Air Plan Approval; Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Approval of Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska; Definition of Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations and Operating Permit Programs, 60968-60975 [2019-23979]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60968
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
for interested persons to submit
comments on this additional
information without significantly
delaying rulemaking.
FDA is adding the following materials
to the docket for the proposed rule:
• ‘‘Qualitative Study on Cigarettes and
Smoking: Knowledge, Beliefs, and
Misperceptions’’ (July 2015) (OMB
control number 0910–0674,
‘‘Qualitative Study on Cigarettes and
Smoking: Knowledge, Beliefs, and
Misperceptions’’)
• ‘‘Memorandum of Findings from
Cognitive Testing of Spanish Warning
Labels’’ (March 2016)
• ‘‘FDA Graphic Health Warning Image
Concept Testing’’ (June 2016) (OMB
control number 0910–0796,
‘‘Qualitative Study of Perceptions and
Knowledge of Visually Depicted
Health Conditions’’)
• ‘‘Qualitative Study on Consumer
Perceptions of Cigarettes Health
Warning Images’’ (April 2018) (OMB
control number 0910–0796,
‘‘Qualitative Study on Consumer
Perceptions of Cigarettes Health
Warning Images’’)
Dated: November 5, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019–24511 Filed 11–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[EPA–R07–OAR–2019–0532; FRL–10000–
21–Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Nebraska and Approval of
Operating Permit Program for Iowa and
Nebraska; Definition of Chemical
Process Plants Under State Prevention
of Significant Deterioration
Regulations and Operating Permit
Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the State Implementation
Plans (SIP) for Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
and Nebraska and is also proposing to
approve revisions to the Operating
Permit Programs for Iowa and Nebraska.
The SIP revisions incorporate changes
to the definition of chemical process
plants under the States’ Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations and change the same
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
definition in the approved State
operating permit programs. Consistent
with an EPA regulation completed in
2007, this action approves several
States’ rules that modify the definition
of chemical process plant to exclude
ethanol manufacturing facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation
processes. This will clarify that the PSD
major source applicability threshold in
the SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250
tons per year (tpy) (rather than 100 tpy)
and removes the requirement to include
fugitive emissions when determining if
the source is major for PSD. In addition,
this action approves changes to Iowa’s
and Nebraska’s Title V operating permit
programs that remove the requirement
to include fugitive emissions when
determining if a source is major for Title
V. The EPA concludes that the changes
to the State rules described herein are
approvable because they are consistent
with EPA regulations governing State
PSD and Title V programs and will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2019–0532 to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number (913) 551–7714;
email address stone.william@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is Being Addressed in this
Document?
III. Background
A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical
Processing Plants
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for
Chemical Processing Plants
C. Ethanol Rule
D. Petitions for Review and
Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule
IV. What SIP Revisions are being Proposed by
the EPA?
V. What Operating Permit Plan Revisions are
being Proposed by the EPA?
VI. Have the Requirements for Approval of a
SIP Revision Been Met?
VII. What Action is the EPA Taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2019–
0532, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this
document?
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to SIPs received by EPA from
Iowa on November 15, 2007, Kansas on
November 23, 2009, Missouri on
December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019,
and Nebraska on August 28, 2007, and
September 11, 2018. The EPA is also
proposing to approve Iowa and
Nebraska’s Operating Permit Program
revisions. These revisions conform the
State rules to changes to EPA
regulations reflected in the EPA’s final
rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, Nonattainment New
Source Review (NA NSR), and Title V:
Treatment of Certain Ethanol
Production Facilities Under the ‘‘Major
Emitting Facility’’ Definition’’
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2007
Ethanol Rule’’) as published in the
Federal Register on May 1, 2007 (72 FR
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
24059). The 2007 Ethanol Rule amends
the PSD definition of ‘‘major stationary
source’’ to exclude certain ethanol
facilities from the ‘‘chemical process
plant’’ source category and clarifies that
the PSD major source applicability
threshold for certain ethanol plants is
250 tpy (rather than 100 tpy). The 2007
Ethanol Rule also removed the
requirement to include fugitive
emissions when determining if the
source is major for PSD and Title V
permitting. On October 21, 2019, the
EPA responded to a petition for
reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule, and the EPA denied the petition
with respect to the revisions of the PSD
Regulations reflected in that rule (as
described in more detail below). The
EPA is now proposing to approve these
SIPs and operating permits program
revisions that are based on a part of the
2007 Ethanol Rule.
III. Background
A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for
Chemical Processing Plants
Under the CAA, there are two
potential thresholds for determining
whether a source is a major emitting
facility that is potentially subject to the
construction permitting requirements
under the PSD program; one threshold
is 100 tpy per pollutant, and the other
is 250 tpy per pollutant. Section 169(1)
of the CAA lists twenty-eight source
categories that qualify as major emitting
facilities if their emissions exceed the
100 tpy threshold. If the source does not
fall within one of twenty-eight source
categories listed in section 169, then the
250 tpy threshold is applicable.
One of the source categories in the list
of twenty-eight source categories to
which the 100 tpy threshold applies is
chemical process plants. Since the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code for chemical process plants
includes facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing ethanol fuel, the EPA
and States had previously considered
such facilities to be subject to the 100
tpy thresholds.
As a result of this classification,
pursuant to the EPA regulations adopted
under section 302(j), chemical process
plants were also required to include
fugitive emissions for determining the
potential emissions of such sources.
Thus, prior to promulgation of the 2007
Ethanol Rule, the classification of fuel
and industrial ethanol facilities as
chemical process plants had the effect of
requiring these plants to include
fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants
when determining whether their
emissions exceed the applicability
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
thresholds for the PSD and nonattainment NSR permit programs.
B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for
Chemical Processing Plants
The CAA also establishes
requirements for determining whether
sources must obtain Title V operating
permits. All major sources and sources
subject to specific CAA requirements
must obtain such permits. For purposes
of the Title V operating permit program,
a major source is defined as any source
that has actual or potential emissions at
or above the major source thresholds
reflected in other parts of the CAA.
