[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62856-62859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24866]

[[Page 62856]]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0688; FRL-9918-10-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri, Control of Emissions From Hand-Fired Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012, related to a 
Missouri rule titled ``Control of Emissions from Hand-Fired 
Equipment.'' Today's action approves a revision to the Missouri SIP 
that allows the burning of discarded clean wood in non-residential 
(commercial owned and operated) heating devices, with restrictions to 
ensure environmentally-sound operation, in the St. Louis metropolitan 

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 22, 2014, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 
20, 2014. 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-2014-0688, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: gonzalez.larry@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0688. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 www.regulations.gov or 
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The 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 email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email 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. 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 
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 
excluding legal 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: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7041 or by email at 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by 
addressing the following:

I. What is a SIP?
II. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
III. What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me?
IV. What is being addressed in this document?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop 
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state 
air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
established by the EPA. These 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 
EPA 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.

II. 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 state-authorized rulemaking 
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state submits it to EPA and requests that it be included into the 
state's SIP. EPA must provide public notice and seek additional public 
comment before it takes final action on the state's request to modify, 
or revise its implementation plan.
    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 

[[Page 62857]]

approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date by 
referencing it directly in the CFR.

III. 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. After the regulation is Federally-approved, EPA is 
authorized to take enforcement action against violators of the state 
requirement. As a result of Federal enforceability, citizens are also 
offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 
304 of the CAA.

IV. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the SIP 
submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012, related to Missouri 
rule 10 CSR 10-5.040, ``Control of Emissions from Hand-Fired 
Equipment.'' This revision allows commercial facilities to burn clean 
scrap wood in hand-fired equipment operating in the St. Louis 
metropolitan area, as long as the device is operated at the same 
location that the clean scrap wood is generated.
    To ensure that emissions of pollutants that result from this 
provision will not affect the ability of the St. Louis metropolitan 
area to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 
MDNR estimated the emission increases the area may experience as 
commercial facilities utilize the provision. The MDNR analysis first 
estimated the number of facilities that would take advantage of the 
provision, then estimated the amount of pollutants emitted from hand-
fired heating equipment using clean scrap wood as a fuel. The MDNR 
analysis of emissions relied on EPA's compilation of air pollution 
emission factors (AP-42) guidance to estimate the emissions from 
commercial facilities taking advantage of the new provision. The 
analysis submitted by MDNR determined that on a seasonal basis the 
greatest pollutant increase would be a less than 0.5 percent increase 
in carbon monoxide (CO), with other NAAQS pollutants showing increasing 
that are orders of magnitude lower. A description of the analysis and 
estimated emissions that result from the provision, prepared by MDNR, 
is included in the docket for this final rule.
    In EPA's review of MDNR's technical analysis, we agree that due to 
the limited number of commercial facilities utilizing the provision the 
resulting increase in emissions caused by burning clean wood in heating 
devices would be negligible. MDNR's analysis assumed individual heating 
units using a mix of oak and pine with a moisture content indicative of 
``dry wood'' over a normal heating season. The estimated emissions from 
this analysis show that the devices produce a negligible increase in 
NAAQS pollutants when compared to the current St. Louis metropolitan 
area emissions inventory.
    In the analysis, MDNR specifically estimated the emissions from the 
operation of up to 50 devices in the metropolitan area burning clean 
dry wood at commercial facilities. While it is difficult to establish 
realistic assumptions for this type of analysis, EPA believes this 
component of the analysis is reasonable. At the time MDNR submitted the 
SIP revision request to EPA for approval, there were three commercial 
facilities in the St. Louis metropolitan area known to be using clean 
scrap wood for heating purposes in five different combustion/heating 
devices. These devices were operating at one pallet repair facility, 
one lumber yard, and one arborist. These facilities generate 
unadulterated, clean scrap wood waste as a normal course of doing 
    To calculate the potential emissions from the devices, MDNR used 
EPA's AP-42 guidance and assumed the device[s] would only operate 
during the heating season (22 weeks) for comfort heating at the 
facilities as opposed to operating year round for the purpose of 
destroying secondary materials generated by the commercial activity. 
EPA believes estimating emissions based on the use of heating devices 
only during the heating season is a reasonable assumption to make to 
increase the accuracy of the estimate. MDNR's analysis estimated the 
emissions from six pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM) of 10 microns 
and less than 2.5 microns in size, CO, oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs). The analysis results are shown in table 1 

    \1\ The 2008 baseline emissions, used in the comparison shown in 
table 1, was collected from EPA's 2008 emissions inventory for the 
St. Louis metropolitan area and includes emissions from point and 
nonpoint sources in the following counties and municipalities in MO: 
Franklin County; Jefferson County; St. Charles County; St. Louis 
County; and St. Louis City.

