22274 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

products or services advertised are

substantially related to one or more of

the purposes for which the organization

is authorized to mail at special bulk

third-class rates. However, if the

material contains one or more

advertisements that are not substantially

related, the material is not eligible for

the special rates, unless it is part of

material that meets the content

requirements described in 5.8 and is not

disqualified from using the special bulk

third-class rates under another

provision.

c. Announcements of activities, e.g.,

bake sale, car wash, charity auction,

oratorical contest, are considered

substantially related if substantially all

the work is conducted by the members

or supporters of an authorized

organization without compensation.

d. Advertisements for products and

services, including products and

services offered as prizes or premiums,

are considered substantially related if

the products and services are received

by an authorized organization as gifts or

contributions.

e. An advertisement, promotion, offer,

or subscription order form for a

periodical publication meeting the

eligibility criteria in E211 and published

by one of the types of nonprofit

organizations listed in 2.0 is mailable at

the special bulk third-class rates.

[Renumber existing 5.8 as 5.12,

renumber existing 5.9 as 5.11, and add

new 5.8 as follows:]

5.8 Periodical Publication Content

Requirements

Advertisements for products and

services in materials that meet the

content requirements for a periodical

publication are mailable at the special

bulk third-class rates. The material

mailed must meet the following

requirements:

a. Have a title. The title must be

printed on the front cover page in a style

and size of type that make it clearly

distinguishable from other information

on the front cover page.

b. Be formed of printed sheets. (It may

not be reproduced by stencil,

mimeograph, or hectograph processes.

Reproduction by any other process is

permitted.) Any style of type may be

used.

c. Contain an identification statement

on one of the first five pages of the

publication that includes the following

elements:

(1) Title.

(2) Issue date. The date may be

omitted if it is on the front cover or

cover page.

(3) Statement of frequency showing

when issues are to be published (daily;

weekly; monthly; monthly except June;

four times a year in June, August,

September, and December; annually;

irregularly, etc.).

(4) Name and address of the

authorized organization, including

street number, street name, and ZIP+4

or 5-digit ZIP Code. The street number

and street name are optional if there is

no letter carrier service.

(5) Issue number. Every issue of each

publication is numbered consecutively

in a series that may not be broken by

assigning numbers to issues omitted.

The issue number may be printed on the

front or cover page instead of in the

identification statement.

(6) International Standard Serial

Number (ISSN), if applicable.

(7) Subscription price, if applicable.

d. Consist of at least 25%

nonadvertising matter in each issue.

Advertising is defined in E211.11.0.

* * * * *

[Renumber current 5.8 and 5.9 as 5.12

and 5.11, respectively; add new 5.10 as

follows:]

5.10 Products Mailable at Special

Bulk Third-Class Rates

The following products are mailable

at special bulk third-class rates:

a. Low-cost items within the meaning

of 26 U.S.C. 513(h)(2), Internal Revenue

Code. At the beginning of each calendar

year, the value of low-cost items is

adjusted for cost of living. The standard

established on January 1, 1995,

provided that low-cost items have a cost

of not more than $6.56. The cost is the

cost to the authorized organization that

mails the item or on whose behalf the

item is mailed.

b. Items donated or contributed to the

qualified organization. Such items do

not have to meet the definition of a lowcost item as described in 5.10a.

c. A periodical publication (as defined

in E211) of a nonprofit organization

unless it is ineligible under E370.5.0 to

be mailed at the special bulk third-class

rates.

* * * * *

A transmittal letter making these

changes in the pages of the Domestic

Mail Manual will be published and will

be transmitted to subscribers

automatically. Notice of issuance will be

published in the Federal Register as

provided by 39 CFR 111.3.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 95–11152 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–17–1–6023A; FRL–5197–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This document takes final

action to approve the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the state of Missouri for the purpose of

bringing about the attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for lead. The SIP was

submitted by the state to satisfy certain

Federal requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe

Run primary lead smelter in

Herculaneum, Missouri (Doe RunHerculaneum).

DATES: This action will be effective July

5, 1995 unless by June 5, 1995 adverse

or critical comments are received.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101; and EPA Air & Radiation Docket

and Information Center, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

V. Haugen at (913) 551–7877.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 3, 1986, EPA issued a call for

a revision to the Missouri SIP in

response to violations of the NAAQS for

lead near the Doe Run primary lead

smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. The

state submitted an SIP revision on

September 6, 1990, with additional

materials submitted on May 8, 1991.

After the state submitted the SIP, but

before EPA acted on the state’s

submission, EPA promulgated a

nonattainment designation for the area

in the vicinity of Doe Run-Herculaneum

under section 107(d) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA), as amended. The

designation was published on

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), and

became effective on January 6, 1992.

