[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