[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19823-19825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10510]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 042-1042(a); FRL-5979-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions submitted by the state of 
Missouri on March 20, 1997, which are designed to consolidate 
applicable requirements contained in its State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). These revisions will simplify compliance for Part 70 
installations and many other Missouri sources.

DATES: This action is effective June 22, 1998 unless by May 22, 1998 
relevant adverse comments are received. Should the agency receive such 
comment, it will publish notification withdrawing this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed to Joshua Tapp at EPA, Air Branch, 
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the: Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air & Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the advent of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
operating permit program, the EPA, the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR), the City of St. Louis'--Division of Air Pollution 
Control, the St. Louis County Department of Health, the Kansas City 
Health Department'--Air Pollution Control Program, and the City of 
Springfield'--Air Pollution Control Program have coordinated the review 
of the local agency codes and ordinances contained in the current 
Federally approved SIP. Consistency between these codes and ordinances 
and the state regulations contained in the SIP has always been 
important, but the operating permit program has brought this issue to 
the forefront. The basic concept of the operating permit program is to 
combine all air requirements to which one particular source is subject 
into one cohesive document so that the public, the source, and the 
regulatory agencies can clearly understand the compliance obligations. 
However, when the SIP contains outdated, overlapping, and sometimes 
conflicting applicable requirements, combining all requirements into 
one document may not achieve this goal.
    This coordinated review revealed numerous discrepancies between 
Federally approved local ordinances and Federally approved state rules. 
The review also uncovered the fact that some local agencies have long 
since revised their regulations and, in many cases, the current version 
of the local agency regulations is very different from the Federally 
approved version.
    In response to this review, MDNR and its local agencies developed 
recommendations for SIP action to correct these issues. This request is 
for the retention of some sections, the removal of some sections, and 
the addition of other sections. Five criteria were used to determine 
which sections should be recommended for removal from the SIP: (1) The 
sections are administrative only, (2) the sections apply to no known 
sources, (3) the requirements of the sections are covered by equivalent 
or more stringent Federally approved state rules, (4) the sections have 
no bearing on attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, or (5) the sections are being concurrently replaced 
by current local ordinance, code, or permit requirements. Sections not 
meeting these criteria were recommended for retention. MDNR and its 
local agencies also requested that certain sections located in new or 
revised ordinances be added to replace outdated versions of Federally 
approved sections.
    The following are examples of local ordinance provisions which are 
being retained in the SIP. MDNR and the City of Springfield Air 
Pollution Control Department have requested that Air Pollution Control 
Standard No. 1890, Chapter 2A, section 35 entitled ``Maximum Emission 
Limitations from Incinerators'' and related sections be retained in the 
SIP. These sections were retained because the state does not have an 
equally stringent rule in place which addresses incinerator emissions.
    The following are examples of local ordinance provisions which are 
being removed from the SIP. MDNR and the city of St. Louis have 
requested that St. Louis Ordinance 50163 be completely removed from the 
SIP. Sections such as section 4 entitled ``Division of Air Pollution 
Control Created'' and section 19 entitled ``Labels to be Affixed to 
Approved Installations'' are

[[Page 19824]]