As a result of EPA’s promulgation of

the nonattainment designation, the Part

D requirements of the CAA became

applicable to the Missouri SIP revision

for Doe Run-Herculaneum. EPA granted

limited approval for Missouri’s 1990 SIP
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22275

revision on March 6, 1992 (57 FR 8076).

EPA explained that the basis for the

limited approval was that the state

would be required to submit a

supplemental SIP revision meeting the

applicable Part D requirements.

On July 2, 1993, the state of Missouri

submitted an SIP revision addressing

the applicable Part D requirements of

the CAA. The revision provided for

additional control measures in response

to unanticipated emissions associated

with the control measures implemented

under the 1990 SIP revision. These

emissions resulted in violations of the

lead NAAQS after the 1990 SIP revision

attainment date of February 1, 1993. The

July 1993 SIP revision was adopted by

the Missouri Air Conservation

Commission (MACC), after proper

notice and public hearing, on June 29,

1993.

In a letter dated September 30, 1993,

EPA informed the state that the

proposed amendment to Missouri rule

10 CSR 10–6.120 lacked sufficient

emission limits to ensure attainment of

the standard. On October 7, 1993, EPA

notified the state that the SIP revision

did not contain contingency measures

which adequately addressed the

requirements of section 172(c)(9).

Missouri and Doe Run agreed to the

required changes at meetings held

October 18 and 19, 1993. The changes

to the SIP were adopted by the MACC

at a public hearing held on March 31,

1994. Final changes to Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–6.120 were adopted by the

MACC, after proper notice and public

hearing, on April 28, 1994, and became

effective on August 28, 1994.

The state submitted supplemental

material to EPA on June 30, 1994. Upon

review, it was noted that the Consent

Order signed by the MACC on March

31, 1994, did not contain

implementation language for

contingency measures. EPA had

informed the state of the need for such

language in a letter dated February 23,

1994. The implementation language had

been included in a prior order adopted

by the MACC in June 1993, and had

been available for public review. The

language was inadvertently omitted

from the final order signed by the

MACC in March 1994. A new Consent

Order, which included the missing

language, was signed by the MACC on

September 29, 1994, and submitted to

EPA on November 23, 1994.

The July 2, 1993, SIP, as revised and

adopted in March 1994, and the revised

September 29, 1994, Consent Order,

satisfy the Part D requirements of the

CAA. The revised plan also contains a

control strategy to address the violations

of the NAAQS which occurred upon

implementation of the control measures

in the 1990 SIP revision. Dispersion

modeling indicates that the subsequent

control measures will result in

attainment of the NAAQS for lead. The

new attainment date for the 1993 SIP

revision is June 30, 1995. In addition,

the submittal includes an amendment to

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 that

revises all point source emission limits

to a lbs./24-hour basis, and establishes

enforceable criteria for determining

compliance.

II. Criteria for Approval

This SIP revision was reviewed using

the criteria established by the CAA. The

requirements for all SIPs are contained

in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Section

172(c) of the CAA specifies the

provisions applicable to areas

designated as nonattainment for any of

the NAAQS. Further guidance and

criteria are set forth in the ‘‘State

Implementation Plans for Lead

Nonattainment Areas; Addendum to the

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58 FR

67748).

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Control Strategy

In the 1993 SIP revision, the state

generally used the emission inventory

which was used in the 1990 SIP

revision. However, it was necessary to

reanalyze the facility because previously

unanticipated emission points had been

discovered and several existing

emission sources had been relocated.

Air dispersion modeling was used to

determine that the additional controls

were sufficient to attain the lead

NAAQS.

The SIP contains the June 24, 1993,

Consent Order, and a subsequent

amendment to the Consent Order, dated

March 1994, which were entered into by

the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) and the Doe Run

Company. Both of these documents set

forth the administrative requirements

for the implementation of the control

measures. The submittal also includes

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120, which

establishes enforceable emission limits

and work practice requirements. The

reader is referred to the EPA-prepared

technical support document for a more

complete discussion of the specific

control measures to be implemented in

the Consent Orders.

B. Attainment Demonstration

Section 192(a) of the CAA requires

that SIPs must provide for attainment of

the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but not later than five years

from the date of an area’s nonattainment

designation. The lead nonattainment

designation for the Herculaneum area

was effective on January 6, 1992;

therefore, the latest attainment date

permissible by statute would be January

6, 1997. The Doe Run lead SIP

demonstrates attainment by June 30,

1995, which meets the statutory

requirement. This plan shows a

predicted maximum ambient air lead

concentration of 1.47 μg/m3 which is

below the NAAQS for lead of 1.5 μg/m3.

The Industrial Source Complex LongTerm Model was used to demonstrate

the adequacy of the control strategy. The

procedures recommended in EPA’s

Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised), EPA 450/2–78–027R, July

1986, and Supplement A to the

Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised), EPA 450/2–78–027R, July

1987, were followed.

