Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 12623-12626 [06-2378]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation considering that it
relates to the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. Under figure 2–1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ are not required for this
rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:
I
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. From March 8, 2006 through
September 7, 2006, § 117.795 is
amended by suspending paragraph (b)
and adding a temporary paragraph (d),
to read as follows:
I
117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting
Waterways.
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
*
*
*
*
(d) The New York City Highway
Bridge (Belt Parkway), mile 0.8, across
Mill Basin, need only open one
moveable span for the passage of vessel
traffic from March 8, 2006 through
September 7, 2006. The draw need not
be opened for the passage of vessel
traffic from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. on
Sundays from May 15 through
September 30, and on Memorial Day,
Independence Day, and Labor Day.
Jkt 208001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 62
[EPA–R07–OAR–2005–MO–0006; FRL–
8044–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
EPA is announcing the partial
approval and partial disapproval of
revisions to the Restriction of Emission
of Sulfur Compounds rule in the
Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This Missouri rule establishes
general requirements for emissions of
sulfur compounds from various source
categories and establishes specific
emissions requirements for certain
named sources.
EPA is approving most of the
revisions to the rule because the
changes involve clarifications, updates,
and other improvements to the current
rule. This action does not include a
portion of the rule that regulates
ambient concentrations of sulfur
compounds, because this provision is
not in the current SIP, and EPA does not
directly enforce Missouri’s Air Quality
Standards.
EPA is disapproving Missouri’s
request to include in the SIP a revision
to two source-specific references
because the state has not demonstrated
that the revisions are protective of the
short-term SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS).
DATES: This rule is effective on April 12,
2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
SUMMARY:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
14:21 Mar 10, 2006
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: March 2, 2006.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 06–2393 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
Bridges.
*
However, on these days the draw shall
open on signal from the time two hours
before to one hour after the predicted
high tide(s).
For the purpose of this section,
predicted high tide(s) occur 15 minutes
later than that predicted for Sandy
Hook, as documented in the tidal
current data, which is updated,
generated and published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Ocean Service.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12623
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2005–MO–0006.
All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, KS. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551–7942 or
by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This section provides additional
information by addressing the following
questions:
What Is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for
a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval or
Disapproval of a State Regulation Mean to
Me?
What Is Being Addressed in This
Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a
SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Taking?
What Is a SIP?
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) requires states to develop air
pollution regulations and control
strategies to ensure that state air quality
meets the national ambient air quality
standards established by EPA. These
ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they
currently address six criteria pollutants.
These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these
regulations and control strategies to us
for approval and incorporation into the
Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects
air quality primarily by addressing air
pollution at its point of origin. These
SIPs can be extensive, containing state
regulations or other enforceable
documents and supporting information
such as emission inventories,
E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
13MRR1
12624
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
What Is the Federal Approval Process
for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be
incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally
adopt the regulations and control
strategies consistent with state and
Federal requirements. This process
generally includes a public notice,
public hearing, public comment period,
and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or
control strategy is adopted, the state
submits it to us for inclusion into the
SIP. We must provide public notice and
seek additional public comment
regarding the proposed Federal action
on the state submission. If adverse
comments are received, they must be
addressed prior to any final Federal
action by us.
All state regulations and supporting
information approved by EPA under
section 110 of the CAA are incorporated
into the Federally-approved SIP.
Records of such SIP actions are
maintained in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52,
entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state
regulations which are approved are not
reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ‘‘incorporated by
reference,’’ which means that we have
approved a given state regulation with
a specific effective date.
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
What Does Federal Approval or
Disapproval of a State Regulation Mean
to Me?
Enforcement of the state regulation
before and after it is incorporated into
the Federally-approved SIP is primarily
a state responsibility. However, after the
regulation is Federally approved, we are
authorized to take enforcement action
against violators. Citizens are also
offered legal recourse to address
violations as described in section 304 of
the CAA. If a state regulation is
disapproved, it is not incorporated into
the Federally-approved SIP, and is not
enforceable by EPA or by citizens under
section 304. In the case of a revision to
a Federally-approved state regulation,
disapproval of the revision means that
the underlying state regulation prior to
the state’s revision remains as the
Federally enforceable requirement.
What Is Being Addressed in This
Document?
We are taking final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove
Missouri Department of Natural
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Resources’ (MDNR) request to include,
as a revision to Missouri’s SIP,
amendments to rule 10 CSR 10–6.260,
Restriction of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds. We are also approving
certain changes to this rule as an
amendment to the 111(d) plan which
will replace the current rule for sulfuric
acid mist production. This rule was
adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission on February
3, 2004, and became effective under
state law on May 30, 2004. This rule
was submitted to EPA on June 14, 2004,
and included comments on the rule
during the state’s adoption process, the
state’s response to comments and other
information necessary to meet EPA’s
completeness criteria.
