[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