C. Emission Inventory and Air Quality

Data

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant pollutants in

the nonattainment area.

The 1993 SIP revision emissions

inventory (EI) relies heavily upon the

1990 SIP revision EI, which is based

upon 1987 data. The 1990 baseline

emissions were quantified through a

review of journal articles, stack testing,

personnel monitoring, and evaluation of

post-1985 equipment and procedures.

Dispersion modeling was employed in

deriving the 1990 SIP control strategy

which resulted in the 1990 postcontrol

EI. The 1993 baseline EI was obtained

by adjusting the 1990 postcontrol EI to

account for dust surging problems

associated with the installation of

certain 1990 SIP controls, and the

replacement of four scrubbers with a

baghouse.

The state submittal provides a

historical summary of the air quality

from 1988 through the first calendar

quarter of 1993. Ambient lead

concentrations have fallen significantly

with the implementation of the 1990 SIP

controls; however, the average quarterly

ambient lead concentrations at several

monitors continue to remain above the

NAAQS.

D. Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) (Including

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT))

The submittal must contain

provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented (see
22276 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

section 172(c)(1) of the CAA). See 57 FR

13549 and 57 FR 67748 for EPA’s

interpretation of the RACM and RACT

requirement.

A 1989 report, entitled ‘‘Evaluation of

Lead Emission Controls at the Doe Run

Company’s Primary Lead Smelter at

Herculaneum, Missouri,’’ prepared for

the Doe Run Company by Fluor Daniel,

Inc. (the Fluor report), represents an

RACT survey of the Herculaneum

facility. The report contains a review of

the unit processes and operating

procedures, in use at the time the study

was commissioned, relative to similar

facilities. The report identified 24

potential emission control

improvements and the associated

capital outlay requirements. Each of

these projects has been completed. The

Consent Orders, which the state has

submitted as part of its SIP revision,

describe each project.

An RACM survey was conducted in

accord with 57 FR 18072, EPA’s

guidance with respect to the selection of

fugitive dust control measures. Five of

the fifteen suggested measures were

found to be applicable to the

Herculaneum facility. The SIP

adequately documents the reasons for

which each measure was selected or

rejected. Each selected measure is

included in the revised Herculaneum

Work Practice Manual and has been

implemented in accordance with the

schedule established in the June 24,

1993, Consent Order.

E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The SIP must provide for RFP,

defined in section 171(1) of the CAA as

such reductions in emissions of the

relevant air pollutant as are required by

Part D, or may reasonably be required by

the Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

The emission reductions associated

with the control strategy will be phased

in according to the interim dates which

are identified in the Consent Orders

submitted with the SIP. These dates

were established to allow for

engineering and construction of control

systems, and provide continuing

improvement in air quality.

F. New Source Review (NSR)

Part D of Title I of the CAA requires

that the submittal include a permit

program for the construction and

operation of new and modified major

stationary sources. Missouri rule 10 CSR

10–6.020 identifies the current specific

descriptions of the lead nonattainment

areas in Missouri. 10 CSR 10–6.020 is

utilized in conjunction with Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10–6.060 which requires a

permit for construction of, or major

modification to, an installation with

potential to annually emit one hundred

(100) tons or more of a nonattainment

pollutant, or a permit for a modification

with potential to annually emit one

hundred (100) tons or more of a

nonattainment pollutant. Because these

provisions include requirements for all

nonattainment areas, and are not limited

to lead, EPA is acting on the provisions

in a separate rulemaking.

G. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the

CAA, all nonattainment area SIPs that

demonstrate attainment must include

contingency measures. Contingency

measures should consist of other

available measures that are not part of

the area’s control strategy. These

measures must take effect without

further action by the state or EPA, upon

a determination that the area has failed

to meet RFP or attain the lead NAAQS

by the applicable attainment date.

The contingency measures included

in the July 2, 1993, SIP submittal were

determined to be inadequate to address

possible air quality violations at the

Herculaneum facility. EPA notified the

state, in an October 7, 1993, letter, that

the SIP revision did not contain

contingency measures which adequately

addressed the requirements of section

172(c)(9). Based on the modeling, EPA

concluded that the maximum predicted

ambient lead concentration occurs in

the northern zone, which is significantly

impacted by elevated process fugitive

emissions. EPA requested that

contingency measures be developed

which would address these fugitive

emissions. MDNR and Doe Run agreed

to the required changes at meetings held

October 18 and 19, 1993. The changes

to the SIP were adopted by the MACC,

after proper notice and public hearing,

on March 31, 1994.

