10002 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Attainment of the lead standard is

based upon regulations found in 40 CFR

50.12. The lead national primary and

secondary air quality standards are 1.5

micrograms per cubic meter, maximum

arithmetic mean averaged over a

calendar quarter. The data indicate that

four monitors in the Herculaneum area

continue to measure violations of the

NAAQS for lead in spite of the state’s

efforts.

Under section 179(c)(1) of the CAA,

the EPA has the responsibility for

determining whether a nonattainment

area has attained the lead NAAQS. The

EPA must make an attainment

determination as expeditiously as

practicable, but no later than six months

after the attainment date for the area.

The Act also requires the EPA to

publish a notice of its findings in the

Federal Register.

In the case where the area fails to

attain the NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date, the EPA policy (Shaver

1995) specifies that the EPA will notify

the affected state(s) by letter and

Federal Register notice of the EPA’s

findings. The EPA notified Missouri of

its finding on August 27, 1996.

B. Implementation of Contingency

Measures

Upon receipt of notification, affected

states are required to implement specific

contingency measures previously

identified in the approved SIP. These

measures were identified and submitted

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

These measures are to be undertaken

without further action on the part of the

state or the EPA. In general, the EPA

expects all actions needed to effect full

implementation of the contingency

measures to occur with 60 days of

notification. On December 10, 1996, the

EPA received written notification from

the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources that all contingency measures

in the approved SIP have been

implemented.

C. Call for Revision of Missouri’s SIP

In accordance with section 179(d) of

the CAA, upon publication of the EPA’s

notice indicating an area has failed to

attain, states must within one year

submit a SIP revision meeting all of the

requirements of sections 110 and 172 of

the Act and any additional measures as

may be reasonably prescribed, including

all measures that can be feasibly

implemented in light of technological

achievability, costs, and other factors.

With this document, the EPA gives

notice that it has notified the Governor

of Missouri that the Herculaneum,

Missouri, area has failed to attain the

NAAQS for lead. This notice requests

public comment on this determination.

Retention of the area’s nonattainment

status under section 107(d) of the Act

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Retention of the

nonattainment designation is an action

that affects the status of a geographical

area and does not impose any regulatory

requirements on sources. To the extent

that the area must adopt new

regulations, based on its nonattainment

status, the EPA will review the effect of

those actions on small entities at the

time the state submits those regulations.

The Administrator certifies that

retention of the area’s nonattainment

status will not affect a substantial

number of small entities.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735

(October 4, 1993), the EPA is required

to determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be

subject to the Office of Management and

Budget review, economic analysis, and

the requirements of the Executive Order.

The Executive Order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may

meet at least one of the four criteria

identified in section 3(f), including,

under paragraph (1), that the rule may

‘‘have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely

affect, in a material way, the economy,

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.’’

The Agency has determined that

today’s finding of failure to attain

results in none of the effects identified

in section 3(f). Under section 179(c) of

the CAA, findings of failure to attain for

nonattainment areas are based upon air

quality considerations, in light of

certain air quality conditions. They do

not, in and of themselves, impose any

new requirements on any sectors of the

economy.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 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

certify 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

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

As discussed in section III of this

notice, findings of failure to attain for

nonattainment areas under section

179(c) of the CAA do not in and of

themselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

today’s proposed action does not have a

significant impact on small entities.

C. 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 assess whether various actions

undertaken in association with

proposed or final regulations 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.

The EPA believes, as discussed above,

that the proposed finding of failure to

attain for the Herculaneum, Missouri,

lead nonattainment area is a factual

determination based upon air quality

considerations and does not impose any

Federal intergovernmental mandate, as

defined in section 101 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas, Lead.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 18, 1997.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5416 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[MO 014–1014; FRL–5698–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan and State

Operating Permit Program; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve revisions to Missouri’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning

Missouri’s rule 10 CSR 10–6.110,

Submission of Emission Data, Emission

Fees, and Process Information. This rule

also clarifies the requirements for the

payment of emission fees to support

Missouri’s Title V program and was

submitted as part of the state’s plan to

comply with Title V of the Clean Air

Act (CAA).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10003

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Stan Walker, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Walker at (913) 551–7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 1, 1996, the state of

Missouri submitted revisions to

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.110 as part

of the SIP and to comply with the

operating permit requirement outlined

in Title V of the CAA as amended

(1990). A public hearing was held on

July 27, 1996.

A. Missouri’s SIP Submission

Revisions to the rule provide

procedures for collecting, recording, and

submitting emission data and process

information on state-supplied Emission

Inventory Questionnaires (EIQ) and

Emission Statement forms, or in a

format satisfactory to the Director. This

is necessary so the state can calculate

emissions for state air resource

planning. As specified in sections

182(a)(3)(B) and 182(b) of the CAA,

emission statements are required of

certain facilities in nonattainment areas.

Emission statements are required if the

actual emissions of either nitrogen

oxide, volatile organic compounds, or

carbon monoxide are equal to or greater

than ten tons annually. Facilities must

report emissions of each pollutant if

they meet the ten-ton threshold for any

of the three.

An amendment to the rule also

establishes emission factor

approvability and procedures for

adjusting emission fees. Also, the

amendment revises the use of the terms

‘‘contaminant’’ and ‘‘pollution’’ to

reflect definitions in 10 CSR 10–6.020.

B. Proposed Approval of Revision to

Missouri’s Part 70 Operating Permit

Program

One amendment to Missouri rule 10

C.S.R. 10–6.110, changes section (1),

‘‘Applicability,’’ to include a provision

that all installations required to obtain

permits under 10 C.S.R. 10–6.060 or 10

C.S.R. 10–6.065 to file an EIQ as

outlined in the reporting frequency table

in subsection (2)(E). Installations,

however, can prove to the staff director

that their potential emissions are below

de minimis levels and that they should

be exempt. The purpose of this change

is to remove exemptions that were not

intended by the Missouri legislature.

