27028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

PART 1234—ELECTRONIC RECORDS

MANAGEMENT

19. The authority citation for part

1234 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and

3105.

20. In part 1234, whenever it occurs,

revise the reference to ‘‘§ 1228.188’’ to

read ‘‘§ 1228.270’’.

§ 1234.10 [Amended]

21. In paragraph (a) of § 1234.10

remove the phrase Aand the General

Services Administration Regulations

Branch (KMPR), Washington, DC

20405,’’ and add in its place ‘‘and the

General Services Administration, Office

of Government Policy (MKB),

Washington, DC 20405,’’.

PART 1236—MANAGEMENT OF VITAL

RECORDS

22. The authority citation for part

1236 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2104(a), 2904(a),

3101, E.O. 12958, 53 FR 47491, 3 CFR 1988

Comp., p. 585.

23. Amend § 1236.26 by revising

paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 1236.26 Protection of vital records.

* * * * *

(a) Duplication. Computer backup

tapes created in the normal course of

system maintenance or other electronic

copies that may be routinely created in

the normal course of business may be

used as the vital record copy. For hard

copy records, agencies may choose to

make microform copies. Standards for

the creation, preservation and use of

microforms are found in 36 CFR part

1230, Micrographic Records

Management. The Clinger-Cohen Act

(40 U.S.C. 1401, Pub. L. 104–106, et

seq., as amended by Pub. L. 104–208),

OMB Circular A–130, and 36 CFR part

1234, Electronic Records Management,

and 41 CFR part 201, subchapter B,

Management and Use of Information

and Records, specify protective

measures and standards for electronic

records.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) The off-site copy of legal and

financial rights vital records may be

stored at an off-site agency location or,

in accordance with § 1228.162 of this

chapter, at an FRC.

* * * * *

Dated: May 2, 2001.

John W. Carlin,

Archivist of the United States.

[FR Doc. 01–12265 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 122–1122; FRL–6980–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a rule

revision submitted by the state of

Missouri to clarify that any credible

evidence (referenced as the ‘‘CE

revisions’’ or ‘‘CE’’ throughout this

document) may be used to establish

compliance or noncompliance with

applicable requirements of the Missouri

air pollution control regulations under

the authority of applicable provisions in

section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (the

‘‘Act’’) (CAA). EPA proposed approval

of the Missouri rule on February 6,

1996. The proposal was accompanied by

a direct final rule approving the

Missouri submission. In that rule, EPA

stated that the rule would become final

if no adverse comments were received,

but that if EPA received adverse

comments, it would withdraw the final

rule, treat the action as a proposed

rulemaking, and respond to the

comments prior to taking a final action.

Because it received adverse comments,

EPA withdrew the final action. We are

now taking final action to approve the

rule. Public comments are addressed in

this action and in a Response to

Comments document.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 15,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101. 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:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Introduction

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this document?

What comments were received by EPA and

what are EPA’s responses to the

comments?

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP

revision been met?

What action is EPA taking?

What Is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

Section 110 of the CAA requires states

to develop air pollution regulations and

control strategies to ensure that state air

quality meets the national ambient air

quality standards established by EPA.

These ambient standards are established

under section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to us

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to EPA for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27029

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by us.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that we have

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, EPA is

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

EPA is approving a rule revision

submitted by the state of Missouri to

clarify that any credible evidence may

be used to establish compliance or

noncompliance with applicable

requirements of the Missouri air

pollution control regulations under the

authority of applicable provisions in

section 110(a) of the CAA. Missouri

adopted and submitted the CE revision

pursuant to an EPA call for a SIP

revision under section 110(k)(5) of the

Act, issued by us on May 11, 1994 (the

‘‘SIP call’’). The SIP call to Missouri was

part of a national SIP call announced in

a proposed rulemaking published on

October 22, 1993, at 58 FR 54648,

which, in part, proposed rule revisions

to various EPA rules to clarify that any

credible evidence can be used to

establish compliance or noncompliance

with applicable requirements of the Act.

EPA published its final rule

promulgating the CE rules on February

24, 1997, at 62 FR 8314. EPA proposed

approval of the Missouri rule on

February 6, 1996, at 61 FR 4391. The

proposal was accompanied by a direct

final rule approving the Missouri

submission (61 FR 4352). In that rule,

we stated that the rule would become

final if no adverse comments were

received, but that if we received adverse

comment, we would withdraw the final

rule, treat the action as a proposed

rulemaking, and respond to the

comments prior to taking a final action.

Because we received adverse comments,

we withdrew the final action and we are

responding to the comments in this

document. References to the ‘‘proposal’’

or ‘‘proposed rule’’ are to the rule

published initially as a direct final rule.

What Comments Were Received by EPA

and What Are EPA’s Responses to the

Comments?

In response to the proposed approval

of the Missouri rule, EPA received a

number of comments, submitted by six

industries and industry associations.

Some comments relate specifically to

the Missouri rule. Other comments are

the same or similar to comments

submitted on the 1993 national

proposed rulemaking (sometimes

referenced herein as the ‘‘national’’

rule). In its response to comments, we

have responded in detail to the

Missouri-specific comments, and in

summary form to the comments that

were also submitted on the national

proposal. We provided a more detailed

response to these comments in the

‘‘Supplement to the Technical Support

Document for the Missouri Compliance

Monitor Usage Rule—Response to

Comments’’ and in the February 1997

response to comments accompanying

the promulgation of the national rule,

both of which are in the docket for the

final action on the Missouri rule. The

reader may request a copy at the

location identified above. A summary of

the more important comments and our

responses follow.

Because a petition for review, which

raised issues relevant to EPA’s action on

the Missouri rule, was pending on the

national rule, we chose to withhold

temporarily our final action on the state

rule. Since the petition on the national

rule has been dismissed, Clean Air

Implementation Project v.

Environmental Protection Agency, 150

F. 3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1998), we are now

proceeding with final action on the

Missouri rule.

Comments Relating to Statutory

Authority for the Use of CE

A number of commenters objected to

allowing the use of any credible

evidence to determine compliance,

arguing that section 113(e) allows such

evidence to be used only to assess

penalties, and not to determine initially

whether a violation has occurred. In

general, the commenters argue that, by

its terms, section 113(e) applies only to

evidence showing the duration of the

violation and not to the evidence that

can be used to establish the existence of

a violation. The commenters also argue

that the legislative history supports their

assertion that CE can only be used to

establish duration. One commenter also

stated that the rule is a departure from

the ‘‘longstanding’’ practice of

determining violations based solely on

the reference test method specified in

the relevant emission limit.

As explained in detail in the February

1997 response to comments on the

national rule (in particular, section 1.1),

the CAA provides ample authority to

allow the states, EPA, and citizens to

offer any credible evidence to establish

the initial existence of a violation as

well as the duration of a violation. This

authority is not only in section 113(e),

but also in other sections (e.g., sections

113(a), 114(a)(3), 301, and 504(b)). The

various provisions dealing with the

basis for enforcing against violations, for

monitoring, and for certifying

compliance, show that Congress

intended to clarify the types of evidence

that can be used to prove a violation

initially, as well as the evidence that

can be used to show subsequent

violations (for purposes of establishing

the duration of the violation). Moreover,

because the use of CE does not change

existing compliance obligations, the

credible evidence revisions are a

permissible exercise of our general

rulemaking authority in section 301.

Regarding past practice concerning

the use of the applicable reference test

method, we explained in the February

1997 response to comments that it has

used and continues to use the reference

test method as the major indicator of

compliance status. However, we also

explained that past use of the reference

test method as the exclusive means to

show compliance has not been dictated

by any requirement of the CAA, but by

the language in individual regulations.

EPA’s promulgation of the national CE

rules amended the regulations

consistent with the authority in section

113(a) to base enforcement actions on

‘‘any information’’ available to us.

Similarly, our approval of the Missouri

compliance usage rule into the SIP

clarifies that nonreference test data can

be used to determine compliance with

the Missouri air pollution control rules,

and remedies a deficiency in the SIP, to

the extent that state regulations could

previously have been interpreted to

mean that compliance could only be

determined by the results of a reference

test method. (Authority to require CE

provisions in SIPs is discussed in

section 4 of the response to comments

document.)

27030 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Comments Relating to the Relationship

Between CE and Enhanced Monitoring

Several commenters objected to the

proposed approval of the Missouri rule

based on the perceived relationship

between the credible evidence rule and

the enhanced monitoring rule (proposed

in 1993 along with the proposed

national CE rule). The commenters

stated that the national CE rule was

dependent on the proposed enhanced

monitoring (EM) rule, and that since the

EM rule was, according to one

commenter, withdrawn, EPA could not

go forward with the CE rule, the CE SIP

call, or approval of any state CE rules.

Another commenter stated that, since

the revised EM or compliance assurance

monitoring (CAM) rule had not yet been

developed, there was no meaningful

opportunity to comment on the effect of

the Missouri CE rule on underlying

emission limits. Finally, one commenter

stated that EPA should take no action on

the Missouri rule until EPA had

promulgated a CAM rule.

We responded extensively to the

issues raised in these comments in our

promulgation of the national CE rule, in

the preamble and the response to

comments document. In summary, we

clarified that the EM proposal had not

been formally withdrawn. In addition,

we determined that the CE rule, while

proposed at the same time as the EM

proposal, could be promulgated apart

from the EM/CAM rule. The purpose of

the CE rule is to remove barriers to

consideration of credible evidence, such

as EM/CAM data and other relevant

data, in determining violations of

emission standards, and knowledge of

the specific requirements of the EM/

CAM rule is not necessary to formulate

comments on the CE rule. In addition,

we noted that the 1993 proposal gave

notice that the CE revisions were

separate from the EM proposal. Both the

national CE rule revisions and the

Missouri CE rule are revisions to

existing regulations that were not

dependent on promulgation of the EM/

CAM rule.

Compliance of the State Rule With

Missouri Law

Two commenters raised issues

concerning the validity of the Missouri

rule under state law. The commenters

referenced a provision in the Missouri

statutes that provides, with certain

exceptions, that the state environmental

agency cannot adopt rules which are

‘‘any stricter than those required under

the provisions of the Federal Clean Air

Act * * *’’ (Mo. Rev. Stat. section

643.055.1). One commenter stated that

since EPA had not (as of the date of the

comment letter, March 6, 1996) adopted

either the enhanced monitoring or the

credible evidence rule, EPA’s approval

of the state rule would be contrary to the

Missouri statute referenced above.

Another commenter stated that since

EPA had no authority under the Act to

require that Missouri adopt a CE rule

(see discussion of related comments in

sections 1 and 4 of the Response to

Comments on the Missouri rule),

Missouri lacked legal authority to adopt

the state rule because of the limitation

on rulemaking in the state statute.

EPA’s authority to issue the call for

SIP revisions to Missouri and other

states was summarized above and in

section 4 of the Response to Comments

and discussed in detail in the national

CE rulemaking. As shown in those

discussions, the premise for the

commenters’ assertion that Missouri

lacked authority to adopt its CE rule is

incorrect, since the state rule was

adopted in response to a SIP call issued

by EPA to correct a deficiency in the

state rules to meet a requirement of the

Act. Therefore, the comments

concerning the validity of the state

regulation are, in large part, a reiteration

of the issues relating to our authority to

issue the CE rule and SIP call, to which

we have previously responded.

In addition, contrary to the suggestion

of one commenter, the state’s statutory

restriction on adoption of rules is a

limitation on the state’s ability to

promulgate rules. It is not a restriction

on our authority to approve a rule that

the state has properly submitted. In

submitting the state rule, both EPA and

Missouri determined that the CAA

required the rule, and that the state had

adequate legal authority to adopt and

implement the rule (letter dated

February 21, 1995, from David Shorr,

Director, Missouri Department of

Natural Resources to Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, EPA). EPA’s

review of the rule was based on whether

it met the requirements of section 110

and related provisions of the Act.

Significantly, the record of public

comments on the state’s proposal of the

rule does not indicate that this issue,

which is clearly a matter of state law,

was ever raised to the state’s rulemaking

body for consideration prior to its

adoption of the rule. Even if there were

any validity to the assertion that

Missouri lacked authority to adopt the

rule, this would have been an issue for

the state, not EPA, to consider. In fact,

however, the state agency charged with

promulgating rules in accordance with

its enabling authority specifically

determined that the rule was required

by Federal law, and that it had adequate

authority to adopt the rule. The

commenter, in effect, asks EPA to

second-guess the state’s application of

its own law, by raising an issue that it

raised for the first time after the state’s

rulemaking action has been completed.

The commenter incorrectly states not

only the requirements of the CAA, but

also our role in acting on state revisions

to its SIPs. The state determined that it

properly adopted the rule under state

law, and the commenter raises no issues

that would cause us to question the

state’s determination.

One commenter stated that the

proposed approval of the Missouri rule

was procedurally flawed because we

had effectively withdrawn the national

enhanced monitoring rule, and the SIP

call had not required submission of the

Missouri rule until promulgation of the

national rule. The commenter

contended that approval of the Missouri

rule would be pointless, because state

law (referenced previously) bars the

state from enforcing a rule sooner than

required by Federal law.

The Missouri statute provides that the

state agency may not, in certain

instances, adopt standards that are more

stringent than required by the Federal

Act, and that such standards cannot be

‘‘enforced’’ any sooner than required by

the Act. The commenter states that,

since the SIP call did not require states

to submit CE SIP revisions until

promulgation of the ‘‘enhanced

monitoring’’ rule (which had not been

promulgated in any form), the state

cannot enforce its rule pending EPA

action promulgating a national

monitoring rule.

As shown above, Missouri determined

that it had adequate authority to adopt

and implement the CE rule under state

law, and EPA has no basis to question

this determination. In addition to that

discussion, EPA notes that the comment

is based on the implicit assumption that

the Missouri rule adds substantive

requirements that could be ‘‘enforced.’’

As explained in response to a prior

comment, the rule does not add

substantive new requirements, but only

clarifies that nonreference test data may

be used to determine compliance with

the applicable standard. Therefore, the

rule does not impose requirements that

Missouri would be enforcing prior to a

time required under the Act. EPA notes

that its position on this issue is

consistent with the position stated by

Missouri in its response to comments on

the proposed state rule. In response to

a comment that the rule would give the

state ‘‘undefined and unbridled’’

enforcement authority, Missouri

responded that it ‘‘does not open a

whole new area of enforcement * * *

Violations can only exist in the context

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27031

of an emission limitation or requirement

[in the existing rules].’’ While the

commenters did not ask Missouri to

consider its CE rule in the context of the

statutory restriction, the state clearly

understood the rule as a clarification of

existing emission limitations rather than

as establishing additional enforceable

requirements. (See ‘‘Comments and

Responses on the Proposed Rule 10 CSR

10–6.280 Compliance Monitoring Usage

and Recommendation for Adoption,’’

Commission Briefing Document, August

25, 1994, p. 222, which is in the docket

for this rulemaking.)

Regarding the comment that EPA

cannot approve the state rule before it

takes final action on the national CE

rule, EPA regards the comment as moot,

since we have now taken final action to

promulgate the national rule. Moreover,

our approval of state CE rules is not

contingent on promulgation of the

national rule, but on whether the state

submittal meets the requirements of the

Act. Our rationale for proceeding with

the SIP calls and acting on state

submissions before the national CE rule

promulgation was explained in the

preamble to the proposed and final CE

rulemaking, referenced above.

The reader should refer to the

Response to Comments on the proposed

approval of the Missouri rule for other

issues raised by the commenters and our

responses.

Have the Requirements for Approval of

a SIP Revision Been Met?

The state submittal has met the public

notice requirements for SIP submissions

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The

submittal also satisfied the

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. In addition, as explained

above in the response to comments and

in more detail in the technical support

document which is part of this

document, the revision meets the

substantive SIP requirements of the

CAA, including section 110 and

implementing regulations. More

information on the February 6, 1996,

notice of direct final rulemaking is

contained in the technical support

document in the docket.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is granting final approval to

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.280 for

which approval was proposed in the

Federal Register on February 6, 1996.

II. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves

preexisting requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it 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).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, our

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), we have no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply. As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,

we have taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the Executive Order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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. We will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the United

States Senate, the United States 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).

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 16, 2001. 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 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: April 26, 2001.

William A. Spratlin,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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 et seq.

27032 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart AA—Missouri

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

under Chapter 6 by adding in numerical

order the entry for ‘‘10–6.280’’ to read

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 State of

Missouri

*******

10–6.280 Compliance Monitoring Usage ................................................................ 12/30/94 May 16, 2001

66 FR 27032

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–12356 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6978–8]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Equivalency

by Permit Provisions; National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper

Industry; State of New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA), New

Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services (NH DES)

requested approval to implement and

enforce State permit terms and

conditions that substitute for the

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp

and Paper Industry and the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Chemical Recovery

Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,

Sulfite and Stand-Alone Semi-chemical

Pulp Mills. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed

this request and has found that it

satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for approval. Thus,

EPA is hereby granting NH DES the

authority to implement and enforce

alternative requirements in the form of

title V permit terms and conditions after

EPA has approved the state’s alternative

requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 16,

2001 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by June 15,

2001. If EPA receives such comment,

then it will publish a timely withdrawal

in the Federal Register informing the

public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to Steven Rapp, Manager, Air

Permits Program Unit, Office of

Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAP)

at the EPA New England office listed

below. Copies of NH DES’s request for

approval are available for public

inspection at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA-New England, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, One Congress

Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA

02114–2023.

New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, Air

Resources Division, 6 Hazen Drive,

Concord, NH 03302–0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Lancey, Office of Ecosystem

Protection, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA-New England,

One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston,

MA 02114–2023, Telephone: (617) 918–

1656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 15, 1998, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated

the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp

and Paper Industry (see 63 FR 18617),

which has been codified in 40 CFR part

63, subpart S, ‘‘National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry’’

(Pulp and Paper MACT I).

Subsequently, on January 12, 2001, EPA

promulgated the National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry (see

66 FR 3180) which has been codified in

40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Chemical

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft,

Soda, Sulfite and Stand-Alone

Semichemical Pulp Mills’ (Pulp and

Paper MACT II). The only sources

currently subject to subpart S and

subpart MM in New Hampshire are

Groveton Paper Board Inc. of Groveton,

NH (Groveton) and Pulp & Paper of

America, LLC of Berlin, NH (Pulp &

Paper of America). On January 23, 2001, New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

(NH DES) requested delegation of

subpart S and subpart MM under

§ 63.94 for both Groveton and Pulp &

Paper of America. EPA received the

request on January 30, 2001. NH DES

requested to implement and enforce

approved alternative title V permit

terms and conditions in place of the

otherwise applicable requirements of

subpart S and subpart MM under the

process outlined in 40 CFR 63.94. As

part of its request to implement and

enforce approved alternative title V

permit terms and conditions in place of

the otherwise applicable Federal section

112 standards, NH DES also requested

approval of its demonstration that NH

DES has adequate authorities and

resources to implement and enforce all

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112

programs and rules. The purpose of this

demonstration is to streamline the

approval process for future CAA section

112(l) applications.

II. EPA Action

Under CAA section 112(l), EPA may

approve state or local rules or programs

to be implemented and enforced in

place of certain otherwise applicable

CAA section 112 Federal rules, emission

standards, or requirements. The Federal

regulations governing EPA’s approval of

state and local rules or programs under

section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part

63, subpart E (see 65 FR 55810, dated

September 14, 2000). Under these

regulations, a local air pollution control

agency has the option to request EPA’s

approval to substitute alternative