Under the general definition of ‘‘major
stationary source’’ in section 302(j) of
the CAA, the major source threshold for
any air pollutant is 100 tons/year. Under
the NSR program, lower thresholds for
major sources can apply in
nonattainment areas depending on the
pollutant and severity of the
nonattainment area classification. In
addition, the major source thresholds
for ‘‘hazardous air pollutants’’ (HAP) are
10 tons/year for a single HAP or 25 tons/
year for any combination of HAP. A
source with emissions that exceed one
of these thresholds (as applicable) is
required to obtain a Title V operating
permit.
Section 502 of the CAA and EPA
regulations provide that sources that
belong to one of twenty-eight categories
listed in 40 CFR 70.2 must include
fugitive emissions in determining
whether they exceed the 100 tpy major
source threshold for any ‘‘air pollutant.’’
This list of twenty-eight source
categories may also be included in
approved state operating permit
regulations.
C. Ethanol Rule
On May 1, 2007, the EPA published
in the Federal Register the 2007 Ethanol
Rule (72 FR 24060). This final rule
amended the EPA’s PSD and NA NSR
regulations to exclude ethanol
manufacturing facilities that produce
ethanol by natural fermentation
processes from the ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ category under the regulatory
definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’.
This change to the EPA’s NSR
regulations affected the threshold used
to determine PSD applicability for these
ethanol production facilities, clarifying
that such facilities were subject to the
250 tpy major source threshold. The
2007 Ethanol Rule also included
changes to other provisions which
established that ethanol facilities need
not count fugitive emissions when
determining whether such a source is
‘‘major’’ under the Federal PSD, NA
NSR, and Title V permitting programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60969
D. Petitions for Review and
Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule
On July 2, 2007, the National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
petitioned the D.C. Circuit to review the
2007 Ethanol Rule. On that same day,
the EPA received a petition for
administrative reconsideration and
request for stay of the 2007 Ethanol Rule
from NRDC. On March 27, 2008, the
EPA denied NRDC’s 2007
administrative petition for
reconsideration.
On March 2, 2009, the EPA received
a second petition for reconsideration
and request for stay from NRDC.
In 2009 NRDC also filed a petition for
judicial review challenging the EPA’s
March 27, 2008, denial of NRDC’s 2007
administrative petition in the D.C.
Circuit. This challenge was consolidated
with NRDC’s challenge to the 2007
Ethanol Rule. In August of 2009, the
D.C. Circuit granted a joint motion to
hold the case in abeyance, and the case
has remained in abeyance.
On October 21, 2019, the EPA
partially granted and partially denied
NRDC’s 2009 administrative petition for
reconsideration. Specifically, the EPA
granted the request for reconsideration
with regard to NRDC’s claim that the
Ethanol Rule did not appropriately
address the CAA section 193 antibacksliding requirements for
nonattainment areas.
IV. What SIP revisions are being
proposed by the EPA?
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to SIPs received from Iowa on
November 15, 2007; Kansas on
November 23, 2009; Missouri on
December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019;
and Nebraska on August 28, 2007, and
September 11, 2018. These revisions
adopt language that is the same or
consistent with that contained in the
EPA’s 2007 Ethanol Rule. (72 FR 24060,
May 1, 2007). The EPA is not taking
action on any revisions with respect to
Nonattainment New Source Review.
The State regulations that EPA is
proposing to approve exclude ethanol
production facilities that produce
ethanol by natural fermentation from
the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category.
The revisions thus clarify that an
ethanol facility is subject to a PSD major
source threshold of 250 tpy and that
such sources need not count fugitive
emissions to determine potential
emissions that are compared to this
threshold. The revisions proposed for
approval in this action do not affect
Nonattainment New Source Review.
The EPA is proposing to approve the
following SIP revisions:
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60970
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Iowa
Iowa Administrative Code 567–
33.3(1)—Definitions ‘‘Major Stationary
Source’’: ‘‘Any one of the following
stationary sources of air pollutants
which emits, or has the potential to
emit, 100 tons per year or more of any
regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical
process plants (which does not include
ethanol production facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation
included in NAICS codes 325193 or
312140) . . .’’
Chapter 33 of the Iowa Administrative
Code, which contains Iowa’s PSD
regulations, applies to new or modified
‘‘major stationary sources’’, as that term
is defined in 567–33.3(1). As stated
above, 567–33.3(1) was revised to
exclude ethanol production facilities
from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’
major stationary source category such
that ethanol facilities emitting less than
250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are
not subject to PSD. The State effective
date of Iowa’s revision to the definition
of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ in chapter
33.3(1) is October 4, 2007.
Iowa’s definition of ‘‘major stationary
source’’ also states that ‘‘(t)he fugitive
emissions of a stationary source shall
not be included in determining for any
of the purposes of this rule whether it
is a major stationary source, unless that
source belongs to one of the categories
of stationary sources listed (in the
definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’)
. . .’’. As such, fugitive emissions from
ethanol facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Kansas
Kansas Administrative Regulations
28–19–350—Prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality. This
regulation adopts by reference 40 CFR
52.21, as revised and amended on July
1, 2011, (76 FR 43507) and October 25,
2012, (77 FR 65107 (see 77 FR 65118–
77 FR 65119)) with exceptions.
The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is
defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as
any of the following stationary sources
of air pollutants which emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons per year or
more of any regulated NSR pollutant:
Chemical process plants (which does
not include ethanol production facilities
that produce ethanol by natural
fermentation included in NAICS codes
325193 or 312140). Title 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive
emissions from ethanol production
facilities from the ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ category such that fugitive
emissions are not considered in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
The State effective date of Kansas’
incorporation by reference of EPA’s
2007 revision of the definition of
‘‘chemical process plants’’ in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) is October 23, 2009.
Because Kansas has adopted 40 CFR
52.21 by reference, ethanol facilities
emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated
air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and
fugitive emissions from ethanol
facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Missouri
Missouri Code of State Regulations
(CSR) 10 CSR 10–6.060, Construction
Permits Required. Section (8),
Attainment and Unclassified Area Major
Permits, has been revised to incorporate
all the paragraphs of 40 CFR 52.21 by
reference promulgated as of July 1,
2018, other than (a) Plan disapproval,
(q) Public participation, (s)
Environmental impact statements, and
(u) Delegation of authority.
