[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40591-40592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19843]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 007-1007; FRL-5547-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve 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 area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 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: Mr. Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551-7606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act requires states to apply
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to major sources
(sources emitting greater than 100 tons per year) of VOCs to reduce
such emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 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 was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in 1978.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted a Part D
ozone attainment SIP in 1979. This SIP was fully approved by the EPA;
however, violations of the ozone national ambient air quality standards
were recorded after the attainment date, causing the EPA to notify
Kansas and Missouri that the Kansas City SIP was substantially
inadequate to meet the standard in February 1985 (50 FR 26198, June 25,
1985). The effect of the SIP call, as stated in the EPA guidance dated
January 1984 entitled ``Guidance Document for the Correction of Part D
SIPs for Nonattainment Areas,'' and the November 24, 1987, ``Post-1987
Policy,'' is that Kansas City and other such areas were required to
have RACT in place for all major sources, whether or not they belonged
to a control technique guideline (CTG) source category.
Kansas City was redesignated to attainment on June 23, 1992, with
the assumption that all existing major sources had RACT controls.
Recently, MDNR discovered a large, uncontrolled commercial bakery
located in Kansas City. Since bakery operations emit significant
amounts of ethanol, which is a VOC, this source should have been
addressed prior to redesignation.
The EPA recently developed an Alternative Control Technology (ACT)
document which is designed to provide states with background
information to assist them in developing RACT rules for this source
category. This ACT document examines the baking process and the
feasibility of various VOC control strategies. Unlike a CTG document,
however, this document does not identify a presumptive norm for RACT.
An achievable control level is identified, and states are given the
flexibility to select controls strategies.
Region VII has determined that Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 meets
Federal requirements for RACT for commercial bakeries because it
requires achievable control levels consistent with the EPA's ACT
document. Specifically, Missouri's rule requires a minimum of 80
percent VOC destruction and contains provisions addressing compliance
determinations and recordkeeping.
EPA ACTION
The EPA is proposing to approve rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 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.
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
[[Page 40592]]
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 SIP 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, Hydrocarbons,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: July 17, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19843 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
