[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 21, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43202-43203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21284]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 009-1009; FRL-5558-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Missouri's
Federally enforceable operating permit (FESOP) program contained in
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065. These revisions are designed to ease the
administrative burden on the state and on affected sources without
relaxing environmental requirements.
[[Page 43203]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Joshua A. Tapp, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551-7606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 13, 1996, Missouri submitted a
request to amend the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate
revisions to the FESOP program which generally affects intermediate
sources. These revisions include a provision which delays the permit
application deadlines by 10 months for smaller intermediate sources,
and a provision which provides general permits for qualifying
intermediate sources. Both of these revisions are designed to ease the
administrative burden on the state and on intermediate sources without
relaxing environmental requirements.
Additional revisions were made in response to comments received
during Missouri's rulemaking process. These revisions clarify the
meaning of the rule and improve its enforceability. Specifically, these
revisions clarify: that public participation requirements are
applicable, and that sources are subject to enforcement action if they
inappropriately apply for and obtain a general FESOP permit and it is
later determined that they do not qualify. The revisions also clarify
the meaning of the term ``threshold level'' by referencing a definition
used elsewhere in the Missouri regulations.
Other revisions were contemporaneously made to rule 10 CSR 10-
6.065. Most of these changes affect Missouri's basic operating permit
program for small sources. This program is not a Federally approved
program; therefore, the EPA will not act on these revisions in this
action. One revision affects Missouri's Title V operating permit
program. This revision will be addressed in a later EPA action.
EPA Action: The EPA is proposing to approve the revisions that
pertain to Missouri's FESOP (Intermediate) program because they ease
the administrative burden of the program and because the revised
program continues to meet the EPA's FESOP criteria contained in the
June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice (54 FR 27274). The EPA is not
proposing action on the revision to Missouri's Title V operating permit
program or the multiple revisions to Missouri's basic permit program.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. Sec. 600 et seq.,
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603
and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create any new requirements, but simply
approve requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements,
the EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, the EPA must undertake various actions in association with
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this plan revision, the state and any
affected local governments have elected to adopt the program provided
for under section 110 of the CAA. These rules may bind state and local
governments to perform certain actions and also require the private
sector to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being
proposed for approval by this action will impose new requirements,
sources are already subject to these regulations under state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state or local governments, or to
the private sector, result from this action. The EPA has also
determined that this proposed action does not include a mandate that
may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to state or local
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. The EPA has
determined that these rules result in no additional costs to tribal
governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: August 8, 1996.
Delores J. Platt,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21284 Filed 8-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P