Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 48579 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE DELAWARE SIP—Continued 

State regulation 

(7 DNREC 1100) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

Section 2.0 .......... Applicability .................................. 12/11/06 8/28/08 73 FR 50723 ................... Except for provisions pertaining to 

mercury emissions. 

Section 3.0 .......... Definitions ..................................... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Except for provisions pertaining to 

mercury emissions. 

Section 4.0 .......... NOX Emissions Limitations .......... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 5.0 .......... SO2 Emissions Limitations ........... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 7.0 .......... Recordkeeping and Reporting ..... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Except for provisions pertaining to 

mercury emissions. 

Section 8.0 .......... Compliance Plan .......................... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Except for provisions pertaining to 

mercury emissions. 

Section 9.0 .......... Penalties ....................................... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Except for provisions pertaining to 

mercury emissions. 

Table 4–1 (Formerly Table I).Annual NOX Mass Emissions 

Limits.

9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Table 5–1 (Formerly Table II).Annual SO2 Mass Emissions Limits.9/11/08 

10/19/09 

3/16/10 75 FR 12449 ................... Modified emissions limit for 

Conectiv Edge Moor Unit 5. 

1148 Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions 

Section 1.0 .......... Purpose ........................................ 7/11/07 11/10/08 73 FR 66554.

Section 2.0 .......... Applicability .................................. 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 3.0 .......... Definitions ..................................... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 4.0 .......... NOX Emissions Limitations .......... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 5.0 .......... Monitoring and Reporting ............. 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Section 6.0 .......... Recordkeeping ............................. 7/11/07 11/10/08 73 FR 66554.

Section 7.0 .......... Penalties ....................................... 9/11/08 8/11/10 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–19571 Filed 8–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0170; FRL–9186–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the state on June 17, 

2009. The purpose of these revisions is 

to rescind the rule More Restrictive 

Emission Limitations for Particulate 

Matter in South St. Louis Area and to 

approve revisions to the rule Restriction 

of Emission of Particulate Matter from 

Industrial Processes which make 

corrections and clarifications, and add 

exemptions to the rule. EPA is 

approving the SIP provisions pursuant 

to section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 12, 2010, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by September 10, 

2010. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2010–0170, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy 

Bhesania, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010– 

0170. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
48580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

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

excluding Federal holidays. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bhesania at (913) 551–7147, or by 

e-mail at bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What revisions is EPA approving? 

A. Rescission of 10 CSR 10–5.290, More 

Restrictive Emission Limitations for 

Particulate Matter in South St. Louis 

Area 

B. Changes to 10 CSR 10–6.400, Restriction 

of Emission of Particulate Matter From 

Industrial Processes 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What revisions is EPA approving? 

A. Rescission of 10 CSR 10–5.290, More 

Restrictive Emission Limitations for 

Particulate Matter in South St. Louis 

Area 

EPA is approving revisions to the SIP 

which will rescind the rule More 

Restrictive Emission Limitations for 

Particulate Matter in South St. Louis 

Area. This rule was originally 

established to control particulate matter 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions for 

the South St. Louis ‘‘Hot Spot’’ which 

included restrictions applicable to the 

byproducts of coke ovens at 526 East 

Catalan Street owned and operated by 

Carondelet Coke Corporation and to a 

titanium pigment plant located at River 

des Peres and Mississippi River owned 

by N.L. Industries, Inc. The original rule 

was first adopted by the state and 

subsequently effective December 11, 

1978. The EPA approved this new 

regulation through a final rulemaking on 

July 11, 1980. On August 30, 1982, EPA 

approved an amendment to this rule 

which provided for changes in 

ownership and operating 

responsibilities of the affected sources. 

On August 26, 1985, revisions to the 

state rule were made effective to delete 

provisions related to N.L. Industries, 

which was no longer in operation, and 

to make significant changes to 

provisions affecting Carondelet Coke. In 

addition, Missouri changed the title of 

this rule to More Restrictive Emission 

Limitations for Particulate Matter in 

South St Louis Area, which removed the 

reference to Sulfur Dioxide. These 

changes to the state rule were not 

approved Federally at that time. In 1988 

Carondelet Coke went out of business 

and therefore Missouri is rescinding the 

rule as both entities subject to this rule 

are no longer in business. 

