[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 1998)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 65559-65561] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 98-31541] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [MO 055-1055; FRL-6134-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri
Agency
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Action
Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The EPA is taking final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Missouri to broaden the current visible emissions rule exceptions to include smoke-generating devices. This revision would allow smoke generators to be used for military and other types of training when operated under applicable requirements.
Dates
This rule is effective on December 28, 1998.
Addresses
Comment may be addressed to Kim Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Copies of the state submittal are available at the following address for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the Environmental Protection Agency, Air & Radiation Docket and Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
For Further Information Contact
Kim Johnson at (913) 551-7975.
Supplementary Information
I. Background
This amendment broadens the current rule exceptions to include smoke-generating devices in general when a required permit or a written determination that a permit is not required has been issued. The amendment defines a smoke-generating device as a specialized piece of equipment which is not an integral part of a commercial, industrial or manufacturing process and whose sole purpose is the creation and dispersion of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium. This revision would allow smoke generators to be used for military training at such facilities as Fort Leonard Wood as long as such facilities operate in accordance with applicable permit requirements. No comments were received in response to the public comment period regarding this rule action. For more background information the reader is referred to the proposal for this rulemaking published on May 7, 1998, at 63 FR 25191.
II. Final Action
The EPA is taking final action to approve, as a revision to the SIP, the amendment to Rule 10 CSR 10-3.080, ``Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants,'' submitted by the state of Missouri on July 10, 1996. 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.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, the 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 or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires the 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. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 does not apply to this rule.
C. 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 E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 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 does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084 the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly 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 or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 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. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 because 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 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. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. 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 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 proposed 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.
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. 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 U.S. Comptroller General 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).
H. 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 January 26, 1999. 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, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 23, 1998. Dennis Grams, 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)(109) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (109) This State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Missouri on July 10, 1996, broadens the current rule exceptions to include smoke-generating devices. This revision would allow smoke generators to be used for military and other types of training when operated under applicable requirements. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Regulation 10 CSR 10-3.080, ``Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants,'' effective on May 30, 1996.
[FR Doc. 98-31541 Filed 11-25-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P