The revisions to Missouri rule, 10
CSR 10–6.260, Restriction of Emission
of Sulfur Compounds, update the rule to
correct inaccurate source information,
provide an exemption for natural gas
fueled combustion, and clarify the
exemption for source categories subject
to a new source performance standard to
assure that such sources are subject to
sulfur limits. Missouri also revised
provisions relating to sulfuric acid mist
production, previously approved by
EPA under section 111(d). These
provisions were renumbered but not
otherwise changed. By renumbering the
rule, Missouri will have given the
111(d) plan a new effective date that
will be reflected in the description of
the section 111(d) plan in 40 CFR part
62. EPA is approving revisions to
Section (3)(A)1,2,3 and 4 into the 111(d)
plan.
However, we are not acting on
renumbered Section (3)(B), titled
Restriction of Concentration of Sulfur
Compounds in Ambient Air, as EPA
does not directly enforce Missouri’s air
quality standards, and this section is not
found in the approved SIP.
We are also partially disapproving
revisions to Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–
6.260, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds. Revisions to Section (3),
Table 1, regarding the emission rate for
the Kansas City Power & Light’s
Hawthorn and Montrose Station
facilities are not consistent with the
requirements of the CAA. Section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires, in
part, that the plan include emission
limitations to meet the requirements of
the Act, including the requirement in
Section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be
adequate to attain and maintain ambient
air quality standards. In addition, 40
CFR 51.112 requires that the plan
demonstrate that rules contained in the
SIP are adequate to attain the ambient
air quality standards. We believe that
these requirements have not been met
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with respect to the Hawthorn and
Montrose Station limits. We note that
the Hawthorn unit is subject to a
Federally-enforceable state permit
which limits sulfur emissions to .12
pounds per million BTU heat input on
a thirty-day rolling average basis.
Although the facility must comply with
this more stringent limit (and all other
units listed in the rule must comply
with more stringent limits established in
permits), the SIP must reflect
requirements that ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The state
rule, with respect to the Hawthorn and
Montrose Station facilities, does not
reflect such requirements.
We believe that the revisions,
contained in Section (3), Table 1,
regarding sulfur dioxide emission rates
for these plants are not protective of the
short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
Although the emission rates for both
facilities have been lowered, the
averaging time for the rates has been
dramatically increased, from a threehour average to an annual average.
Missouri has not provided a
demonstration, as required by the CAA
and EPA regulations, that the standards,
particularly, the three-hour and the
twenty-four hour standards, can be
protected by an annual emission limit.
Have the Requirements for Approval of
a SIP Revision Been Met?
With respect to the portions of the
submittal which EPA is approving, the
state submittal has met the public notice
requirements for SIP submissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The
submittal also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, as explained
above and in more detail in the
technical support document that is part
of this document and in the October 3,
2005, proposed rule, the approved
portions of the revision meet the
substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are taking final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove
portions of the Restriction of Emission
of Sulfur Compounds rule into the
Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The approved and disapproved
portions are described above. We are
incorporating rule changes to
subparagraph (3)(A)1,2,3, and 4, into
Missouri’s 111(d) plan. We are not
acting on a portion of this rule that
regulates ambient concentrations of
sulfur compounds, because this
provision is not in the current SIP, and
E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
13MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
EPA does not directly enforce
Missouri’s Air Quality Standards.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The partial
disapproval will not affect any existing
state requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the state
submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s
disapproval of the submittal does not
impose a new Federal requirement.
Therefore, the Administrator certifies
that this disapproval action does not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action approves
and disapproves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. 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. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
12625
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 May 12, 2006. 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Sulfuric
acid plants, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: March 6, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended
under Chapter 6 by revising the entry
for ‘‘10–6.260’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 52.1320
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Missouri citation
Title
State effective date
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
13MRR1
12626
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS—Continued
Missouri citation
Title
State effective date
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
10–6.260 .........................
*
*
Restriction of Emission
of Sulfur Compounds.
*
05/30/04 ........................
*
03/13/06 [insert FR
page number where
the document begins].
*
*
Section (3)(B) is not SIP approved.
The revision to the averaging time
and emission rate per unit for
Kansas City Power & Light, Hawthorn Plant and Montrose Station
in Table 1 of (3)(C)2.B. is not approved.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PART 62—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 62
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
2. Section 62.6350 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
I
§ 62.6350
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) A revision to Missouri’s 111(d)
plan for sulfuric acid mist production
was state effective on May 30, 2004.
