[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55983-55985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27927]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-6177-5]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this proposal 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. Because no adverse
comments are expected, EPA is concurrently issuing a direct final rule
in the rules section of this Federal Register. If no adverse comments
are received by November 19, 1998, the 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.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 19, 1998.
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,
patmon.michelle@epamail.epa.gov
Eve Rainey, Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard
Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2140,
eve.rainey@dca.state.fl.us
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 404 562-9121), patmon.michelle@epamail.epa.gov or Eve
Rainey, Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard Oak
Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2140, (telephone 850 413-9914)
eve.rainey@dca.state.fl.us
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no adverse comments are received by
November 19, 1998, no further activity in relation to this proposed
rule is necessary and the direct final rule in the final rules section
of this Federal Register will automatically go into effect on December
21, 1998. Should the Agency receive such comments, it will review and
publish the comments in a subsequent document. If no relevant adverse
comments on any provision of this rule are timely filed, then the
entire direct final rule will become effective on
[[Page 55984]]
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.
After a thorough review of Florida's delegation request and its
pertinent laws, rules, and regulations, the Region proposes to find
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. If, approved, 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, recordkeeping reviews,
audits and enforcement. For a detailed explanation of the delegation
authority as well as Florida's implementation plan, see the information
provided in the direct final rule in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
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 rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. The State of
Florida has voluntarily requested delegation of this program. The state
will be relying on its own resources to implement the Florida
Accidental Prevention and Risk Management Planning Act as described in
the summary 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. The State of
Florida has voluntarily requested delegation of this program. The state
will be implementing and enforcing its own requirements, which have
been reviewed and approved by EPA. 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 rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more in one year to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector.
Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost effective and
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule
and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing, educating and advising any small
governments that may be significantly impacted by the rule. EPA has
estimated that this rule 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.
G. 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
[[Page 55985]]
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 involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
H. 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. 98-27927 Filed 10-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
