98-27926. Request for Delegation of the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7): State of Florida

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55954-55956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27926]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[FRL-6166-9]


Request for Delegation of the Accidental Release Prevention 
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Clean Air Act Section 
112(r)(7): State of Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this direct final rule is to announce that on 
June 19, 1998, the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs 
(DCA), Division of Emergency Management (DEM), requested section 112(r) 
program delegation for all applicable Florida sources, except those 
with propane as their only regulated substance. If no adverse comments 
are received, EPA is approving this delegation request and this direct 
final rule will serve as formal delegation of the section 112(r) 
program for all applicable sources except those with propane as their 
only regulated substance. EPA is publishing a parallel proposed rule 
contained in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register.

DATES: This direct final rule will become effective on December 21, 
1998. The direct final rule will become effective without further 
notice unless EPA receives no adverse written comments on or before 
November 19, 1998. Should the EPA receive such comments, it will 
publish a timely document withdrawing this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this action should be addressed concurrently to: 
Michelle P. Thornton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104, 
[e-mail]
    Eve Rainey, Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard 
Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2140, 
[e-mail]
    Copies of Florida's section 112(r) delegation request letter and 
accompanying documentation are available for public review during the 
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the 
addresses listed above. If you would like to review these documents, 
please make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle P. Thornton, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, Air and Radiation Technology Branch, 30303-3104 
(telephone [phone]), [e-mail] or
    Eve Rainey, Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard 
Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2140, (telephone 850 413-
9914) [e-mail]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no adverse comments are received by 
November 19, 1998, this direct final rule will automatically go into 
effect on December 21, 1998. Should the Agency receive such comments, 
it will publish a timely document withdrawing this direct final rule 
and will review and publish the comments in a subsequent document. If 
no relevant adverse comments on any provision of this direct final rule 
are timely filed, then it will become effective on December 21, 1998 
and the State of Florida DCA/DEM will receive full delegation of 
authority to implement and enforce the requirements of the section 
112(r) program for all applicable sources in its jurisdiction, except 
sources with propane as their only regulated substance.
    On June 20, 1996, EPA published risk management program 
regulations, mandated under the accidental release prevention 
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These regulations require owners 
and operators of stationary sources subject to the regulations to 
submit risk management plans (RMPs) by June 21, 1999, to a central 
location specified by EPA. The plans will be available to State and 
local governments and the public. These regulations will encourage 
sources to reduce the probability of accidentally releasing substances 
that have the potential to cause harm to public health and the 
environment and will stimulate dialogue between industry and the public 
to improve accident prevention and emergency response practices.
    Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorize 
EPA, in part, to delegate authority to any state or local agency which 
submits an approvable program for implementation and enforcement of 
requirements for the prevention and mitigation of accidental releases 
of hazardous air pollutants. The State's program must contain adequate 
authorities, adequate resources for

[[Page 55955]]

implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule for enforcing 
standards as detailed in 40 CFR sections 63.91 and 63.95.
    On May 24, 1998, Chapter 22, Part IV, Florida Statutes, the Florida 
Accidental Release Prevention and Risk Management Planning Act (Chapter 
98-193, Laws of Florida) became effective. This law adopts the federal 
requirements found in section 112(r) of the CAA of 1990 for specified 
sources and the corresponding Risk Management Program regulations for 
use with the Florida program.
    On June 19, 1998, the State of Florida, Department of Community 
Affairs (DCA), Division of Emergency Management (DEM), requested 
section 112(r) program delegation for all applicable Florida sources, 
except those with propane as their only regulated substance. The State 
acknowledges and accepts that propane sources will not be under the 
jurisdiction of the Florida DCA/DEM and will default to EPA Region 4 
for implementation and enforcement.
    Through the State's legislative budget process, the Florida 
Accidental Releases Prevention/Risk Management Planning program 
received two full time equivalent (FTE) professional positions and more 
than $140,000 for initial program year activities. The state law also 
includes a fee system with amounts ranging from approximately $100 to 
$1,000 per process. Section 112(r) activities will also be integrated 
into an existing Hazardous Materials Planning Program which supports 13 
FTEs and has contractual relationships with the State's eleven Local 
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and sixty-seven emergency 
management program offices.
    Upon delegation, the State's program will be administered by the 
DCA/DEM, which is also responsible for implementation of the Federal 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) program in 
the state. The DEM serves as staff to the State Emergency Response 
Commission (SERC) and has an established relationship with Florida's 
eleven LEPCs. Representatives on the SERC include delegates from the 
departments of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Labor and Employment 
Security (DLES). Florida's section 112(r) program will have technical 
assistance, outreach and education as its cornerstone with an emphasis 
on assisting sources with compliance and facilitating prevention 
discussions with the public.
    After a thorough review of Florida's delegation request and its 
pertinent laws, rules, and regulations, the Region has determined that 
such a delegation is appropriate in that Florida has satisfied the 
criteria of 40 CFR sections 63.91 and 63.95, and has adequate and 
effective authorities, resources, and procedures in place for 
implementation and enforcement of non-major and major sources subject 
to the section 112(r) RMP Federal standards. The State has the primary 
authority and responsibility to carry out all elements of the section 
112(r) program for all sources, except propane, covered in the State, 
including on-site inspections, record keeping reviews, audits and 
enforcement.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The State of 
Florida has voluntarily requested delegation of this program. The state 
will be implementing its own pre-existing Accidental Releases 
Prevention/Risk Management Planning program as described in the 
Supplemental Information Section of this notice. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, representatives of Indian tribal governments 
``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of 
regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Instead, the state 
of Florida will be implementing and enforcing this program. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not 
apply to this rule.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the EPA 
must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information 
collection request in a proposed or final rule. This rule will not 
impose any new information collection requirements.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, Public Law 96-354, September 
19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to 
the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA specifies that a 
regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared if a screening 
analysis indicates a regulation will have significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    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 pre-
existing 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.

[[Page 55956]]

G. 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. 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective December 21, 1998, unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments on or before November 19, 1998.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Instead, it 
merely approves the Florida's pre-existing Accidental Release 
Prevention Program. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any 
voluntary consensus standards.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant rule as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it 
does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety 
risks.

    Dated: September 9, 1998.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 98-27926 Filed 10-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P