[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 48 (Monday, March 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9642-9644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5733]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO-30-1-7152a; FRL-5424-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this action the EPA gives conditional approval to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri for the
purpose of fulfilling the requirements set forth in the EPA's General
Conformity rule. The SIP was submitted by the state to satisfy the
Federal requirements in 40 CFR 51.852 and 93.151.
DATES: This action will be effective May 10, 1996, unless by April 10,
1996, adverse or critical comments are received.
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 EPA Air &
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Haugen at (913) 551-7877.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (the Act),
requires the EPA to promulgate criteria and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity of Federal actions to an
applicable implementation plan developed pursuant to section 110 and
Part D of the Act. Conformity to an SIP is defined in the Act as
meaning conformity to an SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards. The Federal agency responsible for the action is required to
determine if its actions conform to the applicable SIP. On November 30,
1993, EPA promulgated the final rule (hereafter referred to as the
General Conformity rule), which establishes the criteria and
[[Page 9643]]
procedures governing the determination of conformity for all Federal
actions, except Federal highway and transit actions.
The St. Louis area was designated nonattainment for ozone and
carbon monoxide (CO) in 1978. On November 6, 1991, EPA promulgated a
rule which classified the St. Louis area as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area, and as an unclassified nonattainment area for CO.
In this same rulemaking, EPA promulgated nonattainment designations for
three areas in Missouri which failed to achieve the NAAQS for lead. The
nonattainment areas are identified as portions of Iron County,
Missouri, in the vicinity of the Asarco primary lead smelting facility;
the area surrounding the Doe Run primary/secondary lead smelter-
refinery installation near Boss, Missouri; and the area in the vicinity
of the Doe Run primary lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. Kansas
City was redesignated to attainment for ozone, and a maintenance plan
was approved, in a June 23, 1992, Federal Register notice. Section
51.851 (93.151) of the General Conformity rule requires that states
submit an SIP revision containing the criteria and procedures for
assessing the conformity of Federal actions to the applicable SIP,
within 12 months after November 30, 1993. As the rule applies to all
nonattainment areas and maintenance areas, an SIP revision which
addresses the requirements of the General Conformity rule became due on
November 30, 1994.
II. Review of State Submittal
On February 14, 1995, the state of Missouri submitted a General
Conformity SIP revision. The submission included Missouri rule 10 CSR
10-6.300 (10-6.300), which applies to all areas in the state of
Missouri which are designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any
criteria pollutant or standard for which there is an NAAQS. The General
Conformity rule establishes the criteria for EPA approval of SIPs. See
40 CFR 51.851 and 93.151. These criteria provide that the state
provisions must be at least as stringent as the requirements specified
in EPA's General Conformity rule, and that they can be more stringent
only if they apply equally to Federal and nonfederal entities.
The state of Missouri chose to use the model General Conformity
rule developed by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA)/Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (ALAPCO). The STAPPA/ALAPCO model rule added clarifying
changes consistent with the intent of the Federal rule. The STAPPA/
ALAPCO rule also contains ``more stringent'' and ``lateral'' options
which change the substance of the Federal rule. Missouri did not adopt
any of these options from the model rule.
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.300 was adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission, after proper notice and public hearing, on
January 12, 1995, and became effective on May 28, 1995. The rule
applies to all areas in the state of Missouri which are designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any criteria pollutant or standard for
which there is an NAAQS.
III. Conditional Approval
EPA has determined that SIP revisions which use, verbatim, the
model rule developed by STAPPA/ALAPCO are not approvable. Two sentences
added by STAPPA/ALAPCO as clarifying language make the model rule more
stringent than the Federal General Conformity rule. Missouri rules 10
CSR 10-6.300(3)(C)4 and (9)(B)2 include this language. EPA did not make
a determination as to the approvability of the language in the STAPPA/
ALAPCO rule until after the state of Missouri officially submitted the
required SIP revision. However, in a letter dated December 7, 1995,
from David Shorr, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), to Dennis Grams, Regional Administrator, EPA, the state has
committed to change the unapprovable sections and resubmit the SIP
revision, within one year from December 7, 1995.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may grant a conditional
approval of this revision based on the state's commitment to correct
deficiencies by a date certain, but not later than one year after the
date of approval of the plan revision. Furthermore, section 110(k)(4)
of the Act states that, should the state fail to meet its commitment,
this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. As the state
has committed to correct this SIP revision within one year from
December 7, 1995, EPA grants a conditional approval of the state's
submittal.
EPA ACTION
By this action, EPA grants conditional approval of Missouri's
February 14, 1995, submittal. This SIP revision substantially meets the
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.851 and 93.151, except as noted
above.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in the Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time.
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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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, 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-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals 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, EPA 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 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)).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it
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
[[Page 9644]]
disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement.
Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because
it does not remove existing state requirements or substitute a new
Federal requirement.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by
a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this SIP, the state has elected to adopt the
program provided for under section 110 of the CAA. These rules may bind
state and local governments to perform certain actions and also require
the private sector to perform certain duties. To the extent that the
rules being finalized for approval by this action will impose new
requirements, sources are already subject to these regulations under
state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state or local
governments, or to the private sector, result from this final action.
The EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
state or local governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
EPA has determined that these rules result in no additional costs to
tribal government.
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 10, 1996. 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,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 6, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart AA--Missouri
2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(93) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(93) On February 14, 1995, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) submitted a new rule which pertains to general
conformity.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) New rule 10 CSR 10-6.300, entitled Conformity of General
Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, effective May 28, 1995.
3. Section 52.1323 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1323 Approval Status.
* * * * *
(h) The state of Missouri commits to revise 10 CSR 6.300 to remove
language in paragraphs (3)(C)4. and (9)(B) which is more stringent than
the language in the Federal General Conformity rule. In a letter to Mr.
Dennis Grams, Regional Administrator, EPA, dated December 7, 1995, Mr.
David Shorr, Director, MDNR, stated:
We commit to initiating a change in the wording in the above
paragraphs [paragraphs (3)(C)4. and (9)(B)] of Missouri rule 10 CSR
10-6.300, and to submit the change to EPA within one year from the
date of this letter [December 7, 1995]. We intend that the change
will give our rule the same stringency as the General Conformity
Rule.
[FR Doc. 96-5733 Filed 3-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P