administrative only, and are therefore being rescinded from the SIP. 
Section 17, entitled ``Registration of Sources of Air Pollution'' is an 
example of a rule which is being rescinded because the state SIP rules 
are at least equally as stringent. A final example is section 5 
entitled ``When Emissions of Pollutants Become Nuisance.'' This section 
does not have a bearing on attainment or maintenance of the national 
ambient air quality standards and is being removed for that reason.
    The following are examples of the limited number of local ordinance 
provisions which are being added to the SIP. MDNR and the city of 
Kansas City have requested that the EPA add the most recent version of 
the Kansas City open burning provisions contained in Chapter 8 of the 
Air Quality Control Code. Section 8-1 entitled ``Definitions'' and 
section 8-4 entitled ``Open Burning'' are being added to the SIP, 
because they now take the place of comparable provisions from the 
previous version of the Code which are currently in the SIP. By adding 
the current version of the Code and concurrently rescinding the old 
version of the Code, the EPA, the state, and Kansas City will be able 
to maintain Kansas City air quality in a consistent manner.
    On September 26, 1996, Missouri held a public hearing on these 
revisions and on October 31, 1997, the Missouri Air Conservation 
Commission adopted these revisions for submittal to the EPA. On March 
12, 1997, MDNR submitted the revisions with a request to revise the SIP 
under the signature of David Shorr (the Governor's designee) and under 
the signatures of each of the local air pollution control agencies. The 
revisions include the removal of 157 local ordinance or code sections, 
the retention of 12 sections, and the addition of 7 sections. The 
reader should refer to the Technical Support Document for more 
information regarding the analysis which supports this recommendation.
    This consolidation will simplify compliance for many Missouri 
sources without changing the stringency of the control requirements.

I. Final Action

    This is a direct final action which approves the request submitted 
by MDNR and its local agencies to consolidate the Federally approved 
local ordinance and codes in the Federally approved SIP.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 
22, 1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant 
adverse comments by May 22, 1998.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will publish a 
notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the 
rule did not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. 
Only parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so 
at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised 
that this rule will be effective on June 22, 1998 and no further action 
will be taken on the proposed rule.
    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.

II. 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 
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 promulgated 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 19825]]

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by June 22, 1998. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 25, 1998.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

    2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) Revisions to the Missouri plan were submitted by the Governor 
on March 20, 1997.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) St. Louis City Ordinance 59270, Section 4--Definitions, numbers 
80. ``Open Burning,'' 100. ``Refuse,'' 108. ``Salvage Operation,'' and 
126. ``Trade Waste'' only; and Section 12, effective October 23, 1984.
    (B) St. Louis City Permit No. 96-10-084, issued to Washington 
University School of Medicine Medical Waste Incinerator, 500 S. Euclid 
Avenue, effective February 20, 1997.
    (C) St. Louis City Permit No. 96-10-083, issued to Washington 
University School of Medicine Pathological Incinerator, 4566 Scott 
Avenue, effective February 20, 1997.
    (D) St. Louis City Operating Permit, issued to St. Louis University 
Medical Center Medical Waste Incinerator, 3628 Rutger Avenue, effective 
August 3, 1992.
    (E) Kansas City Air Quality Control Code C.S. No. 56726, Chapter 8, 
Sections: 8-2, definitions for ``Open burning,'' ``Refuse,'' ``Salvage 
operation,'' and ``Trade waste''; and 8-4, only, effective August 2, 
1984.
    (F) Remove St. Louis City Ordinance 50163, effective June 11, 1968.
    (G) Remove St. Louis City Ordinance 54699, effective March 27, 
1967.
    (H) Remove St. Louis County Air Pollution Control Code SLCRO, Title 
VI, Chapter 612, effective February 22, 1967.
    (I) Remove Kansas City Air Pollution Control Code C.S. No. 36539, 
Chapter 18, except sections: 18.83--Definitions, subsections (13) 
``Incinerators'' and (15) ``Multiple Chamber Incinerators''; and 
18.91--Incinerators, effective August 31, 1972.
    (J) Remove City of Springfield Air Pollution Control Standard G.O. 
No. 1890, Chapter 2A, except sections: 2A-2--Definitions, the 
definitions for ``Director of Health,'' ``Existing Equipment,'' 
``Incinerator,'' ``Multiple-chamber incinerator,'' ``New equipment,'' 
``Open burning,'' ``Particulate matter,'' ``Refuse,'' and ``Trade 
waste''; 2A-25; 2A-34; 2A-35; 2A-36; 2A-37; 2A-38; 2A-51; 2A-55; and 
2A-56, effective October 12, 1969.

[FR Doc. 98-10510 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P