The term ‘‘major stationary source’’ is
defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as
any of the following stationary sources
of air pollutants which emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons per year or
more of any regulated NSR pollutant:
Chemical process plants (which does
not include ethanol production facilities
that produce ethanol by natural
fermentation included in NAICS codes
325193 or 312140). Title 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive
emissions from ethanol production
facilities from the ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ category such that fugitive
emissions are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Because Missouri has adopted 40 CFR
52.21 by reference, ethanol facilities
emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated
air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and
fugitive emissions from ethanol
facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Missouri also revised 10 CSR 10–
6.060, Construction Permits Required,
section 7, Nonattainment Area Major
Permits. Section (7)(A) has been added
as follows:
(A) Definitions. Solely for the
purposes of this section, the following
definitions apply to terms in place of
definitions for which the term is defined
elsewhere, including the reference to 40
CFR 52.21 in paragraph (7)(B)6. of this
rule.
Section (7)(A)(1) has been added as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. Chemical process plant—These
plants include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS
codes 325193 or 312140.
Section 7(B)(6) of 10 CSR 10–6.060
excludes fugitive emissions from
potential to emit calculations if the
source is listed in 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(vii)(a) through (aa). However,
Missouri’s revision to section (7), by
adding section (7)(A) and section
(7)(A)(1), results in the inclusion of
quantifiable fugitive emissions from
ethanol productions facilities in
determining the potential to emit for
nonattainment new source review
permits.
Nebraska
Nebraska Title 129—Chapter 2—
Definition of Major Source—Section
008.01: ‘‘Any of the following stationary
sources which emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons per year or
more of any regulated NSR pollutant:
. . . chemical process plants (which
does not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes 325193 or
312140)’’.
Chapter 19 of title 129, which
contains Nebraska’s PSD regulations,
applies to the construction of any new
‘‘major stationary source’’ or the major
modification of any existing‘‘major
stationary source’’, as that term is
defined in chapter 2, Section 008. As
stated above, section 008.01 was
revised, with a State effective date of
February 6, 2008, to exclude ethanol
production facilities from the ‘‘chemical
process plants’’ major stationary source
category such that ethanol facilities
emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated
air pollutant are not subject to PSD. In
addition, chapter 19, sections 005.05,
006.03, and 016.02 exclude fugitive
emissions from ethanol production
facilities in determining whether the
facility is subject to PSD.
In addition to the revisions to chapter
2, in their submittals from November 19,
2010 and September 11, 2018, Nebraska
requests for the EPA to approve changes
to chapter 17, section 001.02T. These
changes relate to the definition of
chemical process plants under minor
NSR. The EPA is not taking any action
on these changes.
V. What operating permit plan
revisions are being proposed by the
EPA?
The EPA is proposing to approve the
following revisions to Iowa and
Nebraska’s Operating Permit Program
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(title V) which result in the exclusion of
fugitive emissions title V threshold
calculations for certain ethanol
facilities:
Iowa
Iowa Administrative Code 567–
22.100—Definitions for Title V
Operating Permits: Iowa revised the
explanation of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ that is contained in the
definition of ‘‘stationary source
categories’’ as follows: ‘‘. . . (20)
Chemical process plants—The term
chemical processing plant shall not
include ethanol production facilities
that produce ethanol by natural
fermentation included in NAICS codes
325193 or 312140’’.
Iowa’s title V regulation at 567–22.101
requires any major source to obtain a
title V operating permit. 567–22.100
defines ‘‘major source’’ as, among other
things, a source that directly emits or
has the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation, including fugitive emissions
unless the source belongs to one of the
stationary source categories listing in
chapter 22. As stated above, 567–22.100
was revised to exclude ethanol
production facilities from the ‘‘chemical
process plants’’ category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to title V permitting.
Nebraska
Nebraska title 129—chapter 2—
Definition of Major Source—section
002.20 is revised as follows: ‘‘Chemical
process plants—The term chemical
processing plant shall not include
ethanol production facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation
included in North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes
325193 or 312140’’.
Nebraska’s title V regulation, title 129
chapter 5—Operating Permits—When
Required, requires any ‘‘major source’’
as defined in chapter 2 to apply for a
Class I (major source) Operating permit.
Chapter 2 section 002 defines ‘‘major
source’’ as ‘‘. . . a major stationary
source of air pollutants is one that
directly emits or has the potential to
emit, 100 tpy or more of any air
pollutant (including any major source of
fugitive emissions of any such pollutant,
as determined by rule by the
Administrator of EPA).’’ The rule goes
on to state that ‘‘. . . fugitive emissions
of a stationary source shall not be
considered in determining whether it is
a major stationary source for the
purposes of this subsection, unless the
source belongs to one of the following
categories of stationary source[.]’’ As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
stated above, chapter 2, section 002.20
was revised to exclude ethanol
production facilities from the ‘‘chemical
process plants’’ category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in
determining whether the facility is
subject to title V permitting.
Kansas and Missouri did not submit
revisions to amend their respective title
V operating permit regulations and
therefore EPA is not taking action to
revise Kansas and Missouri’s title V
Operating Permit Programs.
VI. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
All of the aforementioned regulations
are consistent with EPA’s PSD program
requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 and title
V program requirements in 40 CFR part
70, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol
Rule. Further, all submissions have met
the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102.
Iowa published a Notice of Intended
Action in the Iowa Administrative
Bulletin on August 1, 2007. A public
hearing was held on September 5, 2007.
The public comment period closed on
September 6, 2007. Iowa received six
sets of written comments during the
public comment period. Iowa provided
a response to each public comment but
did not change the rule based on the
comments.
Kansas published the proposed
changes in the Kansas Register May 21,
2009. A public hearing was held on July
29, 2009. Kansas received three
comment letters. Only one change was
made to the proposed regulations based
on public comments and that change
was not relevant to this action.
Missouri published the proposed
changes in the Missouri Register on
December 31, 2008. A public hearing
was held on February 3, 2009. Missouri
received 15 comments and made
changes to the proposed regulations that
were not relevant to this action.
Missouri made additional changes to the
regulations proposed to be approved by
the EPA in this action that were
published in the Missouri Register on
August 1, 2018. Missouri received
thirty-seven comments from nine
sources including EPA. Missouri made
some changes to the proposed
regulations that are relevant to this
action based on comments received
during the public comment period.
Nebraska published the proposed
changes in the Omaha World-Herald on
July 13, 2007. A public hearing was held
on August 17, 2007. Nebraska did not
receive any adverse comments for the
proposed changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60971
The SIP submissions also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, these revisions
meet the substantive SIP requirements
of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations. These
revisions are also consistent with
applicable EPA requirements of title V
of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.
