Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19823

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 943 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 943—TEXAS

1. The authority citation for Part 943

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 943.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment

submission

date

Date of final

publication

Citation/description

* * * * *

January 23,

1998.

April 22,

1998.

Recodification; 16

TAC 12.1

through

12.710.

3. Section 943.25 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.25 Approval of Texas abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment

submission

date

Date of final

publication

Citation/description

* * * * *

January 23,

1998.

April 22,

1998.

Recodification; 16

TAC

12.800

through

12.817.

[FR Doc. 98–10633 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 042–1042(a); FRL–5979–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions submitted by the state of

Missouri on March 20, 1997, which are

designed to consolidate applicable

requirements contained in its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions will simplify compliance for

Part 70 installations and many other

Missouri sources.

DATES: This action is effective June 22,

1998 unless by May 22, 1998 relevant

adverse comments are received. Should

the agency receive such comment, it

will publish notification withdrawing

this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to Joshua Tapp at EPA, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101. 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: With the

advent of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

operating permit program, the EPA, the

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR), the City of St.

Louis’—Division of Air Pollution

Control, the St. Louis County

Department of Health, the Kansas City

Health Department’—Air Pollution

Control Program, and the City of

Springfield’—Air Pollution Control

Program have coordinated the review of

the local agency codes and ordinances

contained in the current Federally

approved SIP. Consistency between

these codes and ordinances and the

state regulations contained in the SIP

has always been important, but the

operating permit program has brought

this issue to the forefront. The basic

concept of the operating permit program

is to combine all air requirements to

which one particular source is subject

into one cohesive document so that the

public, the source, and the regulatory

agencies can clearly understand the

compliance obligations. However, when

the SIP contains outdated, overlapping,

and sometimes conflicting applicable

requirements, combining all

requirements into one document may

not achieve this goal.

This coordinated review revealed

numerous discrepancies between

Federally approved local ordinances

and Federally approved state rules. The

review also uncovered the fact that

some local agencies have long since

revised their regulations and, in many

cases, the current version of the local

agency regulations is very different from

the Federally approved version.

In response to this review, MDNR and

its local agencies developed

recommendations for SIP action to

correct these issues. This request is for

the retention of some sections, the

removal of some sections, and the

addition of other sections. Five criteria

were used to determine which sections

should be recommended for removal

from the SIP: (1) The sections are

administrative only, (2) the sections

apply to no known sources, (3) the

requirements of the sections are covered

by equivalent or more stringent

Federally approved state rules, (4) the

sections have no bearing on attainment

or maintenance of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards, or (5) the

sections are being concurrently replaced

by current local ordinance, code, or

permit requirements. Sections not

meeting these criteria were

recommended for retention. MDNR and

its local agencies also requested that

certain sections located in new or

revised ordinances be added to replace

outdated versions of Federally approved

sections.

The following are examples of local

ordinance provisions which are being

retained in the SIP. MDNR and the City

of Springfield Air Pollution Control

Department have requested that Air

Pollution Control Standard No. 1890,

Chapter 2A, section 35 entitled

‘‘Maximum Emission Limitations from

Incinerators’’ and related sections be

retained in the SIP. These sections were

retained because the state does not have

an equally stringent rule in place which

addresses incinerator emissions.

The following are examples of local

ordinance provisions which are being

removed from the SIP. MDNR and the

city of St. Louis have requested that St.

Louis Ordinance 50163 be completely

removed from the SIP. Sections such as

section 4 entitled ‘‘Division of Air

Pollution Control Created’’ and section

19 entitled ‘‘Labels to be Affixed to

Approved Installations’’ are
19824 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

administrative only, and are therefore

being rescinded from the SIP. Section

17, entitled ‘‘Registration of Sources of

Air Pollution’’ is an example of a rule

which is being rescinded because the

state SIP rules are at least equally as

stringent. A final example is section 5

entitled ‘‘When Emissions of Pollutants

Become Nuisance.’’ This section does

not have a bearing on attainment or

maintenance of the national ambient air

quality standards and is being removed

for that reason.

The following are examples of the

limited number of local ordinance

provisions which are being added to the

SIP. MDNR and the city of Kansas City

have requested that the EPA add the

most recent version of the Kansas City

open burning provisions contained in

Chapter 8 of the Air Quality Control

Code. Section 8–1 entitled ‘‘Definitions’’

and section 8–4 entitled ‘‘Open

Burning’’ are being added to the SIP,

because they now take the place of

comparable provisions from the

previous version of the Code which are

currently in the SIP. By adding the

current version of the Code and

concurrently rescinding the old version

of the Code, the EPA, the state, and

Kansas City will be able to maintain

Kansas City air quality in a consistent

manner.

On September 26, 1996, Missouri held

a public hearing on these revisions and

on October 31, 1997, the Missouri Air

Conservation Commission adopted

these revisions for submittal to the EPA.

On March 12, 1997, MDNR submitted

the revisions with a request to revise the

SIP under the signature of David Shorr

(the Governor’s designee) and under the

signatures of each of the local air

pollution control agencies. The

revisions include the removal of 157

local ordinance or code sections, the

retention of 12 sections, and the

addition of 7 sections. The reader

should refer to the Technical Support

Document for more information

regarding the analysis which supports

this recommendation.