In reviewing the rescission to the rule, 

EPA noted that this rule contained 

requirements for the restriction of 

fugitive particulates in the South St. 

Louis area. The state has a statewide 

fugitive dust rule, 10 CSR 10–6.170, 

which contains similar restrictions as 

the rule being addressed in this action. 

The statewide rule is also applicable in 

this South St. Louis ‘‘Hot Spot’’ area. 

EPA has compared the restrictions in 

the two rules and believes that the 

statewide 10 CSR 10–6.170 rule 

contains the same level of restrictions. 

In general, the statewide rule requires 

that ‘‘reasonable measures’’ be utilized to 

control fugitive emissions. EPA believes 

the statewide fugitive dust rule is as 

stringent as the requirements in the 

rescinded area rule and this action 

would not result in a relaxation of the 

SIP. 

Because the two entities affected by 

the area-specific rule are no longer in 

operation, and because the state’s 

statewide fugitive dust rule contains 

similar restrictions as this rule, EPA 

believes a rescission of the rule is 

appropriate, would ensure consistency 

between the state and federallyapproved rules, and would not 

adversely affect air quality in the South 

St. Louis area. 

B. Changes to 10 CSR 10–6.400, 

Restriction of Emission of Particulate 

Matter From Industrial Processes 

The Restriction of Emission of 

Particulate Matter from Industrial 

Processes rule adds new exemptions 

and makes corrections and 

clarifications. The primary purpose of 

this rule is to limit the emissions of 

particulate matter in the source gas of an 

operation or activity from industrial 

processes. This is done through the use 

of process weight rate equations and 

tables contained in the rule. This rule 

was first adopted and subsequently 

effective on August 30, 2000. At that 

time, the rule consolidated the 

requirements of four similar out-state 

rules. The state initiated a follow-up 

rule action which addressed technical 

revisions to the rule that were adopted 

and subsequently effective on 

September 30, 2001. EPA approved this 

regulation and published the final rule 

making for this revision of the SIP on 

November 30, 2001. Subsequently, the 

state proposed these new rule revisions 

in October 2008 and submitted the 

revisions to the SIP on June 17, 2009. 

The revisions being addressed in this 

action are as follows: 

1. Subsection (1)(B)8. was clarified to 

remove an outdated reference to 10 CSR 

10–6.060 paragraphs (1)(D)1. and 

(1)(D)2. This subsection was amended to 

refer to appropriate provisions in 10 

CSR 10–6.061. This reflects a prior rule 

revision by the state in which certain 

exemptions in rule 10–6.060 were 

moved to the new rule 10–6.061. 

2. Subsection (1)(B)9. was added to 

clarify that emission sources permitted 

by rule under 10 CSR 10–6.062 were 

exempt from this regulation. 

3. Subsection (1)(B)14. was added as 

an exemption for coating operations 

equipped with a control system 

designed to control at least ninety-five 

percent (95%) of the particulate 

overspray provided the system is 

operated and maintained in accordance 

with manufacturers’ specifications or 

comparable maintenance procedures 

that meet or exceed manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

4. Subsection (1)(B)15. was added as 

an exemption for any particulate matter 

emission unit that is subject to a 

Federally enforceable requirement to 

install, operate, and maintain a 

particulate matter control device system 

that controls at least ninety percent 

(90%) of particulate matter emissions. 

5. Subsection (1)(B)16. was added as 

an exemption for emission units that at 

maximum hourly design rate (MHDR) 

have an uncontrolled potential to emit 

less than the allowable emissions as 

calculated in subsections (3)(A)1. and 

(3)(A)2. of the rule. 

6. Other general changes to the 

numbering systems were made. 

EPA has reviewed the state’s revisions 

to this rule as well as the state’s 

technical support documentation (TSD) 

submitted with the SIP revision. The 

first two revisions to the rule (the 

revisions described in 1 and 2 above) 

are clarifying revisions. EPA has 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 48581 

reviewed these revisions and believes 

these are appropriate and accurate. 