Consequently, all air contaminant

sources required to obtain a permit must

pay emission fees. This rule requires

subject facilities to submit emission

information and emission fees, and

makes emission data available to the

public. Reference to rules 10 CSR 10–

6.060 and 10 CSR 10–6.065, as well as

changes to Section (5) of the rule, relate

to Missouri’s Title V program covered

under 40 CFR Part 70.

The revision to Section (5) of Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10–6.110 clarifies language

related to payment of fees by charcoal

kilns. This particular change relates to

Missouri’s Operating Permits Program,

as specified in the Missouri statutes,

which was previously approved by the

EPA on April 4, 1996 (61 FR 16063).

II. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to Missouri’s SIP and

Missouri’s Title V Operating Permit

Program concerning Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–6.110, ‘‘Submission of Emission

Data, Emission Fees, and Process

Information.’’

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. Docket

Copies of the state submittal and other

information relied upon for the

proposed approval are contained in a

docket maintained at the EPA Regional

Office. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, the EPA in the development of this

proposed approval. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit 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 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

Administrator 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)).

D. 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 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.
10004 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirement.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5422 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–5699–3]

RIN 2050 AE05

Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV:

Treatment Standards for Characteristic

Metal Wastes; Notice of Data

Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: EPA has received additional

information on an issue it first raised in

the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

Phase III proposed rule (60 FR 11702,

March 2, 1995), that of whether the

addition of iron filings (and iron dust)

to lead-contaminated spent foundry

sand is a means of diluting the waste

impermissibly rather than treating it to

conform with the requirements of the

LDR rules. The new information being

noticed today addresses whether this

practice stabilizes (or otherwise treats)

lead, the chief hazardous constituent

found in the spent sand, so that the lead

will not migrate through the

environment when the spent sand is

land disposed. Stabilization as a

technology-based LDR standard

(STABL) is described in 40 CFR 268.42

as using the following reagents (or waste

reagents) or combinations of reagents:

(1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/

pozzolans (e.g., fly ash and cement kiln

dust)—this does not preclude the

addition of reagents (e.g., iron salts,

silicates, and clays) designed to enhance

the set/cure time and/or compressive

strength, or to overall reduce the

leachability of the metal or inorganic.

New studies have been performed to

evaluate this hazardous waste

management practice, and the studies

have undergone external Peer Review.

EPA is noticing these studies, and the

results of the Peer Review, in this

Notice, and soliciting public comment.

EPA may use the results of the studies

to promulgate a revised final approach

on this waste management practice in

an upcoming LDR rulemaking (Phase

IV).

The public has 30 days from

publication of this notice to comment

on the results of the studies and the Peer

Review. This notice does not reopen for

comment any other Phase III or Phase IV

issue; only comments about the waste

management practice of adding iron

filings or dust to lead-contaminated

spent foundry sand will be considered

by the Agency.

DATES: Comments are due by April 4,

1997.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number F–97–PH3A–

FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The

mailing address is: RCRA Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (5305W), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. RCRA

Information Center is located at 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RCRA

Information Center is open for public

inspection and copying of supporting

information for RCRA rules from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to

review docket materials by calling (703)

603–9230. The public may copy a

maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory document at no cost.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information or to order paper

copies of this Federal Register

document, call the RCRA Hotline.

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). Long-distance callers may

call 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–800–

553–7672. The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time. For other

information on this notice, contact Mary

Cunningham at (703) 308–8453, John

Austin at (703) 308–0436 or Rhonda

Craig at (703) 308–8771, Office of Solid

Waste, Mail Code 5302W, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

EPA is asking prospective

commenters to voluntarily submit one

additional copy of their comments on

labeled personal computer diskettes in

ASCII (TEXT) format or a word

processing format that can be converted

to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to

specify on the disk label the word

processing software and version/edition

as well as the commenter’s name. This

will allow EPA to convert the comments

into one of the word processing formats

utilized by the Agency. Please use

mailing envelopes designed to

physically protect the submitted

diskettes. EPA emphasizes that

submission of comments on diskettes is

not mandatory, nor will it result in any

advantage or disadvantage to any

commenter. This expedited procedure is

in conjunction with the Agency

‘‘Paperless Office’’ campaign. For

further information on the submission

of diskettes, contact Rhonda Craig of the

Waste Treatment Branch at (703) 308–

8771.

This Federal Register notice is

available on the Internet System through

EPA Public Access Server,

www.epa.gov. For the text of the notice,

choose: Rules, Regulations, and

Legislation; FR-Waste; Year/Month/Day.

Notice of Data Availability

I. Overview

On March 2, 1995, EPA published the

LDR Phase III proposal in the Federal

Register (60 FR 11702). Among other

things, EPA proposed that adding iron

filings to lead-contaminated spent

foundry sand constituted impermissible

dilution of hazardous lead waste rather

than treatment to meet the LDR

treatment standards (60 FR 11731). As

explained in the proposed rule, the

addition of iron filings seems to

temporarily retard the leachability of

lead in the spent foundry sand thus

allowing the waste to pass the TCLP

test, but not to be permanently treated.

Comments were mixed on this issue,

and EPA decided not to finalize a

determination that the practice is a form

of impermissible dilution in the Phase

III final rule without studying the issue

further. See 61 FR 15569, April 8, 1996.

Since then, two studies have become

available on this issue. One study was

developed by Dr. John Drexler of the

University of Colorado, and the other by

Dr. Douglas Kendall of the National

Enforcement Investigations Center

(NEIC). The results of these studies

indicate that the addition of iron filings

or iron dust to spent foundry sand does