 10 CSR 10-5.381 (2)(S), specifies MDOR as
responsible for registration denial.
    In Missouri's December 14, 2007, submittal, approved March 3, 2015,
Missouri states that MDOR handles registration denial and ``all
remaining I/M program enforcement actions are the responsibility of
MDNR.'' State law provides that any person who violates a requirement
of sections 643.300 to 643.355 or a rule promulgated to enforce
sections 643.300 to 643.355 shall be guilty of either an infraction for
the first offense, a class C misdemeanor for the second offense, or a
class B misdemeanor for any subsequent offenses (subsections 1-6
section 643.355, RSMo). State law also provides that any person who
violates any procedural requirement of sections 643.300 to 643.355
shall be subject to a fine of not less than five times the amount of
the fee charged pursuant to section 643.350 or one hundred dollars,
whichever is greater (subsection 7 of section 643.355, RSMo). The state
has the legal authority necessary to implement the I/M program.
    Comment 2: The commenter claims the SIP lacks detailed description
of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program, how
many vehicles registered in Franklin County may ultimately be exempt
from or subject to the I/M requirements, and a description of and
accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles.
    Response 2: The EPA disagrees. 10 CSR 10-5.381(1)(A) describes the
number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program. 10 CSR 10-
5.381 (1)(A) states that all vehicles either registered in the St.
Louis Area or primarily operated in the Area unless exempted by 10 CSR
10-5.381 (1)(B) are covered by the rule. 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(B) exempts
the classes of:
     Heavy duty gasoline and diesel vehicles,
     Light duty gasoline and diesel vehicles manufactured prior
to 1996,
     Motorcycles,
     Motorized tricycles,
     100% electric powered vehicles,
     Plug-in hybrid vehicles,
     100% hydrogen fueled vehicles,
     Vehicles fueled by something other than:
    [cir] gasoline,
    [cir] E10-E85, or
    [cir] diesel,
     Vehicles registered in the St. Louis Area but receive an
out of area exemption (for situations like a person off to college or
deployed as a member of the armed forces),
     Registered historic vehicles,
     School buses,
     Tactical military vehicles, and
     Specially constructed vehicles.
    10 CSR 10-5.381(B.) also has four exemptions for either low total
mileage, low usage, low age, or short-term visit, work, or deployment
to a federal installation.
    While the types of vehicles covered is important for implementation
of rule, the purpose of the EPA requiring the State to provide the
numbers and types of vehicles either included or exempted is to
facilitate emission calculations either for a program demonstration on
establishment \13\ or CAA section 110(l) demonstration that EPA's
approval of a SIP revision would not interfere with maintenance or
attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable CAA requirement. As discussed in our proposal, Missouri
submitted a CAA section 110(l) demonstration to EPA based on MOVES
emission modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ It is possible for an established I/M program to need to do
a program demonstration again, most often based on a new designation
of Moderate or higher nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri in their submittal included the following data on the
number of vehicles.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the November 12, 2019, Missouri submittal, Attachment
3. Attachment 3 also contains population numbers for other
categories of vehicles. The numbers in Table 1 are the sum of
passenger car, passenger truck, and light commercial truck. For St.
Louis City, Jefferson County, St Charles County, St. Louis County,
these are the maximum of the subject vehicle population.