This revision approves the renumbering
of the rule. The effective date of the
amended plan is April 12, 2006.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–2378 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 051116304–6035–02; I.D.
110805A]
RIN 0648–AT92
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Total Allowable Catch
Amount for ‘‘Other Species’’ in the
Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of
Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that
implements Amendment 69 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
*
*
Amendment 69 amends the manner in
which the total allowable catch (TAC)
for the ‘‘other species’’ complex is
annually determined in the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). The amendment allows
the TAC amount for the ‘‘other species’’
complex to be set less than or equal to
5 percent of the sum of groundfish
targets species in the GOA. This final
rule also raises the maximum retainable
amount (MRA) of ‘‘other species’’ in the
directed arrowtooth flounder fishery
from 0 percent to 20 percent. This
action is necessary to reduce the
potential for overfishing those species in
the ‘‘other species’’ complex in the GOA
and to reduce the amount of ‘‘other
species’’ required to be discarded in the
arrowtooth flounder fishery. This action
is intended to promote the goals and
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP,
and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective April 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 69,
the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/
RIR/IRFA), and EA/RIR/Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
prepared for this action may be obtained
from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box
21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Records
Officer or from the Alaska Region
website at www.fakr.noaa.gov. The FMP
is available from www.fakr.noaa.gov/
npfmc/fmp/goa/goa.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Pearson, 907–481–1780 or
tom.pearson@noaa.gov.
The
groundfish fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone of the GOA are managed
under the FMP. The North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council)
prepared the FMP under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq. Regulations implementing
the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.
General regulations governing U.S.
fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
The Council submitted Amendment
69 for review by the Secretary of
Commerce. A notice of availability of
the amendment was published in the
Federal Register on November 16, 2005
(70 FR 69505), with comments invited
through January 17, 2006. The proposed
rule for Amendment 69 was published
in the Federal Register on November 29,
2005 (70 FR 71450), with comments
invited through January 13, 2006. No
comments were received on the notice
of availability or the proposed rule. The
final rule is unchanged from the
proposed rule. Amendment 69 was
approved by the Secretary of Commerce
on February 13, 2006.
Background
In June 2005, the Council
recommended Amendment 69 as an
interim measure to prevent overfishing
of species in the ‘‘other species’’
complex until a more comprehensive
management plan could be developed.
Designation and management of the
‘‘other species’’ complex have evolved
through a series of amendments to the
GOA FMP. The proposed rule (70 FR
71451, November 29, 2005) provides an
overview of how the ‘‘other species’’
complex management has changed by
amendments to the FMP. The proposed
rule also provides a description of the
effects of changing the setting of TAC
for ‘‘other species’’ and of changing the
‘‘other species’’ MRA for the arrowtooth
flounder fishery.
Final Regulatory Amendment
To manage the incidental harvest of
the ‘‘other species’’ complex, this action
revises Table 10 of 50 CFR part 679 to
raise the MRA for the ‘‘other species’’
complex from 0 percent to 20 percent in
the arrowtooth flounder fishery in the
GOA. This revision is necessary to
properly manage the retention of ‘‘other
species’’ in the arrowtooth flounder
fishery and to potentially reduce the
amount of discards of otherwise
marketable fish in the ‘‘other species’’
complex.
E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM
13MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12623-12626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2378]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 62
[EPA-R07-OAR-2005-MO-0006; FRL-8044-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the partial approval and partial disapproval
of revisions to the Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds rule in
the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This Missouri rule
establishes general requirements for emissions of sulfur compounds from
various source categories and establishes specific emissions
requirements for certain named sources.
EPA is approving most of the revisions to the rule because the
changes involve clarifications, updates, and other improvements to the
current rule. This action does not include a portion of the rule that
regulates ambient concentrations of sulfur compounds, because this
provision is not in the current SIP, and EPA does not directly enforce
Missouri's Air Quality Standards.
EPA is disapproving Missouri's request to include in the SIP a
revision to two source-specific references because the state has not
demonstrated that the revisions are protective of the short-term
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
DATES: This rule is effective on April 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2005-MO-0006. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551-7942 or
by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
What Is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval or Disapproval of a State Regulation
Mean to Me?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Taking?
What Is a SIP?
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to
develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that
state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories,
[[Page 12624]]
monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
What Does Federal Approval or Disapproval of a State Regulation Mean to
Me?
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA. If a state regulation is disapproved, it is not
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP, and is not enforceable by
EPA or by citizens under section 304. In the case of a revision to a
Federally-approved state regulation, disapproval of the revision means
that the underlying state regulation prior to the state's revision
remains as the Federally enforceable requirement.