The state also submitted three new 

exemptions to the rule. The first 

exemption (item 3 above) is for coating 

operations equipped to control at least 

ninety-five percent (95%) of particulate 

overspray. EPA believes that the TSD 

supports this exemption through a 

demonstration using one of the larger 

permitted facilities for spray coating 

operations. The demonstration shows 

that for applicable facilities, the 

controlled particulate matter levels are 

very minimal and that the controlled 

emission rate for this example facility is 

well below the emission rate limitation 

calculated using the process weight 

rule. The example unit would have a 

controlled emission rate of 0.01 lb/hr of 

particulate matter compared to the 

applicable process weight emission rate 

limit of 0.07 lb/hr. 

In addition, Missouri indicated that 

that this rule does not change any actual 

processes related to coating operations, 

but instead will no longer require these 

exempt units to calculate emission rate 

limits which demonstrate that their 

units cannot physically exceed the 

limits contained in the rule. 

The second exemption (item 4 above) 

is for any particulate matter emission 

unit that is subject to a federally 

enforceable requirement to install, 

operate, and maintain a particulate 

matter control device system that 

controls at least ninety percent (90%) of 

particulate matter emissions. Based on 

EPA’s review, this exemption would not 

increase particulate matter emissions 

since the exemption requires controls, 

just through an enforceable mechanism 

other than this rule. 

The third exemption (item 5) is for 

emission units that at maximum hourly 

design rate (MHDR) have an 

uncontrolled potential to emit less than 

the allowable emissions as calculated in 

subsections (3)(A)1. and (3)(A)2. of this 

rule. Based on EPA’s review, this 

exemption would not increase 

particulate matter emissions limitations 

since the exemption is specifically for 

units which would not exceed the limits 

as calculated. This exemption was 

included in the rule so that units that 

are physically unable to reach the 

allowable emission limits would not 

have to run calculations each year to 

demonstrate this. 

For item 6 above, these revisions did 

not change any emissions limits for any 

sources. 

The state submitted the appropriate 

documentation to support the revisions 

to this rule and demonstrated that these 

exemptions will not adversely impact 

air quality. EPA believes the 

amendments to this rule are 

appropriate. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

the request to amend the Missouri SIP. 

The revisions pertain to a rescission and 

routine updates, corrections, 

clarifications and improvements as 

listed previously in this document. 

These modifications will not adversely 

affect air quality and will not relax the 

SIP. The state provided adequate 

justification where certain revisions 

could result in emissions increases. 

The state submittal has met the public 

notice requirements for SIP submissions 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. On 

October 1, 2008, Missouri published the 

proposed revisions to the rules in the 

Missouri Register. After considering 

public comments, the Missouri Air 

Conservation Commission (MACC) 

adopted the rule actions on February 3, 

2009. Public comments were printed in 

the Missouri Register along with a reprint of the rule on April 15, 2009. The 

effective date was May 30, 2009. EPA 

received Missouri’s SIP revision on June 

17, 2009. 

The submittal also satisfied the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. In addition, as explained 

above, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

EPA is processing this action as a 

direct final action because the revisions 

make routine changes to the existing 

rules which are noncontroversial. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate any 

adverse comments. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on part 

of this rule and if that part can be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those parts of 

the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves 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); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
48582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 October 12, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

William Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended 

by: 

■ a. Removing the entry under Chapter 

5 for 10–5.290; and 

■ b. Revising the entry under Chapter 6 

for 10–6.400. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Entire 

State of Missouri 

*******

10–6.400 ................... Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter 

from Industrial Processes.

5/30/09 8/11/10 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–19569 Filed 8–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2009–0913; FRL–9186–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Operating 

Permits Program; State of Nebraska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Operating Permits Program to revise the 

state definition of volatile organic 

compounds; clarify language and 

incorporate rules related to construction 

permits to incorporate application fees 

and include a mechanism to use 

construction permits to accomplish 

other permitting needs; and clarify 

language related to open fires and 

explicitly include an exemption for fires 

used for religious activities. Approval of 

these revisions will ensure consistency 

between the state and Federallyapproved rules. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 12, 2010, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by September 10, 

2010. If adverse comment is received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2009–0913, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: 

wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Chrissy 

Wolfersberger, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2009– 

0913. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES