[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48579-48582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19569]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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