                                     Table 1--Light Duty Vehicle Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Franklin        Jefferson      St. Charles      St. Louis
              Year                    County          County          County          County      St. Louis City
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................         109,775         222,144         369,863         966,358         194,677
2020............................         120,300         241,869         400,161       1,038,921         207,875
2025............................         141,326         281,277         460,691       1,183,889         234,632
2030............................         167,655         330,622         536,485       1,365,411         257,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri also provided vehicle age distributions. Missouri made the
most conservative assumption that all Franklin County vehicles will be
exempted from the GVIP. Specifically, Missouri used the maximum number
of vehicles that could be exempted--the entire light duty Franklin
County vehicle population. The EPA finds that using this assumption was
appropriate. Missouri's modeling demonstration of all light duty
vehicles in Franklin County not participating in the I/M program
increased emissions, and is consistent with the I/M requirements of 40
CFR 51.356(b). Missouri provided the requisite MOVES modeling
demonstration to analyze the projected emissions change associated with
exempting these vehicles from the I/M program. The EPA review of
Missouri's analysis is in the Technical Support Document (TSD) in the
docket to this action. The EPA believes MoDNR's analysis correctly
accounts for all potential vehicle emissions that may occur from the
removal of Franklin County from the I/M program. The modeling
demonstrates that the removal of Franklin County from the I/M program
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS,
reasonable further progress or any other CAA requirement consistent
with the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
    Comment 3: The commenter states the SIP lacks a plan for how
Franklin County registered vehicles that are primarily operated in the
I/M coverage area are to be identified, who (i.e., registration
authorities or individual motorists) will be responsible for
determining whether a vehicle registered in Franklin County ``is
primarily operated'' in the St. Louis nonattainment area and thus
subject to the GVIP, how Missouri, the EPA, or individual citizens can
determine which Franklin County vehicles will continue to be subject to
the I/M requirements, and how the determinations will be documented.
The commenter references a 1992 Federal Register document regarding how
I/M programs should easily identify vehicles.
    Response 3: Vehicle owners have a responsibility to comply with 10
CSR 10-5.381. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources relies on
tips to learn about non-compliant individual private owners and has the
authority to enforce the rule.
    The core of the SIP revision is the removal of Franklin County
registered vehicles from the I/M program, and therefore, has the effect
of defining Franklin County registered vehicles as ``elsewhere
registered'' vehicles. As discussed in more detail in response to
Comment 2, Missouri did not rely on any emission reductions from
Franklin County registered vehicles for attainment or reasonable
further progress purposes in their CAA section 110(l) demonstration.
Because Missouri's demonstration shows they will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or
any other CAA requirement without claiming emissions reductions from
elsewhere registered vehicles, Missouri's existing steps to identify
and document elsewhere registered vehicles that primarily operate in
the area are acceptable.
    The commenter references a 1992 Federal Register document regarding
how I/M programs should easily identify vehicles (57 FR 52950, November
5, 1992). In the referenced document, the EPA stated that an
alternative to registration denial for vehicles registered in the
coverage area needs to ``easily identify the subject vehicles.''
Registration denial is our preferred method for identifying and
enforcing I/M on vehicles registered in the I/M coverage area.
Registration denial works by having the state registration agency only
register a vehicle in the I/M coverage area if that vehicle has passed
an I/M check or is exempt. Registration denial continues to be an
acceptable enforcement method for vehicles registered in the area. For
any I/M program, the vehicles registered outside of the county are not
as easy to identify. However, as shown above, exempting all vehicle in
Franklin County from I/M requirements will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or
any other CAA requirement.
    Comment 4: The commenter asserts the proposed Missouri SIP
provision turns on when 51% of annual mileage of a vehicle registered
in Franklin County occur in the coverage area.
    Response 4: The EPA disagrees. The proposed action does not turn on
when 51% of annual mileage of a vehicle registered in Franklin County
occurs in Jefferson County, St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and
the City of St. Louis. The proposed action is based on the EPA's
evaluation under section 110(l) of the CAA, of the removal of Franklin
County registered vehicles from the I/M program, with the caveat that
if Franklin County registered vehicles are primarily operated in the I/
M coverage area, then those vehicles are also required to meet I/M
requirements. The elsewhere-registered provisions in 10 CSR 10-5.381
(1)(A)2., 3., and 4 are a previously SIP-approved part of Missouri's
GVIP plan and implementing regulation.
    The language, in 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(B)15., ``exempt unless the
vehicle is primarily operated in the area of Jefferson County, St.
Charles County, St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis,'' makes
the Franklin County registered vehicle exemption conform to the
elsewhere provisions in 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(A)2., 3., and 4. The
language ``a vehicle is primarily operated in the area if at least
fifty-one percent (51%) of the vehicle's annual miles are in the area''
is the same language used to define ``primarily operated'' throughout
the rule. Missouri included the phrase ``primarily operated'' to the
newly added exemption at 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(B)15. to conform with the
previously SIP-approved provisions in 10 CSR 10-5.381 (1)(A)2., 3., and
4. Franklin County is no longer part of the I/M coverage area and is
now defined as ``elsewhere.'' As stated above, Missouri's 110(l)
demonstration shows that the revisions will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS.
    Comment 5: The commenter states Missouri needs to ensure that all
Franklin County vehicle owners are aware of the law and their potential
responsibilities under it.
    Response 5: Missouri has met the public notice provisions required
by the CAA. The rules are published on Missouri's Secretary of State
website.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ https://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10csr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The commenter states that the SIP submission appears to
be requesting approval of 10 CSR 10-5 as revised generally and thus is
arguably being submitted for reapproval of 10 CSR 10-5.381(1)(A)(3).
While 10 CSR 10-5.381(1)(A)(3) was previously approved into the SIP and
has not been specifically revised in this submission, it presents the
same implementation and enforceability issues regarding ``primarily
operated'' as noted for above for 10 CSR 10-5.381(1)(B)(15). The
commenter states that the EPA should not re-approve 10 CSR 10-
5.381(1)(A)(3) into the Missouri SIP.
    Response 6: The EPA disagrees. Missouri did not request such an
action and therefore the EPA is not reapproving all of 10 CSR 10-5.\16\
Further, Missouri did not request, and the EPA is not reapproving, all
of 10 CSR 10-5.381. Consistent with Missouri's submittal, the EPA
solicited

