```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 48579-48582]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-11]                         

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

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.

[[Page 48580]]

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 federally-approved 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

[[Page 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 re-print 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).

[[Page 48582]]

    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.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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(c) the table is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry under Chapter 5 for 10-5.290; and
0
b. Revising the entry under Chapter 6 for 10-6.400.
    The revision reads 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 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           5/30/09  8/11/10 [insert FR page number where   .....................................
                                  of Particulate Matter                      the document begins].
                                  from Industrial
                                  Processes.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-19569 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```