A Technical Support Document (TSD)
for each State revision, available as part
of this docket, contains an analysis of
the potential impact of the SIP and title
V revisions on air quality and whether
approval of the SIP revisions will
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
CAA requirement. Existing ethanol
plants are listed with information from
their permits, including applicable
requirements, current PSD status, and
applicable Federal rules that control
emissions in lieu of PSD. The existing
ethanol plants are mapped along with
the ambient air monitors to demonstrate
the relationship between ethanol
production and air quality.
Emissions from ethanol plants are
compared to other emissions data
categories for four major pollutants
revealing that for the major pollutants
associated with ethanol production,
ethanol plants make up 1 percent or less
of the total anthropogenic emissions of
that pollutant in all four States. EPA
graphed air quality trends in each State,
since the date of promulgation of the
2007 Ethanol Rule, for all criteria
pollutants associated with ethanol
production. The air quality trends reveal
that while ethanol production
increased, air quality improved for
every pollutant monitored in each of the
States.
The EPA also describes requirements
for each State’s minor source NSR
program because the facilities that
would be below the 250 tpy PSD major
source threshold under this rulemaking
will still need to obtain minor source
construction permits. EPA further
analyzes the impact of increasing the
threshold to 250 tpy on ozone and
particulate matter (PM) precursors in
each State. The analysis for ozone and
secondary PM demonstrates that sources
of this size will not cause any
interference with attainment or
maintenance of the standard in these
States.
Based on the EPA’s analysis in each
TSD, the EPA proposes to conclude that
approval of this action will not interfere
with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section
171 of the CAA), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA as required
under section 110(l).
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60972
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
and Nebraska SIPs and the Iowa and
Nebraska Operating Permit Programs.
We plan to take final action after
consideration any comments received
on this notice of proposed rulemaking.
The revisions to State rules that EPA
proposed to approve change the
definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’
under the States’ PSD regulations and
the Operating Permit Program for Iowa
and Nebraska. This action would
approve changes to State regulations,
which make clear that the PSD
applicability threshold for certain
ethanol plants is 250 tpy and remove
the requirement to include fugitive
emissions when determining if an
ethanol plant is major for PSD and, in
Iowa and Nebraska, title V permitting.
The EPA has determined that these
revisions are consistent with EPA’s PSD
and title V regulations and that approval
of these revisions is consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and
will not adversely impact air quality.
The EPA’s analysis is available in the
individual State TSDs that are part of
this docket. This proposed action will
ensure consistency between the State
and federally-approved rules and ensure
Federal enforceability of the State’s
revised air program rules.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to include regulatory text in
an EPA final rule that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
and Nebraska Regulations described in
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 7 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
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, the
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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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 the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
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.
40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Operating permits, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 29, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth
below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q—Iowa
2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘567–33.3’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.820
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
*
*
60973
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS
Iowa citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 33—Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality
*
567–33.3 ........
*
Special Construction Permit Requirements for
Major Stationary
Sources in Areas Designated Attainment or
Unclassified (PSD).
*
*
*
*
4/18/2018
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation of the
final rule].
*
*
*
*
Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD—Increments,
SILs and SMCs rule, published in the Federal
Register on October 20, 2010, relating to SILs
and SMCs that were affected by the January 22,
2013, U.S. Court of Appeals decision are not SIP
approved. Iowa’s rule incorporating EPA’s 2008
‘‘fugitive emissions rule’’ (published in the Federal
Register on December 19, 2008) is not SIP-approved.
*
*
§ 52.870
Subpart R—Kansas
3. In § 52.870, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–350’’ to read as follows:
■
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS
Kansas
citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval
date
Explanation
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Construction Permits and Approvals
*
K.A.R. 28–19–
350.
*
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of
Air Quality.
*
*
*
*
12/28/2012
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation of the
final rule].
*
*
*
*
Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD-Increments, SILs
and SMCs rule relating to SILs and SMCs that
were affected by the January 22, 2013, U.S. Court
of Appeals decision are not SIP approved. Provisions of the 2002 NSR reform rule relating to the
Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution Control Projects,
and exemption from recordkeeping provisions for
certain sources using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections test are not SIP approved. In addition, we have not approved Kansas
rule incorporating EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions
rule’’ (published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008).
*
§ 52.1320
Subpart AA—Missouri
4. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘10–6.060’’ to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
*
12NOP1
*
*
60974
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri
citation
State effective
date
Title
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
*
10–6.060 ........
*
Construction Permits Required.
*
3/30/2019
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the FEDERAL
REGISTER], [Federal
Register citation of the
final rule].
*
*
*
Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD—Increments,
SILs and SMCs rule relating to SILs and SMCs
that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S.
Court of Appeals decision are not SIP approved.
Provisions of the 2002 NSR reform rule relating to
the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution Control
Projects, and exemption from recordkeeping provisions for certain sources using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections test are not
SIP approved.
In addition, we have not approved Missouri’s rule incorporating EPA’s 2008 ‘‘fugitive emissions rule’’
(published in the Federal Register on December
19, 2008).
Although exemptions previously listed in 10 CSR
10–6.060 have been transferred to 10 CSR 10–
6.061, the Federally-approved SIP continues to include the following exemption, ‘‘Livestock and livestock handling systems from which the only potential contaminant is odorous gas.’’
Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is
not SIP approved.
EPA previously approved the 3/30/2016 State effective date version of 10 CSR 10–6.060, with the
above exceptions, in a Federal Register document published October 11, 2016. EPA is only approving Section 7, subsection 7(A)(1), and Section
8 from the 3/30/2019 State effective date version
of 10 CSR 10–6.060. All remaining revisions to
the 3/30/2019 version of 10 CSR 10–6.060 are not
SIP approved.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
§ 52.1420
Subpart CC—Nebraska
5. In § 52.1420, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘129–2’’ to read as follows:
■
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NEBRASKA REGULATIONS
Nebraska
citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval
date
Explanation
STATE OF NEBRASKA
Department of Environmental Quality
Title 129—Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60975
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA-APPROVED NEBRASKA REGULATIONS—Continued
Nebraska
citation
Title
*
129–2 .............