comment on our proposed approval of the substantive and administrative
revisions detailed in the proposal and the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We do note the commenter may have made a typographical
error in stating ``10 CSR 10-5''. Regardless, even if the commenter
meant some other specific part of 10 CSR 10-5, such specificity does
not change our answer or our approval of the SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Missouri
SIP received on November 12, 2019, March 2, 2022, and May 24, 2022. The
EPA is approving portions of the November 12, 2019 GVIP Plan, by
approving the removal of Franklin County from the I/M program, and
fully approving the revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.381 received on March 2
and May 24, 2022. The EPA is not taking action on the remainder of the
November 12, 2019 GVIP Plan, at this time.

VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \17\ The EPA is
providing additional analysis of environmental justice associated with
this action for the purpose of providing information to the public and
not as a basis of our final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators within Franklin County, Jefferson County, St.
Charles County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City. The tool outputs
reports are contained in the docket for this action. Looking
specifically at Franklin County, the EPA's EJSCREEN tool demonstrates
that demographic indicators are consistent with national averages,
however there are vulnerable populations in Franklin County including
low-income populations and persons over 64 years of age. In addition,
emissions from Boles Township impact populations in the other portions
of the non-attainment area. St. Louis City has demographic indicators
significantly above national averages for low-income and minority
populations. While the other counties' demographic indicators are
consistent with or lower than national averages, there are vulnerable
populations in these Counties including low-income populations and
persons over 64 years of age.
    When the EPA reviews a state's desired change to their SIP for a
NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to ensure that the change will not
cause ``backsliding'' of the air quality or delaying attainment of air
quality. SIP revisions address environmental justice concerns by
ensuring that the public is properly informed about the Plan and
regulations to attain and maintain air quality. As described in our
proposal,\18\ the EPA finds these supplemental emission controls
provided by Missouri are sufficient to address the projected emissions
increase from ceasing GVIP in Franklin County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 87 FR 30437, May 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action addresses the EPA's determination for the removal of
Franklin County registered vehicles from the GVIP, unless they are
predominately operated in the rest of the St. Louis Area. This action
approves the removal of these Franklin County registered vehicles from
the GVIP and finds such removal will not have an adverse impact to air
quality or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. For
these reasons, this action does not result in disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.

IX. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri 10 CSR 10-5.381 discussed in Section IV. of this preamble and
as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and

     This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The basis for
this determination is contained in Section VIII of this action,
``Environmental Justice Considerations.''
     In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
     This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act,
and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
     Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2022. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 6, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry ``10-
5.381''.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry ``(38)''
and adding the entry ``(84)'' in numerical order.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
    Missouri citation             Title          effective date    EPA approval date           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.381................  On-Board Diagnostics        5/30/2022  9/13/2022, [insert     ........................
                           Motor Vehicle                          Federal Register
                           Emissions Inspection.                  citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(38) Implementation plan for the   Jefferson County...      11/12/1999  5/18/2000, 65 FR     [MO 096-1096b; FRL-
 Missouri inspection maintenance                                         31480.               6701-6]. Approved
 program.                                                                                for Jefferson
                                                                                County only.

