Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25191

commencing at the time any vessel

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section enters the zone described in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and will

remain in effect until all spent nuclear

materials cargo handling operations

have been completed at Weapons

Support Facility Seal Beach Detachment

Concord.

(d) Regulations. The general

regulations governing safety and

security zones contained in both 33 CFR

165.23 and in 33 CFR 165.33 apply.

Entry into, transit through, or anchoring

within this safety/security zone is

prohibited unless authorized by

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard

District, or his designated

representative.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

J.C. Card,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–12137 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 047–1047; FRL–6010–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revisions submitted by the state of

Missouri to broaden the current visible

emission 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: Comments must be received on

or before June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Kim Johnson, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

amendment broadens the current visible

emission 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 visible

emission rule 10 CSR 10–3.080 is a

general limit on opacity from all

contaminated sources located in certain

geographic areas in Missouri. The

amendment adds certain categories such

as smoke-generating devices to the list

of sources exempted from the opacity

limit. 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 are subject to applicable permit

requirements.

A modeling analysis was used to

predict air quality impacts for Fort

Leonard Wood Smoke Training School.

Based on the modeling analysis, the

proposed smoke training at Fort

Leonard Wood, if operated under the

requirements listed in the prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) permit,

will not exceed the maximum allowable

PSD PM10 increment of 30 μg/m3 based

on a 24-hour average, and will not cause

or contribute to a violation of the PM10

national ambient air quality standards.

The amendment only exempts units

which are subject to permit limits

containing restrictions which ensure

that air quality standards will not be

violated, and units with de minimis

emissions which have been determined

by Missouri to be exempt from

permitting. The EPA believes that the

exemption will not interfere with

attainment and maintenance of the

ambient air quality standards.

Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing 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.

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 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

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 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
25192 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: April 14, 1998.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

[FR Doc. 98–12149 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P