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

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