                                                  * * * * * * *
(84) Implementation plan for the   St. Charles County,      11/12/2019  9/13/2022, [insert   [EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0
 Missouri inspection maintenance    St. Louis County,         3/2/2022   Federal Register     419; FRL-9830-02-
 program.                           and St. Louis City.                  citation].           R7]. Approved for
                                                                                St. Charles
                                                                                County, St. Louis
                                                                                County, and St.
                                                                                Louis City and
                                                                                removal of
                                                                                Franklin County.
                                                                                No action on
                                                                                Jefferson County.
                                                                                Please see item
                                                                                (38) of this
                                                                                paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-19621 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63220-63221]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24787]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1181]

Guidance for Industry on Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure
Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Acute Bacterial Skin
and Skin Structure Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment.'' The
purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of
new antibacterial drugs to treat acute bacterial skin and skin
structure infections (ABSSSI). This guidance finalizes the revised
draft guidance of the same name issued on August 27, 2010.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph G. Toerner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections:
Developing Drugs for Treatment.'' The purpose of this guidance is to
assist sponsors in the development of new antibacterial drugs for the
treatment of ABSSSI.
    This guidance describes approaches for entry criteria and trial
designs for the evaluation of new drugs for the treatment of ABSSSI.
The guidance focuses on the noninferiority trial design and describes
an endpoint for which there is a well-defined treatment effect. The
guidance also provides the justification for the noninferiority margin.
After careful consideration of comments received in response to the
draft guidance issued on August 27, 2010, important clarifications
about trial populations, designs, and endpoints for ABSSSI were
included in this guidance. In addition, this guidance reflects recent
developments in scientific information that pertain to drugs being
developed for the treatment of ABSSSI.
    Issuance of this guidance fulfills a portion of the requirements of
Title VIII, section 804, of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), which requires FDA to ``. . . review
and, as appropriate, revise not fewer than 3 guidance documents per
year . . . for the conduct of clinical trials with respect to
antibacterial and antifungal drugs . . . .''
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and

will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 8, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-24787 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72821]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29705]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

November 16, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1528-000.
    Applicants: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.
    Description: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Caledonia Energy Partners Order No. 587-U
Compliance Filing to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101115-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1529-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Credit Annex to be effective 12/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101115-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1530-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Clean Up Concord & Formatting to be effective 12/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101115-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 29, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29705 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71518-71520]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22372]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0422; FRL-11353-01-R9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Butte County Air Quality
Management District; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for
the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of California addressing the nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or ``standard''). This SIP revision addresses
the Butte County Air Quality Management District (``District'') portion
of the California SIP. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0422 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in
a language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-3-2), San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947-4156 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. The State's Submittal
    A. What did the State submit?
    B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Upon promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three
most recent years of ambient air quality data. Butte County was
classified as a ``Marginal'' ozone nonattainment area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
    \2\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 6, 2018, the EPA issued a final rule entitled,
``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements''
(``SIP Requirements Rule''), which establishes the requirements and
deadlines that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies
must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where ozone
concentrations exceed the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\3\ Based on the initial
nonattainment designation for the 2015 ozone standard, the District was
required to make a SIP revision addressing NNSR no later than August 3,
2021. See 40 CFR 51.1314. This requirement may be met by submitting a
SIP revision consisting of a new or revised NNSR permit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). The SIP Requirements Rule
addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably
available control technology, reasonably available control measures,
major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP
submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The State's Submittal

A. What did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the dates the submitted rule addressed by this
proposal was amended by the District and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that serves as the governor's
designee for California SIP submittals.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cover letter
               Rule                             Title             Amendment date  Submittal date       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 432..........................  Federal New Source Review          4/22/2021        8/3/2021        8/3/2021
                                     (FNSR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2022, CARB's August 3, 2021 submittal was deemed to
be complete by operation of law in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.

B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    The submittal from the District is intended to satisfy the SIP
Requirements Rule that requires states to make a SIP revision
addressing NNSR. The SIP for the District currently contains an
approved NNSR permit program based on their nonattainment
classification for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal is
intended to satisfy the 40 CFR 51.1314 submittal requirements based on
the District's 2015 ozone nonattainment designation. The EPA's analysis
of how these SIP revisions address the NNSR requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS is provided below.