*
Definition of Major Source
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
State effective
date
2/6/2008
*
PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT
PROGRAMS
6. The authority citation for part 70
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
7. Appendix A to part 70 is amended
by:
■ a. Adding paragraph (u) under
‘‘Iowa’’.
■ b. Adding paragraph (q) under
‘‘Nebraska; City of Omaha; LincolnLancaster County Health Department’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
Iowa
*
*
*
*
*
(u) The Iowa Department of Natural
Resources submitted revisions to Iowa
Chapter 22.100 ‘‘Definitions for Title V
Operating Permits’’ on November 15,
2007. The State revised the definition of
‘‘Stationary source categories’’ by
revising the definition of ‘‘Chemical
process plants’’ such that fugitive
emissions from certain ethanol
production facilities are not considered
in determining whether the facility is
subject to Title V permitting. The State
effective date is October 4, 2007. The
proposed revision effective date is [date
30 days after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register].
*
*
*
*
*
Nebraska; City of Omaha; LincolnLancaster County Health Department
*
*
*
*
*
(q) The Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality submitted
revisions to the Nebraska
Administrative Code, title 129, chapter
2, section 002.20 on November 19, 2010.
Chapter 2, section 002.20 was revised to
exclude ethanol production facilities
from the definition of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ such that fugitive emissions are
not considered in determining whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
Explanation
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation of the
final rule].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
the facility is subject to Title V
permitting. The State effective date is
February 6, 2008. The proposed revision
effective date is [date 30 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–23979 Filed 11–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2019–0662; SW–FRL–
10001–79–Region 10]
Appendix A to Part 70—Approval
Status of State and Local Operating
Permits
*
EPA approval
date
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous
Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or ‘‘we’’ in
this preamble) is proposing to grant
three petitions submitted jointly by
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC
(Emerald) and Fire Mountain Farms,
Inc. (FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis
County, Washington to exclude (or
‘‘delist’’) a one-time amount up to
20,100 cubic yards of U019 (benzene)
and U220 (toluene) mixed material from
the list of federal hazardous wastes.
These wastes are limited to those
associated with closure of hazardous
waste management units at three
facilities owned and operated by FMF
pursuant to closure plans to be
approved by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology). The
Agency is proposing to grant the
petition based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
the Petitioners. This proposed decision,
if finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 12, 2019. Requests
for an informal hearing must reach the
EPA by November 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
RCRA–2019–0662 using one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: to Dr. David Bartus, Office of
Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15–H04,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
• Hand Delivery: to Dr. David Bartus,
Office of Air and Waste, EPA, Region
10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW–
150, Seattle, Washington 98101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation. Please
contact David Bartus at (206) 553–2804.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2019–
0662. The 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means the 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 the 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, the EPA
recommends that you include your
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60968-60975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0532; FRL-10000-21-Region 7]
Air Plan Approval; Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Approval
of Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska; Definition of
Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Regulations and Operating Permit Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska and is also proposing to approve
revisions to the Operating Permit Programs for Iowa and Nebraska. The
SIP revisions incorporate changes to the definition of chemical process
plants under the States' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations and change the same definition in the approved State
operating permit programs. Consistent with an EPA regulation completed
in 2007, this action approves several States' rules that modify the
definition of chemical process plant to exclude ethanol manufacturing
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes. This
will clarify that the PSD major source applicability threshold in the
SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250 tons per year (tpy) (rather than
100 tpy) and removes the requirement to include fugitive emissions when
determining if the source is major for PSD. In addition, this action
approves changes to Iowa's and Nebraska's Title V operating permit
programs that remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions when
determining if a source is major for Title V. The EPA concludes that
the changes to the State rules described herein are approvable because
they are consistent with EPA regulations governing State PSD and Title
V programs and will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0532 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Written Comments
II. What is Being Addressed in this Document?
III. Background
A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
C. Ethanol Rule
D. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule
IV. What SIP Revisions are being Proposed by the EPA?
V. What Operating Permit Plan Revisions are being Proposed by the
EPA?
VI. Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
VII. What Action is the EPA Taking?
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0532, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
II. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs received by EPA
from Iowa on November 15, 2007, Kansas on November 23, 2009, Missouri
on December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019, and Nebraska on August 28,
2007, and September 11, 2018. The EPA is also proposing to approve Iowa
and Nebraska's Operating Permit Program revisions. These revisions
conform the State rules to changes to EPA regulations reflected in the
EPA's final rule entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR), and Title V: Treatment of
Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ``Major Emitting
Facility'' Definition'' (hereinafter referred to as the ``2007 Ethanol
Rule'') as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2007 (72 FR
[[Page 60969]]
24059). The 2007 Ethanol Rule amends the PSD definition of ``major
stationary source'' to exclude certain ethanol facilities from the
``chemical process plant'' source category and clarifies that the PSD
major source applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250
tpy (rather than 100 tpy). The 2007 Ethanol Rule also removed the
requirement to include fugitive emissions when determining if the
source is major for PSD and Title V permitting. On October 21, 2019,
the EPA responded to a petition for reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule, and the EPA denied the petition with respect to the revisions of
the PSD Regulations reflected in that rule (as described in more detail
below). The EPA is now proposing to approve these SIPs and operating
permits program revisions that are based on a part of the 2007 Ethanol
Rule.
III. Background
A. PSD Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
Under the CAA, there are two potential thresholds for determining
whether a source is a major emitting facility that is potentially
subject to the construction permitting requirements under the PSD
program; one threshold is 100 tpy per pollutant, and the other is 250
tpy per pollutant. Section 169(1) of the CAA lists twenty-eight source
categories that qualify as major emitting facilities if their emissions
exceed the 100 tpy threshold. If the source does not fall within one of
twenty-eight source categories listed in section 169, then the 250 tpy
threshold is applicable.
One of the source categories in the list of twenty-eight source
categories to which the 100 tpy threshold applies is chemical process
plants. Since the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for
chemical process plants includes facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing ethanol fuel, the EPA and States had previously
considered such facilities to be subject to the 100 tpy thresholds.
As a result of this classification, pursuant to the EPA regulations
adopted under section 302(j), chemical process plants were also
required to include fugitive emissions for determining the potential
emissions of such sources. Thus, prior to promulgation of the 2007
Ethanol Rule, the classification of fuel and industrial ethanol
facilities as chemical process plants had the effect of requiring these
plants to include fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants when
determining whether their emissions exceed the applicability thresholds
for the PSD and non-attainment NSR permit programs.