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
We are taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove Missouri Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) request to
include, as a revision to Missouri's SIP, amendments to rule 10 CSR 10-
6.260, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds. We are also
approving certain changes to this rule as an amendment to the 111(d)
plan which will replace the current rule for sulfuric acid mist
production. This rule was adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation
Commission on February 3, 2004, and became effective under state law on
May 30, 2004. This rule was submitted to EPA on June 14, 2004, and
included comments on the rule during the state's adoption process, the
state's response to comments and other information necessary to meet
EPA's completeness criteria.
The revisions to Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10-6.260, Restriction of
Emission of Sulfur Compounds, update the rule to correct inaccurate
source information, provide an exemption for natural gas fueled
combustion, and clarify the exemption for source categories subject to
a new source performance standard to assure that such sources are
subject to sulfur limits. Missouri also revised provisions relating to
sulfuric acid mist production, previously approved by EPA under section
111(d). These provisions were renumbered but not otherwise changed. By
renumbering the rule, Missouri will have given the 111(d) plan a new
effective date that will be reflected in the description of the section
111(d) plan in 40 CFR part 62. EPA is approving revisions to Section
(3)(A)1,2,3 and 4 into the 111(d) plan.
However, we are not acting on renumbered Section (3)(B), titled
Restriction of Concentration of Sulfur Compounds in Ambient Air, as EPA
does not directly enforce Missouri's air quality standards, and this
section is not found in the approved SIP.
We are also partially disapproving revisions to Missouri rule, 10
CSR 10-6.260, Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds. Revisions to
Section (3), Table 1, regarding the emission rate for the Kansas City
Power & Light's Hawthorn and Montrose Station facilities are not
consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires, in part, that the plan include emission limitations
to meet the requirements of the Act, including the requirement in
Section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be adequate to attain and maintain
ambient air quality standards. In addition, 40 CFR 51.112 requires that
the plan demonstrate that rules contained in the SIP are adequate to
attain the ambient air quality standards. We believe that these
requirements have not been met with respect to the Hawthorn and
Montrose Station limits. We note that the Hawthorn unit is subject to a
Federally-enforceable state permit which limits sulfur emissions to .12
pounds per million BTU heat input on a thirty-day rolling average
basis. Although the facility must comply with this more stringent limit
(and all other units listed in the rule must comply with more stringent
limits established in permits), the SIP must reflect requirements that
ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The state rule, with
respect to the Hawthorn and Montrose Station facilities, does not
reflect such requirements.
We believe that the revisions, contained in Section (3), Table 1,
regarding sulfur dioxide emission rates for these plants are not
protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Although the
emission rates for both facilities have been lowered, the averaging
time for the rates has been dramatically increased, from a three-hour
average to an annual average. Missouri has not provided a
demonstration, as required by the CAA and EPA regulations, that the
standards, particularly, the three-hour and the twenty-four hour
standards, can be protected by an annual emission limit.
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
With respect to the portions of the submittal which EPA is
approving, the state submittal has met the public notice requirements
for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal
also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document that is part of this document and in the October 3,
2005, proposed rule, the approved portions of the revision meet the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove portions of the Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds
rule into the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). The approved
and disapproved portions are described above. We are incorporating rule
changes to subparagraph (3)(A)1,2,3, and 4, into Missouri's 111(d)
plan. We are not acting on a portion of this rule that regulates
ambient concentrations of sulfur compounds, because this provision is
not in the current SIP, and
[[Page 12625]]
EPA does not directly enforce Missouri's Air Quality Standards.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The
partial disapproval will not affect any existing state requirements
applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the state
submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's
disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement.
Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this disapproval action
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action approves and disapproves a
state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 May 12, 2006. 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: March 6, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising
the entry for ``10-6.260'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Missouri citation Title date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
* * * * * * *
Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
Regulations for the State of Missouri
[[Page 12626]]
* * * * * * *
10-6.260........................ Restriction of 05/30/04.......... 03/13/06 [insert Section (3)(B) is
Emission of FR page number not SIP approved.
Sulfur Compounds. where the The revision to
document begins]. the averaging
time and emission
rate per unit for
Kansas City Power
& Light, Hawthorn
Plant and
Montrose Station
in Table 1 of
(3)(C)2.B. is not
approved.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 62--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. Section 62.6350 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 62.6350 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) A revision to Missouri's 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid mist
production was state effective on May 30, 2004. This revision approves
the renumbering of the rule. The effective date of the amended plan is
April 12, 2006.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2378 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
