[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64042-64044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30742]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[MO 013-1013; FRL-5658-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and State 
Operating Permit Programs; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Missouri to update references 
and modify the Missouri intermediate operating permit program. The EPA 
is also proposing to grant full approval of an operating permit program 
submitted by the state of Missouri for the purpose of complying with 
Federal requirements for an approvable state program to issue operating 
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Joshua A. Tapp, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Tapp at (913) 551-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of 
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70, require that states develop 
and submit operating permit programs to the EPA by November 15, 1993, 
and that the EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within one 
year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs 
pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the Part 70 regulations, which 
together outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Additionally, 
section 502(g) of the Act and the Part 70 regulations outline criteria 
for granting interim approval where a program substantially, but not 
fully, meets the requirements of the Act and Part 70. The EPA may grant 
interim approval to such a program for a period of up to two years.
    On January 13, 1995, the state of Missouri submitted an operating 
permits program to the EPA. Supplemental submissions were made by the 
state on August 14, 1995; September 19, 1995; and October 16, 1995. On 
April 11, 1996, Region VII determined that Missouri's program contained 
the minimum elements required for interim approval as specified in 40 
CFR 70.4(d). The rationale for the EPA's determination that interim 
approval is appropriate is contained in the December 15, 1995, Federal 
Register document (60 FR 64404) which proposed interim approval of the 
program. In that document, the Region identified the revisions that 
were required in order for Region VII to be able to grant full 
approval. The state was required to adopt and submit these revisions to 
the EPA within 12 months of the effective date of the notice of final 
interim approval which published on April 11, 1996.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve revisions submitted pursuant 
to section 110 of the Act to update references in rule 10 CSR 10-6.020, 
and to modify permit provisions in rule 10 CSR 10-6.065 with regard to 
the Missouri intermediate operating permit program. Specifically, the 
revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 update a reference to the Standard 
Industrial Classification Manual and revise Table 2 entitled, ``List of 
Named Installations'' so that it is consistent with applicable EPA 
regulations.

[[Page 64043]]

    With regard to rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, Missouri submitted revisions 
that delete the following language from subsection (3)(E): ``However, 
for insignificant activities which are exempt because of size or 
production rate, a list of these activities must be included in the 
application.'' The requirement for listing insignificant activities 
relates to the Title V program, and Missouri has retained this 
provision for its Title V applications. Such a provision is not 
relevant to the SIP-based Federally approved operating permit programs 
as defined by the EPA in a June 28, 1989, Federal Register document (54 
FR 27274). The SIP-based program is a mechanism for restricting total 
emissions at a source, and all emissions (including those from 
insignificant activities) must be considered under Missouri's rules in 
calculating potential emissions at a source. However, such activities 
are not required to be explicitly listed in the intermediate permit 
application. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of this 
modification.
    The state of Missouri also revised subsection (g) of the basic 
operating permit program which is contained in section 4 of rule 10 CSR 
10-6.065. This program is not a Federally approved program. The EPA is, 
therefore, not taking action on Missouri's revision to subsection 4(g) 
of rule 10 CSR 10-6.065.

II. Final 40 CFR Part 70 Action and Implications

A. Missouri's Submission and EPA-Requested Modifications

    The December 15, 1995, Federal Register document proposing interim 
approval of the Missouri program discussed two rules which are a part 
of the operating permit program that require revisions in order for the 
program to qualify for full Part 70 approval. These rules are 10 CSR 
10-6.020, ``Definitions and Common Reference Tables,'' and 10 CSR 10-
6.065, ``Operating Permits.''
    In order qualify for full approval, Missouri made the required 
program revisions in its August 6, 1996, submittal. Specifically, MDNR 
made the following revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.020, ``Definitions and 
Common Reference Tables.'' Paragraph (2)(I)7 was updated to reference 
the current Standard Industrial Classification Manual. And, subsection 
(3)(B), Table 2--List of Named Installations, was revised to make it 
consistent with the list in the definition of major source in 40 CFR 
70.2.
    MDNR made the following revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, 
``Operating Permits.'' Paragraph (1)(D)2 was revised to clarify the 
meaning of ``fugitive air pollutant'' as it relates to Part 70 
installations. Subsection (3)(D) was revised to clarify Part 70 
applicability with respect to emissions from exempt installations and 
emission units. Subpart (6)(C)1.C.(II)(b) was revised to clarify the 
retention of records requirements in permits, consistent with 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3). Part (6)(C)1.G.(I) was revised to clarify the general 
requirements for permit compliance and noncompliance, consistent with 
70.6(a)(6). Subparagraph (6)(C)4.A. was revised to correct a citation 
error, and to clarify that the requirement for the EPA and affected 
state review applies to general permits, consistent with 70.6(d)(1). 
Part (6)(C)7.B.(IV) was revised to make the emergency provision notice 
consistent with 70.6(g)(3). Paragraph (6)(C)8 was revised to clarify 
the meaning of the term ``emissions allowable under the permit.'' Part 
(6)(E)5.B.(I), minor permit modification criteria, was revised to be 
consistent with 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(3). Part (6)(E)5.B.(I) was also 
revised by the addition of subpart (b) which incorporates economic 
incentive provisions consistent with 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Subpart 
(6)(E)5.C.(I)(b) was revised to correct the threshold for group 
processing of minor permit modifications so that it is consistent with 
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Subpart (6)(E)5.D.(II)(a), significant permit 
modification procedures, was revised so that it is consistent with 
70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c). And finally, minor citation corrections were 
made to part (6)(B)3.I.(IV), subpart (6)(E)5.B.(II)(a), part 
(6)(E)5.C.(V), and subparagraph (6)(E)6.C.
    Missouri has the authority to issue a variance from state 
requirements under section 643.110 of the state statutes. This 
provision was not included by the state in its operating permit program 
submittal, and the EPA regards this provision as wholly external to the 
program submitted for approval under Part 70, and consequently is not 
taking action on this provision of state law. The EPA has no authority 
to approve provisions of state law, such as the variance provision 
referred to, which are inconsistent with the Act. The EPA does not 
recognize the ability of a permitting authority to grant relief from 
the duty to obtain or comply with a Federally enforceable Part 70 
permit, except where such relief is granted through the procedures 
allowed by Part 70. A Part 70 permit may be issued or revised 
(consistent with Part 70 permitting procedures) to incorporate those 
terms of a variance that are consistent with applicable requirements. A 
Part 70 permit may also incorporate, via Part 70 permit issuance or 
modification procedures, the schedule of compliance set forth in a 
variance. However, the EPA reserves the right to pursue enforcement of 
applicable requirements, notwithstanding the existence of a compliance 
schedule in a permit to operate. This is consistent with 
70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule of compliance ``shall 
be supplemental to, and shall not sanction noncompliance with, the 
applicable requirements on which it is based.''
    The technical support document (TSD) for the interim approval 
describes in detail the criteria for Federal approval of a Part 70 
program and how the Missouri program meets these criteria. The TSD for 
the final interim approval also describes in detail the revisions to 
these rules which are required for full approval of the program. The 
reader should refer to this document which is located in the public 
docket for further information.

