Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 38755

(b) Notification. Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, will

cause notice of the activation of this

safety/security zone to be made by all

appropriate means to effect the widest

publicity among the affected segments

of the public, including publication in

the Federal Register as practicable, in

accordance with the provisions of 33

CFR 165.7(a); such means of

announcement may include, but are not

limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast

Notice to Mariners notifying the public

when nuclear materials cargo handling

has been completed.

(c) Effective Period. The safety/

security zone will be effective

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 in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry

into, transit through, or anchoring

within this moving safety/security zone

is prohibited unless authorized by

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard

District, or his designated

representative.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

R.D. Sirois,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District Acting.

[FR Doc. 98–19179 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

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
38756 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

‘‘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:

§ 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 136

Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures for the Analysis of

Pollutants

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 136 to 149, revised as

of July 1, 1997, page 26, § 136.3(e) is

corrected in Table II by correcting the

entry in the fourth column ‘‘Maximum

holding time’’ under ‘‘metals’’ for

‘‘Mercury’’ to read ‘‘28 days’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

Radio Broadcasting Services; Various

Locations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, on its own

motion, editorially amends the Table of

FM Allotments to specify the actual

classes of channels allotted to various

communities. The changes in channel

classifications have been authorized in

response to applications filed by

licensees and permittees operating on

these channels. This action is taken

pursuant to Revision of Section

73.3573(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules

Concerning the Lower Classification of

an FM Allotment, 4 FCC Rcd 2413

(1989), and the Amendment of the

Commission’s Rules to permit FM