ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0170 ; FRL- ] 

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 [ insert date 60 

days from date of publication in the Federal Register ], without 

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by [insert 

date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register ] . 

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 . 
2 

ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No . 

EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0170, by one of the following methods : 

1 . 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 . EPAR07-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 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 www .regulations .gov website 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 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 
3 

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 . 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 

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 

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 :00 to 4 :30 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 . 
4 

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 

(SOZ) 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 
5 

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 
6 

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 
7 

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)l . 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 (950) 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 
8 

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)l . 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 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 (950) 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 
9 

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 (900) 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)l . 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 
10 

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 l, 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, 
11 

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 
12 

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 (Public Law 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 
13 

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) . 
14 

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 [FEDERAL REGISTER 

OFFICE : insert date 60 days from date of publication of this 

document in the Federal Register ] . 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 
15 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 

Volatile organic compounds . 

Dated : r1,zlIZo/G 

July 21,2010 f William Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, 

Region 7 . 
16 

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 5/30/09 [ insert date of 

Emission of FR publication] 

Particulate [ insert FR page 

Matter from number where the 

Industrial document begins ] 

Processes 

* + * * *