III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements

    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are contained in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR
program requirements include those promulgated in the SIP Requirements
Rule implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The SIP for each ozone
nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: (1) set major
source thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-
(iv) and (2); (2) classify physical changes as a major source if the
change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); (3) consider any significant net emissions
increase of NOX as a significant net emissions increase for
ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); (4) consider any increase
of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as significant
net emissions increases and major modifications for ozone pursuant to
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); (5) set significant emissions rates for VOC
and NOX as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); (6) contain provisions for emissions
reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)-(2); (7)
provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to
NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); (8) set offset ratios
for VOC and NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii)-(iv);
and (9) require public participation procedures complaint with 40 CFR
51.165(i).
    The District's SIP-approved NNSR program, established in Rule 432,
``Federal New Source Review (FNSR)'' (amended March 23, 2017) (``Rule
432''), applies to the construction and modification of stationary
sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas
under its jurisdiction.\4\ The only change from the SIP-approved NNSR
program is the removal of provisions related to interpollutant trading,
due to a recent court decision that vacated the interpollutant trading
program.\5\ The District's submitted SIP revision includes a compliance
demonstration, consisting of a table listing each of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS NNSR SIP requirements from 40 CFR 51.165 and a citation to the
specific provision of Rule 432 satisfying the requirement. These
documents are available in the docket for this action. The EPA has
reviewed the demonstration and cited program elements intended to meet
the federal NNSR requirements and is proposing to approve the
District's submittal because the current SIP-approved NNSR program
contains all the SIP Requirements Rule NNSR program requirements
applicable to the Butte County nonattainment area as a Marginal ozone
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 93820 (December 22, 2016), and 83 FR 26222 (June 6,
2018).
    \5\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815 (D.C. Cir. 2021) and 86 FR
37918 (July 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions addressing the NNSR
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the District. In support of
this proposed action, we have concluded that our approval of Rule 432
would comply with section 110(l) of the Act because the submittal will
not interfere with continued attainment of the NAAQS in the District.
The EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40 CFR
51.1314 revision requirements and meets the requirements of CAA section
110 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. If we finalize
this action as proposed, our action will incorporate submitted Rule 432
into the federally enforceable SIP and be codified through revisions to
40 CFR 52.220 (Identification of plan-in part).
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
November 16, 2023.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the District's Rule 432, ``Federal New Source Review
(FNSR),'' amended on April 22, 2021, which contains an NNSR program
that meets federal permitting requirements. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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 Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ
in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 3, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-22372 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61752]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-71]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12514-000--Indiana]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Norway-Oakdale Project;
Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement
for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places

October 12, 2006.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(hereinafter, Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides
that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative
efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service
list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in
the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are
active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the
proceeding for which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the Indiana State Historic
Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 f), to prepare
and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties included
in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic
Places at the Norway-Oakdale Project No. 12514-000 (SHPO Reference
Number DNR 10475).
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
SHPO would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for
all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license
until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The
Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the Norway-
Oakdale Project would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement,
which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with certain
parties listed below. The executed programmatic agreement would be
incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
    Northern Indiana Public Service Company, as licensee for Project
No. 12514, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Indiana and
Michigan, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma are invited to participate in
consultations to develop the programmatic agreement.
    For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:

Don Klima or Representative, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
Jerome B. Weeden, Vice President of Generation or Representative,
Northern Indiana Public Service Company, 801 East 86th Avenue,
Merrillville, IN 46410.
Karie A. Brudis or Representative, Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, 402 W.
Washington Street, W274, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2739.
John Miller, Tribal Chairman or Representative, Pokagon Band of
Potawatomi Indians of Indiana and Michigan, 58620 Sink Road, Dowagiac,
MI 49047.
Floyd Leonard, Chief or Representative, Miami Nation of Oklahoma, 202
South Eight Tribes Trail, Miami, OK 74354.
    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with
Magalie Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Please put the project name
``Norway-Oakdale Project'' and number ``P-12514-000'' on the front
cover of any motion. If no such motions are filed, the restricted
service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period.
Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or
motions filed within the 15 day period.

Magalie Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17462 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P