                                                                         Table 1
                                                                                                                       Number of Devices
                                                                Emissions       2008       Increase  ---------------------------------------------------
                          Pollutant                             per device    Baseline    per device              5                        50
                                                                  (tons)     emissions       (%)     ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                               (tons)                     Tons       Percent        Tons       Percent
PM2.5........................................................       0.0815       16,670     0.000489       0.4077      0.00245       4.0771      0.02446
PM10.........................................................       0.0947      109,306     0.000087       0.4735      0.00043       4.7347      0.00433
CO...........................................................       0.1578       33,867     0.000466       0.7891      0.00233       7.8912      0.02330
NOX..........................................................       0.1289       44,285     0.000291       0.6444      0.00146       6.4445      0.01455
SOX..........................................................       0.0066      213,756     0.000003       0.0329      0.00002       0.3288      0.00015
VOC..........................................................       0.0045       43,430     0.000010       0.0224      0.00005       0.2236      0.00051

    The analysis shows that increases in emissions in the St. Louis 
metropolitan area produced through the use of this provision are 
insignificant, and will not meaningfully impact the attainment status 
of the area with respect to the NAAQS.
    The St. Louis metropolitan area is currently classified as moderate 
nonattainment for PM2.5 and marginal nonattainment for 
ozone. PM2.5, or fine particulate matter is produced by a 
variety of commercial and noncommercial sources in the St. Louis 
metropolitan area, and based on the analysis even if 50 commercial 
facilities were to begin heating with scrap wood generated onsite, the 
resulting emissions would only increase the current PM2.5 
emission's inventory by a factor of 0.0002 (or 4.1 tons out of 16,670 
tons). EPA agrees that this relatively slight increase in 
PM2.5 emissions will not

[[Page 62858]]

have a measurable impact on ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 
the area. Furthermore emissions trends for PM2.5 currently 
depict a decrease in ambient concentrations and this trending decrease 
in PM2.5 far exceeds the emissions increase in 
PM2.5 projected by MDNR's analysis.
    Ozone, the other pollutant that the St. Louis metropolitan area is 
currently not attaining, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere 
like PM or NOX. MDNR's analysis did not specifically address 
ozone concentrations; however, due to a number of factors assessed by 
EPA, we agree that the impact on attaining the ozone NAAQS will be 
minimal. In support of this position, EPA notes that the restrictions 
for the exceptions will greatly limit the number of commercial 
facilities using the provision and therefore limit additional 
pollutants released into the St. Louis metropolitan airshed. Also, EPA 
considered that additional building heating is needed during periods of 
the year in which colder temperatures and shorter periods of daylight 
exist (months preceding and following the winter solstice) thus, 
minimizing impacts on ambient ozone concentrations. In summary, EPA 
agrees with MDNR's analysis that any additional ozone precursor 
emissions that the revised provision adds to the area will not 
contribute to the formation of ground level ozone in a meaningful way, 
because the emissions occur during a period of the year in which the 
conditions that favor ozone formation do not exist.
    MDNR solicited comments on the proposed provision during the 
process to finalize this revision. In response to these solicitations, 
MDNR received fifteen comments (two from EPA Region 7, one from the 
commercial operator originally requesting the rule change, and the rest 
from the St. Louis Health Department). In general, the comments 
highlighted technical aspects of the provision that required 
modification to increase clarity and aid compliance. MDNR modified the 
proposed provision to address comments from EPA and the St. Louis 
Health Department.

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. and 
meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 
110 and implementing regulations.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve this SIP revision. We 
are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view 
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. 
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, 
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed 
rule to approve this SIP revision, if adverse comments are received on 
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period 
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we 
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the 
public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will 
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule.

VII. 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'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     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. 
    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 December 22, 2014. 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

[[Page 62859]]

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: September 24, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:


1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising 
the table heading entitled ``Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air 
Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area'' and 
the entry under ``Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution 
Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area'' for ``10-
5.040'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
       Missouri citation                  Title            effective   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
                                                  * * * * * * *
  Chapter 5--Air Quality Regulations and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.040.......................  Control of Emissions        05/30/12  10/21/14 [Insert
                                  from Hand-Fired                       Federal Register
                                  Equipment.                            citation].
                                                  * * * * * * *

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24866 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]