[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38755-38756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19134]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 050-1050; FRL-6124-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving new Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-2.360,
``Emission Restrictions for Bakeries,'' as a revision to the Missouri
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This rule restricts volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from large commercial bakery operations in the
Kansas City ozone maintenance area.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 19, 1998.
ADDRESSES: 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: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to
apply reasonably available control technology (RACT) to sources of VOCs
in ozone nonattainment areas to reduce such emissions. For the Kansas
City area, the Act required RACT for sources not covered by a control
techniques guideline emitting more than 100 tons per year. RACT is
defined as the lowest emissions limit that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
both reasonably available, as well as technologically and economically
feasible.
Kansas City is currently an ozone maintenance area. It was
redesignated to attainment on June 23, 1992, with the assumption that
all existing major sources had RACT controls. Recently, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources discovered a major, uncontrolled
commercial bakery located in Kansas City with a potential to emit
greater than 100 tons per year of VOCs. This source sector should have
been addressed prior to redesignation. However, this rule now addresses
such sources consistent with the EPA's Alternative Control Technology
Document on commercial bakery emission controls. Specifically,
Missouri's rule requires a minimum of 80 percent VOC destruction and
contains provisions addressing compliance determinations and
recordkeeping. Rules such as this will aid Kansas City in its efforts
to maintain air quality to meet the national ambient air quality
standards. For more background information, the reader is referred to
the proposal for this rulemaking published on August 5, 1996, at 61 FR
40591.
On September 3, 1996, the EPA received one comment from the
American Bakers Association (ABA). The ABA opposes the capture
efficiency language contained in subsection (4)(C) of the rule. The
ABA's position is that bakery ovens operate under negative pressure
and, therefore, should not be subject to capture efficiency
requirements. The ABA further comments that if the language addressing
capture efficiency in subsection (4)(C) is not changed, at a minimum
the language referencing section 20 of rule 10 CSR 10-6.030 as a
compliance method should be deleted so that the rule is consistent with
the St. Louis bakery rule.
The EPA's response to these comments is that, as written, the rule
is consistent with the Clean Air Act in that it addresses emissions
from major sources of VOCs in an ozone maintenance area. The rule
contains enforceable limitations, the requirements for compliance are
clear, and the methods for determining compliance have been provided.
Therefore, because this rule meets the minimum SIP approval criteria
under the ACT, the EPA is approving it as a revision to the Missouri
SIP.
In addition, the EPA does not have authority to revise language
contained in a state rule. Such concerns are more appropriately
conveyed at the time that the state holds a public hearing on such
rules. In any event, under the Missouri rule the Director may approve
an alternative compliance method, including a method which accounts for
operation of a source under negative pressure, as long as such method
has been approved by the EPA. Therefore, the rule provides the Director
with the flexibility to address the ABA's concerns on a case-by-case
basis.
This response to comments is also documented in an addendum to the
Technical Support Document for this rulemaking.
I. Final Action
In this document, the EPA takes final action to approve Missouri
rule 10 CSR 10-2.360, submitted on March 13, 1996, as a revision to the
Missouri SIP.
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 Orders 12866 and 13045
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks,'' because it is not an
[[Page 38756]]
``economically significant'' action under Executive Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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 create any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
state relationship under the CAA, preparation of 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 (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
the 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).
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 September 18, 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 29, 1998
Dennis Grams, P.E.,
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)(107) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(107) New regulation for control of volatile organic emissions from
Kansas City commercial bakeries submitted by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources March 13, 1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 entitled ``Control of Emissions from
Bakery Ovens,'' effective December 30, 1995.
[FR Doc. 98-19134 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