B. Title V Permitting Thresholds for Chemical Processing Plants
The CAA also establishes requirements for determining whether
sources must obtain Title V operating permits. All major sources and
sources subject to specific CAA requirements must obtain such permits.
For purposes of the Title V operating permit program, a major source is
defined as any source that has actual or potential emissions at or
above the major source thresholds reflected in other parts of the CAA.
Under the general definition of ``major stationary source'' in section
302(j) of the CAA, the major source threshold for any air pollutant is
100 tons/year. Under the NSR program, lower thresholds for major
sources can apply in nonattainment areas depending on the pollutant and
severity of the nonattainment area classification. In addition, the
major source thresholds for ``hazardous air pollutants'' (HAP) are 10
tons/year for a single HAP or 25 tons/year for any combination of HAP.
A source with emissions that exceed one of these thresholds (as
applicable) is required to obtain a Title V operating permit.
Section 502 of the CAA and EPA regulations provide that sources
that belong to one of twenty-eight categories listed in 40 CFR 70.2
must include fugitive emissions in determining whether they exceed the
100 tpy major source threshold for any ``air pollutant.'' This list of
twenty-eight source categories may also be included in approved state
operating permit regulations.
C. Ethanol Rule
On May 1, 2007, the EPA published in the Federal Register the 2007
Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060). This final rule amended the EPA's PSD and
NA NSR regulations to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes from the ``chemical
process plants'' category under the regulatory definition of ``major
stationary source''.
This change to the EPA's NSR regulations affected the threshold
used to determine PSD applicability for these ethanol production
facilities, clarifying that such facilities were subject to the 250 tpy
major source threshold. The 2007 Ethanol Rule also included changes to
other provisions which established that ethanol facilities need not
count fugitive emissions when determining whether such a source is
``major'' under the Federal PSD, NA NSR, and Title V permitting
programs.
D. Petitions for Review and Reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule
On July 2, 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
petitioned the D.C. Circuit to review the 2007 Ethanol Rule. On that
same day, the EPA received a petition for administrative
reconsideration and request for stay of the 2007 Ethanol Rule from
NRDC. On March 27, 2008, the EPA denied NRDC's 2007 administrative
petition for reconsideration.
On March 2, 2009, the EPA received a second petition for
reconsideration and request for stay from NRDC.
In 2009 NRDC also filed a petition for judicial review challenging
the EPA's March 27, 2008, denial of NRDC's 2007 administrative petition
in the D.C. Circuit. This challenge was consolidated with NRDC's
challenge to the 2007 Ethanol Rule. In August of 2009, the D.C. Circuit
granted a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance, and the case has
remained in abeyance.
On October 21, 2019, the EPA partially granted and partially denied
NRDC's 2009 administrative petition for reconsideration. Specifically,
the EPA granted the request for reconsideration with regard to NRDC's
claim that the Ethanol Rule did not appropriately address the CAA
section 193 anti-backsliding requirements for nonattainment areas.
IV. What SIP revisions are being proposed by the EPA?
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SIPs received from
Iowa on November 15, 2007; Kansas on November 23, 2009; Missouri on
December 7, 2009, and March 20, 2019; and Nebraska on August 28, 2007,
and September 11, 2018. These revisions adopt language that is the same
or consistent with that contained in the EPA's 2007 Ethanol Rule. (72
FR 24060, May 1, 2007). The EPA is not taking action on any revisions
with respect to Nonattainment New Source Review. The State regulations
that EPA is proposing to approve exclude ethanol production facilities
that produce ethanol by natural fermentation from the ``chemical
process plants'' category. The revisions thus clarify that an ethanol
facility is subject to a PSD major source threshold of 250 tpy and that
such sources need not count fugitive emissions to determine potential
emissions that are compared to this threshold. The revisions proposed
for approval in this action do not affect Nonattainment New Source
Review.
The EPA is proposing to approve the following SIP revisions:
[[Page 60970]]
Iowa
Iowa Administrative Code 567-33.3(1)--Definitions ``Major
Stationary Source'': ``Any one of the following stationary sources of
air pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per
year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: . . . Chemical process
plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that
produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193
or 312140) . . .''
Chapter 33 of the Iowa Administrative Code, which contains Iowa's
PSD regulations, applies to new or modified ``major stationary
sources'', as that term is defined in 567-33.3(1). As stated above,
567-33.3(1) was revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from
the ``chemical process plants'' major stationary source category such
that ethanol facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air
pollutant are not subject to PSD. The State effective date of Iowa's
revision to the definition of ``chemical process plants'' in chapter
33.3(1) is October 4, 2007.
Iowa's definition of ``major stationary source'' also states that
``(t)he fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included
in determining for any of the purposes of this rule whether it is a
major stationary source, unless that source belongs to one of the
categories of stationary sources listed (in the definition of ``major
stationary source'') . . .''. As such, fugitive emissions from ethanol
facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is
subject to PSD.
Kansas
Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-350--Prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality. This regulation adopts
by reference 40 CFR 52.21, as revised and amended on July 1, 2011, (76
FR 43507) and October 25, 2012, (77 FR 65107 (see 77 FR 65118-77 FR
65119)) with exceptions.
The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as any of the following stationary sources of air
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Chemical process plants (which
does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140). Title
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol
production facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category
such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether
the facility is subject to PSD.
The State effective date of Kansas' incorporation by reference of
EPA's 2007 revision of the definition of ``chemical process plants'' in
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) is October 23, 2009. Because Kansas has
adopted 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, ethanol facilities emitting less
than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are not subject to PSD, and
fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
Missouri
Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Construction Permits Required. Section (8), Attainment and Unclassified
Area Major Permits, has been revised to incorporate all the paragraphs
of 40 CFR 52.21 by reference promulgated as of July 1, 2018, other than
(a) Plan disapproval, (q) Public participation, (s) Environmental
impact statements, and (u) Delegation of authority.
The term ``major stationary source'' is defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) as any of the following stationary sources of air
pollutants which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Chemical process plants (which
does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140). Title
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii) excludes fugitive emissions from ethanol
production facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category
such that fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether
the facility is subject to PSD.