This consolidation will simplify

compliance for many Missouri sources

without changing the stringency of the

control requirements.

I. Final Action

This is a direct final action which

approves the request submitted by

MDNR and its local agencies to

consolidate the Federally approved

local ordinance and codes in the

Federally approved SIP.

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective June 22,

1998 without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then the EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule did

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on June 22, 1998 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

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 Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. 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)).

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

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).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19825

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 June 22, 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: February 25, 1998.

William Rice,

Acting 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)(103) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(103) Revisions to the Missouri plan

were submitted by the Governor on

March 20, 1997.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) St. Louis City Ordinance 59270,

Section 4—Definitions, numbers 80.

‘‘Open Burning,’’ 100. ‘‘Refuse,’’ 108.

‘‘Salvage Operation,’’ and 126. ‘‘Trade

Waste’’ only; and Section 12, effective

October 23, 1984.

(B) St. Louis City Permit No. 96–10–

084, issued to Washington University

School of Medicine Medical Waste

Incinerator, 500 S. Euclid Avenue,

effective February 20, 1997.

(C) St. Louis City Permit No. 96–10–

083, issued to Washington University

School of Medicine Pathological

Incinerator, 4566 Scott Avenue,

effective February 20, 1997.

(D) St. Louis City Operating Permit,

issued to St. Louis University Medical

Center Medical Waste Incinerator, 3628

Rutger Avenue, effective August 3,

1992.

(E) Kansas City Air Quality Control

Code C.S. No. 56726, Chapter 8,

Sections: 8–2, definitions for ‘‘Open

burning,’’ ‘‘Refuse,’’ ‘‘Salvage

operation,’’ and ‘‘Trade waste’’; and 8–

4, only, effective August 2, 1984.

(F) Remove St. Louis City Ordinance

50163, effective June 11, 1968.

(G) Remove St. Louis City Ordinance

54699, effective March 27, 1967.

(H) Remove St. Louis County Air

Pollution Control Code SLCRO, Title VI,

Chapter 612, effective February 22,

1967.

(I) Remove Kansas City Air Pollution

Control Code C.S. No. 36539, Chapter

18, except sections: 18.83—Definitions,

subsections (13) ‘‘Incinerators’’ and (15)

‘‘Multiple Chamber Incinerators’’; and

18.91—Incinerators, effective August 31,

1972.

(J) Remove City of Springfield Air

Pollution Control Standard G.O. No.

1890, Chapter 2A, except sections: 2A–

2—Definitions, the definitions for

‘‘Director of Health,’’ ‘‘Existing

Equipment,’’ ‘‘Incinerator,’’ ‘‘Multiplechamber incinerator,’’ ‘‘New

equipment,’’ ‘‘Open burning,’’

‘‘Particulate matter,’’ ‘‘Refuse,’’ and

‘‘Trade waste’’; 2A–25; 2A–34; 2A–35;

2A–36; 2A–37; 2A–38; 2A–51; 2A–55;

and 2A–56, effective October 12, 1969.

[FR Doc. 98–10510 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VT–006–01–1219a; A–1–FRL–5998–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Vermont; VOC Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Vermont on

February 4, 1993, August 9, 1993, and

August 10, 1994. These SIP revisions

establish requirements for certain

categories of sources which emit volatile

organic compounds. The intended effect

of this action is to approve these

regulations into the Vermont SIP. This

action is being taken in accordance with

the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective June 22,

1998 without further notice, unless EPA

receives relevant adverse comments by

May 22, 1998. If EPA receives such

comments, then it will publish a timely

document withdrawing this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystem Protection (mail code

CAA), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; and Air Pollution

Control Division, Agency of Natural

Resources, Building 3 South, 103 South

Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne E. Arnold, (617) 565–3166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 4, 1993, August 9, 1993, and

August 10, 1994, the State of Vermont

submitted formal revisions to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These SIP

revisions consist of regulations to

reduce volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from certain categories

of sources.

I. Summary of SIP revision

Background

On November 15, 1990, amendments

to the 1977 CAA were enacted. Pub. L.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42

U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q. Pursuant to the

amended CAA, the entire state of

Vermont was designated as

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for groundlevel ozone. 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991).

Section 184 of the amended CAA,

establishes an Ozone Transport Region

(OTR) which is comprised of several

northeastern states, including Vermont.

Section 184(b) requires that states in the

OTR implement reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for all VOC

sources covered by a Control

Techniques Guideline (CTG) issued

before or after the enactment of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and

for all major VOC sources (defined as 50

tons of VOC emissions per year for

sources in the OTR).

A CTG is a document issued by EPA

which establishes a ‘‘presumptive

norm’’ for RACT for a specific VOC

source category. Under the pre-amended

CAA, EPA issued CTG documents for 29

categories of VOC sources. Section 183

of the amended CAA requires that EPA

issue 13 new (i.e., post-1990) CTGs.

Appendix E of the General Preamble of

Title I (57 FR 18077) lists the categories