Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

been revised since then. Courts have indicated that actions, such as the action taken on this rule, do not reopen issues on which the agency was not seeking comment. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1024 D.C. Cir. 2008
citing Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886 F.2d 390, 397 D.C. Cir. 1989
Under the reopening doctrine, the time for seeking review starts anew where the agency reopens an issue by holding out the unchanged section as a proposed regulation, offering an explanation for its language, soliciting comments on its substance, and responding to the comments in promulgating the regulation in its final form.; Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251
F.3d 1026 D.C. Cir. 2004.2 There are no known issues with the enforcement of this rule. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing this SIP revision.
Comment 3: The commenter stated that the EPA failed to provide a basis for proposing to approve the addition of eleven 11 definitions in section 2 of the rule. The commenter states it appears that the EPA is assuming that previously approved definitions can be moved into the rule. The commenter finds that it is unclear why the definition of incinerator was moved into this rule because it covers refuse material and open burning. The commenter also states that the definition of construction moved into this rule does not match the definition of construction in the permitting rule that the owner/operator seeks exemption from 10 CSR 106.060 and the reason for the difference is not explained. Additionally, the commenter notes that the definition of printing differs from the section that covers printing operations paragraph 3B1., which is more encompassing. Finally, the commenter states the definition of closed container speaks to requirements regarding spilling and leaking the contents and fails to require that the closed container prevents volatile organic compound VOC
fugitives.
Response to Comment 3: As explained in detail in the TSD, the definitions inserted into 10 CSR 106.062 section 2 ARTBA v. EPA, 588 F.3d 1109 at 1114 rewriting a rule in plain language does not reopen; Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 88
F.3d 1191 at 1220 no reopener where agency merely re-worded the provision with no meaningful difference; Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, 920 D.C. Cir. 1998
dictum no reopener where agency action merely republished an existing rule; cf. also Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Com., 901 F.2d 147, 150 D.C.
Cir. 1990 where an agencys actions show that it has not merely republished an existing rule in order to propose minor changes to it, but has reconsidered the rule and decided to keep it in effect, challenges to the rule are in order.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:10 Jun 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

2 are the same definitions included in the SIP-approved 10 CSR 106.020
Definitions and Common Reference Tables, and therefore there is no change to the stringency of the SIP. As explained above, the EPA did not intend to solicit comments on the portions of the rule that the State did not materially change in this rulemaking. Furthermore, the addition of these general definitions in section 2 of the rule does not impact any of the rules conditions or requirements. The provisions in the permit-by-rule for each source category covered by 10 CSR 106.062 contain greater specificity related to usage of the terms.
Comment 4: An anonymous commenter recommended that the revisions not be approved. The commenter stated that instead more stringent protections and regulations with penalties should be put in place to better protect the environment and public.
Response to Comment 4: The permitby-rule for each source category in subsection 3B of the rule includes enforcement provisions. In addition, subsection 3C includes provisions for revoking a permit-by-rule and penalties for non-compliance, and section 4
includes reporting and recordkeeping requirements. There are no known issues with the enforcement of this rule.
For the reasons stated above and in the proposal, the EPA has determined that the rule revisions comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is approving all revisions from the March 30, 2019, State effective date version of 10 CSR 106.062 into the Missouri SIP, except for revisions to paragraph 3B2. and subparagraph 3B2.A. We are taking final action after consideration of the comments received from two commenters on the notice of proposed rulemaking.
V. 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 Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

29519

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by 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 EPAs approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.3
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. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPAs 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. 1044;
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 Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using 3 62

E:FRFM02JNR1.SGM

FR 27968, May 22, 1997.

02JNR1