Because Missouri has adopted 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, ethanol
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are
not subject to PSD, and fugitive emissions from ethanol facilities are
not considered in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
Missouri also revised 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits
Required, section 7, Nonattainment Area Major Permits. Section (7)(A)
has been added as follows:
(A) Definitions. Solely for the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply to terms in place of definitions for which
the term is defined elsewhere, including the reference to 40 CFR 52.21
in paragraph (7)(B)6. of this rule.
Section (7)(A)(1) has been added as follows:
1. Chemical process plant--These plants include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
NAICS codes 325193 or 312140.
Section 7(B)(6) of 10 CSR 10-6.060 excludes fugitive emissions from
potential to emit calculations if the source is listed in 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(vii)(a) through (aa). However, Missouri's revision to
section (7), by adding section (7)(A) and section (7)(A)(1), results in
the inclusion of quantifiable fugitive emissions from ethanol
productions facilities in determining the potential to emit for
nonattainment new source review permits.
Nebraska
Nebraska Title 129--Chapter 2--Definition of Major Source--Section
008.01: ``Any of the following stationary sources which emits, or has
the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR
pollutant: . . . chemical process plants (which does not include
ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural
fermentation included in North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes 325193 or 312140)''.
Chapter 19 of title 129, which contains Nebraska's PSD regulations,
applies to the construction of any new ``major stationary source'' or
the major modification of any existing``major stationary source'', as
that term is defined in chapter 2, Section 008. As stated above,
section 008.01 was revised, with a State effective date of February 6,
2008, to exclude ethanol production facilities from the ``chemical
process plants'' major stationary source category such that ethanol
facilities emitting less than 250 tpy of a regulated air pollutant are
not subject to PSD. In addition, chapter 19, sections 005.05, 006.03,
and 016.02 exclude fugitive emissions from ethanol production
facilities in determining whether the facility is subject to PSD.
In addition to the revisions to chapter 2, in their submittals from
November 19, 2010 and September 11, 2018, Nebraska requests for the EPA
to approve changes to chapter 17, section 001.02T. These changes relate
to the definition of chemical process plants under minor NSR. The EPA
is not taking any action on these changes.
V. What operating permit plan revisions are being proposed by the EPA?
The EPA is proposing to approve the following revisions to Iowa and
Nebraska's Operating Permit Program
[[Page 60971]]
(title V) which result in the exclusion of fugitive emissions title V
threshold calculations for certain ethanol facilities:
Iowa
Iowa Administrative Code 567-22.100--Definitions for Title V
Operating Permits: Iowa revised the explanation of ``chemical process
plants'' that is contained in the definition of ``stationary source
categories'' as follows: ``. . . (20) Chemical process plants--The term
chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
NAICS codes 325193 or 312140''.
Iowa's title V regulation at 567-22.101 requires any major source
to obtain a title V operating permit. 567-22.100 defines ``major
source'' as, among other things, a source that directly emits or has
the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation, including fugitive emissions unless the source belongs to
one of the stationary source categories listing in chapter 22. As
stated above, 567-22.100 was revised to exclude ethanol production
facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the
facility is subject to title V permitting.
Nebraska
Nebraska title 129--chapter 2--Definition of Major Source--section
002.20 is revised as follows: ``Chemical process plants--The term
chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 325193 or
312140''.
Nebraska's title V regulation, title 129 chapter 5--Operating
Permits--When Required, requires any ``major source'' as defined in
chapter 2 to apply for a Class I (major source) Operating permit.
Chapter 2 section 002 defines ``major source'' as ``. . . a major
stationary source of air pollutants is one that directly emits or has
the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant (including
any major source of fugitive emissions of any such pollutant, as
determined by rule by the Administrator of EPA).'' The rule goes on to
state that ``. . . fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not
be considered in determining whether it is a major stationary source
for the purposes of this subsection, unless the source belongs to one
of the following categories of stationary source[.]'' As stated above,
chapter 2, section 002.20 was revised to exclude ethanol production
facilities from the ``chemical process plants'' category such that
fugitive emissions are not considered in determining whether the
facility is subject to title V permitting.
Kansas and Missouri did not submit revisions to amend their
respective title V operating permit regulations and therefore EPA is
not taking action to revise Kansas and Missouri's title V Operating
Permit Programs.
VI. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
All of the aforementioned regulations are consistent with EPA's PSD
program requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 and title V program requirements
in 40 CFR part 70, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol Rule. Further, all
submissions have met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102.
Iowa published a Notice of Intended Action in the Iowa
Administrative Bulletin on August 1, 2007. A public hearing was held on
September 5, 2007. The public comment period closed on September 6,
2007. Iowa received six sets of written comments during the public
comment period. Iowa provided a response to each public comment but did
not change the rule based on the comments.
Kansas published the proposed changes in the Kansas Register May
21, 2009. A public hearing was held on July 29, 2009. Kansas received
three comment letters. Only one change was made to the proposed
regulations based on public comments and that change was not relevant
to this action.
Missouri published the proposed changes in the Missouri Register on
December 31, 2008. A public hearing was held on February 3, 2009.
Missouri received 15 comments and made changes to the proposed
regulations that were not relevant to this action. Missouri made
additional changes to the regulations proposed to be approved by the
EPA in this action that were published in the Missouri Register on
August 1, 2018. Missouri received thirty-seven comments from nine
sources including EPA. Missouri made some changes to the proposed
regulations that are relevant to this action based on comments received
during the public comment period.
Nebraska published the proposed changes in the Omaha World-Herald
on July 13, 2007. A public hearing was held on August 17, 2007.
Nebraska did not receive any adverse comments for the proposed changes.
The SIP submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations. These revisions are also consistent with
applicable EPA requirements of title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.
A Technical Support Document (TSD) for each State revision,
available as part of this docket, contains an analysis of the potential
impact of the SIP and title V revisions on air quality and whether
approval of the SIP revisions will interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other CAA requirement. Existing ethanol
plants are listed with information from their permits, including
applicable requirements, current PSD status, and applicable Federal
rules that control emissions in lieu of PSD. The existing ethanol
plants are mapped along with the ambient air monitors to demonstrate
the relationship between ethanol production and air quality.
