[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13154-13156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7038]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 62

[MO 045-1045; FRL-5879-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Section 
111(d) Plan; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve certain portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions

[[Page 13155]]

submitted by the state of Missouri to consolidate the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) rules. In addition, the EPA is proposing to rescind 
eight rules which are replaced by the new rule, and the EPA is 
proposing to approve Missouri's Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan 
for sulfuric acid mist plants.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing on or 
before April 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Kim Johnson, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Regions VII, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Johnson at (913) 551-7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The consolidation and revisions were made to Missouri's 
SO2 rules in response to an SO2 rule 
enforceability review conducted by the EPA in 1991. On March 26, 1991, 
the EPA sent a letter requesting that Missouri consolidate its 
SO2 rules to improve enforceability. The consolidated rule 
was presented at a public hearing on March 28, 1996. After addressing 
comments from the hearing, the state adopted rule 10 CSR 10-6.260 which 
became effective on August 30, 1996.
    On August 12, 1997, Missouri submitted a request to amend the SIP 
by adding the new rule 10 CSR 10-6.260, Restriction of Emission of 
Sulfur Compounds.
    In conjunction with Missouri's request for SIP approval of 10 CSR 
10-6.260, Missouri also requests rescission of eight existing rules 
dealing with sulfur compound emissions (10 CSR 10-2.160, 2.200, 3.100, 
3.150, 4.150, 4.190, 5.110, and 5.150). These eight rules were 
rescinded by Missouri on March 27, 1997.
    Missouri simplified the SO2 emission requirements by 
consolidating all of the source-specific emission limitations, tests 
methods, and monitoring requirements for the different geographical 
areas into one rule: 10 CSR 10-6.260. The rule is a combination of 
plans which contain requirements that have been previously approved as 
protecting the SO2 NAAQS. This new rule does not change the 
emission limits contained in the existing eight rules proposed for 
rescission, but does contains enforceable emission limits, appropriate 
compliance methods, and requires recordkeeping sufficient to determine 
compliance.
    Section (4) of the proposed rule requires affected sources to 
comply directly with the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). In general, the EPA does not directly enforce the 
NAAQS. Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop plans which 
contain enforceable emission limitations and other such measures as 
required to protect the NAAQS. The adoption of NAAQS as directly 
enforceable requirements is a matter which is not addressed by the CAA. 
Consequently, the EPA will not take action on section (4); however, the 
EPA continues to assert that it is a state's prerogative to protect air 
quality using all necessary and practical means.
    This rule also contains the state of Missouri's section 111(d) plan 
as it applies to sulfuric acid mist plant emissions. Section 111(d) of 
the CAA and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, require each state to adopt and 
submit a plan to establish emission controls for existing sources, 
which would be subject to the EPA's New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) if these sources were new sources.
    This action, as proposed, will not impact current source control 
requirements, but will make it easier for sources to determine 
applicable requirements and enable sources and regulatory agencies to 
determine more clearly the methods by which compliance is required to 
be demonstrated.
    Because the rule revision does not change existing emission 
limitations, the state has not determined whether the limitations 
continue to be adequate to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The 
EPA's approval would not imply that any such judgment has been made. As 
stated previously, the purpose of the revision is to simplify and 
strengthen enforceability of the regulations.
    The EPA also notes that other, more stringent, SO2 
controls may also apply to sources subject to these rules. For example, 
SO2 emissions from some sources may be further restricted by 
the NSPS or by the Acid Deposition requirements under Title IV of the 
CAA. Any more stringent requirements supersede these revisions for 
sources subject to the more stringent requirements.

II. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to the SIP, rule 10 
CSR 10-6.260, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, submitted by 
the state of Missouri on August 12, 1997, except sections (3) and (4).
    The EPA is proposing to approve, under 40 CFR part 62, section 3 of 
rule 10 CSR 10-6.260 pursuant to section 111(d) of the CAA. The EPA is 
proposing no action on section 4 of rule 10 CSR 10-6.260.
    The EPA is also proposing to rescind SIP rules 10 CSR 10-2.160, 
Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds; 10 CSR 10-2.200, 
Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds From Indirect Heating 
Sources; 10 CSR 10-3.100, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds; 
10 CSR 10-3.150, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds From 
Indirect Heating Sources; 10 CSR 10-4.150, Restriction of Emissions of 
Sulfur Compounds; 10 CSR 10-4.190, Restriction of Emissions of Sulfur 
Compounds From Indirect Heating Sources; 10 CSR 10-5.110, Restriction 
of Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide for Uses of Fuel; and 10 CSR 10-5.150, 
Emission of Certain Sulfur Compounds Restricted.
    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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 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 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 Administrator 
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

[[Page 13156]]

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)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

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

    Dated: February 20, 1998.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 98-7038 Filed 3-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F