[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40591-40592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19843]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 007-1007; FRL-5547-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve new Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
2.360, ``Emission Restrictions for Bakeries,'' as a revision to the 
Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This rule restricts volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from large commercial bakery 
operations in the Kansas City area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 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: Mr. Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act requires states to apply 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to major sources 
(sources emitting greater than 100 tons per year) of VOCs to reduce 
such emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. RACT is defined as the 
lowest emissions limit that a particular source is capable of meeting 
by the application of control technology that is both reasonably 
available, as well as technologically and economically feasible.
    Kansas City was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in 1978. 
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted a Part D 
ozone attainment SIP in 1979. This SIP was fully approved by the EPA; 
however, violations of the ozone national ambient air quality standards 
were recorded after the attainment date, causing the EPA to notify 
Kansas and Missouri that the Kansas City SIP was substantially 
inadequate to meet the standard in February 1985 (50 FR 26198, June 25, 
1985). The effect of the SIP call, as stated in the EPA guidance dated 
January 1984 entitled ``Guidance Document for the Correction of Part D 
SIPs for Nonattainment Areas,'' and the November 24, 1987, ``Post-1987 
Policy,'' is that Kansas City and other such areas were required to 
have RACT in place for all major sources, whether or not they belonged 
to a control technique guideline (CTG) source category.
    Kansas City was redesignated to attainment on June 23, 1992, with 
the assumption that all existing major sources had RACT controls. 
Recently, MDNR discovered a large, uncontrolled commercial bakery 
located in Kansas City. Since bakery operations emit significant 
amounts of ethanol, which is a VOC, this source should have been 
addressed prior to redesignation.
    The EPA recently developed an Alternative Control Technology (ACT) 
document which is designed to provide states with background 
information to assist them in developing RACT rules for this source 
category. This ACT document examines the baking process and the 
feasibility of various VOC control strategies. Unlike a CTG document, 
however, this document does not identify a presumptive norm for RACT. 
An achievable control level is identified, and states are given the 
flexibility to select controls strategies.
    Region VII has determined that Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 meets 
Federal requirements for RACT for commercial bakeries because it 
requires achievable control levels consistent with the EPA's ACT 
document. Specifically, Missouri's rule requires a minimum of 80 
percent VOC destruction and contains provisions addressing compliance 
determinations and recordkeeping.
EPA ACTION
    The EPA is proposing to approve rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 as a revision 
to the Missouri SIP.
    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. 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

[[Page 40592]]

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 SIP 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: July 17, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19843 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P