Emissions from ethanol plants are compared to other emissions data
categories for four major pollutants revealing that for the major
pollutants associated with ethanol production, ethanol plants make up 1
percent or less of the total anthropogenic emissions of that pollutant
in all four States. EPA graphed air quality trends in each State, since
the date of promulgation of the 2007 Ethanol Rule, for all criteria
pollutants associated with ethanol production. The air quality trends
reveal that while ethanol production increased, air quality improved
for every pollutant monitored in each of the States.
The EPA also describes requirements for each State's minor source
NSR program because the facilities that would be below the 250 tpy PSD
major source threshold under this rulemaking will still need to obtain
minor source construction permits. EPA further analyzes the impact of
increasing the threshold to 250 tpy on ozone and particulate matter
(PM) precursors in each State. The analysis for ozone and secondary PM
demonstrates that sources of this size will not cause any interference
with attainment or maintenance of the standard in these States.
Based on the EPA's analysis in each TSD, the EPA proposes to
conclude that approval of this action will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171 of the CAA), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA as required under section 110(l).
[[Page 60972]]
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri and Nebraska SIPs and the Iowa and Nebraska Operating Permit
Programs. We plan to take final action after consideration any comments
received on this notice of proposed rulemaking.
The revisions to State rules that EPA proposed to approve change
the definition of ``major stationary source'' under the States' PSD
regulations and the Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska.
This action would approve changes to State regulations, which make
clear that the PSD applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants
is 250 tpy and remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions
when determining if an ethanol plant is major for PSD and, in Iowa and
Nebraska, title V permitting. The EPA has determined that these
revisions are consistent with EPA's PSD and title V regulations and
that approval of these revisions is consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. The EPA's
analysis is available in the individual State TSDs that are part of
this docket. This proposed action will ensure consistency between the
State and federally-approved rules and ensure Federal enforceability of
the State's revised air program rules.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
IX. 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, the 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
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.
40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 29, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q--Iowa
0
2. In Sec. 52.820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``567-33.3'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.820 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 60973]]
EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Iowa citation Title effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 33--Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
567-33.3................ Special Construction 4/18/2018 [Date of publication Provisions of the 2010
Permit Requirements of the final rule PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
for Major Stationary in the Federal SILs and SMCs rule,
Sources in Areas Register], [Federal published in the Federal
Designated Register citation Register on October 20,
Attainment or of the final rule]. 2010, relating to SILs
Unclassified (PSD). and SMCs that were
affected by the January
22, 2013, U.S. Court of
Appeals decision are not
SIP approved. Iowa's
rule incorporating EPA's
2008 ``fugitive
emissions rule''
(published in the
Federal Register on
December 19, 2008) is
not SIP-approved.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart R--Kansas
0
3. In Sec. 52.870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``K.A.R. 28-19-350'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Kansas citation Title effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Permits and Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-350........ Prevention of 12/28/2012 [Date of publication Provisions of the 2010
Significant of the final rule PM2.5 PSD-Increments,
Deterioration (PSD) in the Federal SILs and SMCs rule
of Air Quality. Register], [Federal relating to SILs and
Register citation SMCs that were affected
of the final rule]. by the January 22, 2013,
U.S. Court of Appeals
decision are not SIP
approved. Provisions of
the 2002 NSR reform rule
relating to the Clean
Unit Exemption,
Pollution Control
Projects, and exemption
from recordkeeping
provisions for certain
sources using the actual-
to-projected-actual
emissions projections
test are not SIP
approved. In addition,
we have not approved
Kansas rule
incorporating EPA's 2008
``fugitive emissions
rule'' (published in the
Federal Register on
December 19, 2008).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
4. In Sec. 52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.060'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 60974]]
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 State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.060................ Construction Permits 3/30/2019 [Date of publication
Required. of the final rule
in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation
of the final rule].
Provisions of the 2010
PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
SILs and SMCs rule
relating to SILs and
SMCs that were affected
by the January 22, 2013
U.S. Court of Appeals
decision are not SIP
approved.
Provisions of the 2002
NSR reform rule relating
to the Clean Unit
Exemption, Pollution
Control Projects, and
exemption from
recordkeeping provisions
for certain sources
using the actual-to-
projected-actual
emissions projections
test are not SIP
approved.
In addition, we have not
approved Missouri's rule
incorporating EPA's 2008
``fugitive emissions
rule'' (published in the
Federal Register on
December 19, 2008).
Although exemptions
previously listed in 10
CSR 10-6.060 have been
transferred to 10 CSR 10-
6.061, the Federally-
approved SIP continues
to include the following
exemption, ``Livestock
and livestock handling
systems from which the
only potential
contaminant is odorous
gas.''
Section 9, pertaining to
hazardous air
pollutants, is not SIP
approved.
EPA previously approved
the 3/30/2016 State
effective date version
of 10 CSR 10-6.060, with
the above exceptions, in
a Federal Register
document published
October 11, 2016. EPA is
only approving Section
7, subsection 7(A)(1),
and Section 8 from the 3/
30/2019 State effective
date version of 10 CSR
10-6.060. All remaining
revisions to the 3/30/
2019 version of 10 CSR
10-6.060 are not SIP
approved.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart CC--Nebraska
0
5. In Sec. 52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``129-2'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Nebraska citation Title effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF NEBRASKA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60975]]
* * * * * * *
129-2................... Definition of Major 2/6/2008 [Date of publication
Source. of the final rule
in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation
of the final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS
0
6. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
7. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (u) under ``Iowa''.
0
b. Adding paragraph (q) under ``Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-
Lancaster County Health Department''.
The additions read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits
* * * * *
Iowa
* * * * *
(u) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to
Iowa Chapter 22.100 ``Definitions for Title V Operating Permits'' on
November 15, 2007. The State revised the definition of ``Stationary
source categories'' by revising the definition of ``Chemical process
plants'' such that fugitive emissions from certain ethanol production
facilities are not considered in determining whether the facility is
subject to Title V permitting. The State effective date is October 4,
2007. The proposed revision effective date is [date 30 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department
* * * * *
(q) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality submitted
revisions to the Nebraska Administrative Code, title 129, chapter 2,
section 002.20 on November 19, 2010. Chapter 2, section 002.20 was
revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' such that fugitive emissions are not
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to Title V
permitting. The State effective date is February 6, 2008. The proposed
revision effective date is [date 30 days after date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-23979 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