The contingency measures in the SIP

will be invoked if, beginning with the

calendar quarter following the

attainment date, an exceedance of the

lead NAAQS is recorded. MDNR will

notify Doe Run-Herculaneum of the

exceedance, and implementation of all

of the contingency measures will begin

within 60 days from receipt of that

notification.

H. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the state

and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A), and 57 FR 13556). The

state submittal includes a Consent Order

entered into by the state and the

Company which contains all of the

control and contingency measures, with

enforceable dates for implementation.

The state submittal also includes an

amendment to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–

6.120 which revises all point source

emission limits from a lbs./day to a lbs./

24-hour basis, and establishes

enforceable criteria for determining

compliance. The change from lbs./day

to lbs./24-hour was necessary to make

the emission limits consistent with the

new test methods specified in the rule

for determining compliance. Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 contains

provisions which are applicable to other

lead smelters in the state. EPA has not

reviewed the adequacy of the rule as it

relates to sources other than the

Herculaneum smelter. EPA proposes

approval of this rule only as it relates to

Doe Run-Herculaneum.

Changes to the Herculaneum Work

Practice Manual have also been

included with this SIP revision. The

Work Practice Manual serves as an

enforcement document for the state and

EPA. These work practices are designed

to limit the fugitive emissions at the

facility and are enforced through

recordkeeping requirements.

Noncompliance with the established

work practices is a violation of Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10–6.120. Any change to

the Work Practice Manual requires a

revision to the Missouri SIP, per

Missouri’s May 8, 1991, submittal letter.

IV. Implications of This Action

This SIP revision will significantly

expand the current SIP. It contains a

control strategy which provides for

modifications to various feed circuits,

the installation of additional ventilation

systems, and the installation of

additional pollution control devices.

The modeling performed in support of

the SIP revision indicates that the

emissions control strategy will result in

attainment of the NAAQS for lead. In

addition, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120

has been amended such that all point

source emission limits will be based

upon an enforceable 24-hour average

emission rate.

EPA Action

By this action EPA grants full

approval of Missouri’s July 2, 1993; June

30, 1994; and November 23, 1994,

submittals. This SIP revision meets the

requirements of section 110 and Part D

of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in the Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22277

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, EPA

certifies that it does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds

(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted these actions from review

under Executive Order 12866.

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 July 5, 1995. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart AA—Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(87) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(87) In submittals dated July 2, 1993;

June 30, 1994; and November 23, 1994,

MDNR submitted an SIP to satisfy

Federal requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe

Run primary smelter in Herculaneum,

Missouri. Although Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–6.120 contains requirements

which apply statewide to primary lead

smelting operations, EPA takes action

on this rule only insofar as it pertains

to the Doe Run Herculaneum facility.

Plan revisions to address the other lead

smelters in the state are under

development.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revised regulation 10 CSR 10–

6.120 (section (1), section (2)(B), section

(3)) entitled Restriction of Emissions of

Lead From Primary Lead SmelterRefinery Installations, effective August

28, 1994.

(B) Consent Order, entered into

between the Doe Run Company and

MDNR, dated July 2, 1993.

(C) Consent Order amendment, signed

by the Doe Run Company on March 31,

1994, and by MDNR on April 28, 1994.

(D) Consent Order amendment, signed

by the Doe Run Company on September

6, 1994, and by MDNR on November 23,

1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Revisions to the Doe Run

Herculaneum Work Practice Manual

submitted on July 2, 1993.

(B) Revisions to the Doe Run

Herculaneum Work Practice Manual

submitted on June 30, 1994.

§ 52.1323 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1323 is amended by

removing paragraph (g) and

redesignating paragraph (h) as

paragraph (g).

[FR Doc. 95–10976 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT11–1–6726a, UT12–1–6727a, and UT13–

1–6746a; FRL–5184–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;

New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is

approving revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the Governor of Utah on November 12,

1993 and on May 20, 1994. The

November 12, 1993 submittal included

revisions to the State’s new source

review (NSR) permitting regulations to

meet the new NSR requirements of the

amended Clean Air Act (Act) for all of

its nonattainment areas. The May 20,

1994 submittal included a revision to

the State’s definition of volatile organic

compounds. The Governor submitted

the nonattainment NSR rules with

numerous other ozone SIP revisions and

an ozone redesignation request for the

Salt Lake and Davis County

nonattainment areas. EPA will be acting

on the other portions of the Governor’s

November 12, 1993 submittal in

separate notices. EPA finds that the

State’s NSR rules meet the Federal

nonattainment NSR permitting

requirements of the Act for all of its

nonattainment areas, and that the State’s

revised definition of volatile organic

compounds is consistent with the

federal definition.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July

5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Vicki Stamper, 8ART–AP,

at the EPA Regional Office listed. Copies

of the State’s submittal and other

relevant information are available for