```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38755-38756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19134]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 050-1050; FRL-6124-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving 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 ozone maintenance area.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: 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: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to 
apply reasonably available control technology (RACT) to sources of VOCs 
in ozone nonattainment areas to reduce such emissions. For the Kansas 
City area, the Act required RACT for sources not covered by a control 
techniques guideline emitting more than 100 tons per year. 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 is currently an ozone maintenance area. It was 
redesignated to attainment on June 23, 1992, with the assumption that 
all existing major sources had RACT controls. Recently, the Missouri 
Department of Natural Resources discovered a major, uncontrolled 
commercial bakery located in Kansas City with a potential to emit 
greater than 100 tons per year of VOCs. This source sector should have 
been addressed prior to redesignation. However, this rule now addresses 
such sources consistent with the EPA's Alternative Control Technology 
Document on commercial bakery emission controls. Specifically, 
Missouri's rule requires a minimum of 80 percent VOC destruction and 
contains provisions addressing compliance determinations and 
recordkeeping. Rules such as this will aid Kansas City in its efforts 
to maintain air quality to meet the national ambient air quality 
standards. For more background information, the reader is referred to 
the proposal for this rulemaking published on August 5, 1996, at 61 FR 
40591.
    On September 3, 1996, the EPA received one comment from the 
American Bakers Association (ABA). The ABA opposes the capture 
efficiency language contained in subsection (4)(C) of the rule. The 
ABA's position is that bakery ovens operate under negative pressure 
and, therefore, should not be subject to capture efficiency 
requirements. The ABA further comments that if the language addressing 
capture efficiency in subsection (4)(C) is not changed, at a minimum 
the language referencing section 20 of rule 10 CSR 10-6.030 as a 
compliance method should be deleted so that the rule is consistent with 
the St. Louis bakery rule.
    The EPA's response to these comments is that, as written, the rule 
is consistent with the Clean Air Act in that it addresses emissions 
from major sources of VOCs in an ozone maintenance area. The rule 
contains enforceable limitations, the requirements for compliance are 
clear, and the methods for determining compliance have been provided. 
Therefore, because this rule meets the minimum SIP approval criteria 
under the ACT, the EPA is approving it as a revision to the Missouri 
SIP.
    In addition, the EPA does not have authority to revise language 
contained in a state rule. Such concerns are more appropriately 
conveyed at the time that the state holds a public hearing on such 
rules. In any event, under the Missouri rule the Director may approve 
an alternative compliance method, including a method which accounts for 
operation of a source under negative pressure, as long as such method 
has been approved by the EPA. Therefore, the rule provides the Director 
with the flexibility to address the ABA's concerns on a case-by-case 
basis.
    This response to comments is also documented in an addendum to the 
Technical Support Document for this rulemaking.

I. Final Action

    In this document, the EPA takes final action to approve Missouri 
rule 10 CSR 10-2.360, submitted on March 13, 1996, 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.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' because it is not an

[[Page 38756]]

``economically significant'' action under Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    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.
    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 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. E.P.A.), 427 U.S. 246, 
256-66 (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 
the 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).

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 September 18, 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 29, 1998
Dennis Grams, P.E.,
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)(107) to read 
as follows:

Sec. 52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (107) New regulation for control of volatile organic emissions from 
Kansas City commercial bakeries submitted by the Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources March 13, 1996.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule 10 CSR 10-2.360 entitled ``Control of Emissions from 
Bakery Ovens,'' effective December 30, 1995.

[FR Doc. 98-19134 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```