B. Proposed Full Part 70 Approval

    The EPA is proposing to grant full approval to the operating permit 
program submitted by the state of Missouri on August 6, 1996, with 
supplemental information submitted on August 14, 1995; September 19, 
1995; and October 16, 1995. The state of Missouri has demonstrated that 
its program meets the required elements for full approval as specified 
in 40 CFR Part 70.
    1. Regulations. This proposed approval of the Missouri operating 
permits program includes the following regulations, solely as they 
relate to the Missouri Part 70 operating permit program: 10 CSR 10-
6.065, Operating Permits; 10 CSR 10-6.110, Submission of Emission Data, 
Emission Fees and Process Information; and 10 CSR 10-6.020, Definitions 
and Common Reference Tables.
    2. Jurisdiction. The scope of the Part 70 program on which the EPA 
is proposing action in this document applies to all Part 70 sources (as 
defined in the approved program), within the state of Missouri, except 
sources of air pollution, if any, over which an Indian Tribe has 
jurisdiction. See 59 FR 55813, 55815-55818 (November 9, 1994). The term 
``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any Indian Tribe, Band, 
Nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska 
Native village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the 
special programs and services provided by the

[[Page 64044]]

United States to Indians, because of their status as Indians.'' See 
section 302(r) of the CAA; 59 FR 43956, 43962 (August 25, 1994); 58 FR 
54364 (October 21, 1993).
    3. CAA section 112(l). Requirements for approval, specified in 40 
CFR 70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a 
program for delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated by the 
EPA as they apply to Part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that 
the state's program contain adequate authorities, adequate resources 
for implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are 
also requirements under Part 70. The EPA granted full approval to the 
state's program under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 in an April 
11, 1996, Federal Register document (61 FR 16063). This approval gives 
the state the authority to receive delegation of section 112 standards 
for both Part 70 and non-Part 70 sources.
    4. CAA section 112(g). The EPA issued an interpretive document on 
February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which outlines the EPA's revised 
interpretation of 112(g) applicability. The document postpones the 
effective date of 112(g) until after the EPA has promulgated a rule 
addressing that provision. The document sets forth in detail the 
rationale for the revised interpretation.
    The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that the EPA is 
still considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should 
be delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule so as to 
allow states time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and 
that the EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final 
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until the EPA provides for such 
an additional postponement of section 112(g), Missouri must have a 
Federally enforceable mechanism for implementing section 112(g) during 
the period between promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and 
adoption of implementing Federal regulations.
    The EPA is aware that Missouri lacks a program designed 
specifically to implement section 112(g). However, Missouri does have a 
program for review of new and modified hazardous air pollutant sources 
that can serve as an adequate implementation vehicle during the 
transition period, because it would allow Missouri to select control 
measures that would meet the maximum achievable control technology, as 
defined in section 112, and incorporate these measures into a federally 
enforceable preconstruction permit.
    The EPA granted approval to Missouri's preconstruction permitting 
program under the authority of Title V and Part 70 in an April 11, 
1996, Federal Register document (61 FR 16063). This approval was 
granted solely for the purpose of implementing section 112(g) to the 
extent necessary during the transition period between 112(g) 
promulgation and adoption of a state rule implementing the EPA's 
section 112(g) regulations. Although section 112(l) generally provides 
authority for approval of state air programs to implement section 
112(g), Title V and section 112(g) provide for this limited approval 
because of the direct linkage between the implementation of section 
112(g) and Title V. The scope of this approval was narrowly limited to 
section 112(g) and does not confer or imply approval for purposes of 
any other provision under the Act (e.g., section 110). That approval 
will be without effect if the EPA decides in the final section 112(g) 
rule that sources are not subject to the requirements of the rule until 
state regulations are adopted. The duration of that approval is limited 
to 18 months following promulgation by the EPA of the 112(g) rule to 
provide adequate time for the state to adopt regulations consistent 
with the federal requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the state submittal and other information relied upon for 
the proposed full approval are contained in a docket maintained at the 
EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of 
all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA 
in the development of this proposed full approval. The docket is 
available for public inspection at the location listed under the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 
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, the 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: November 20, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-30742 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P