Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

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