[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10968-10976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 002-1002(b); FRL-5442-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri
to meet the 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan (15% Plan) (ROPP) requirements of
section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (the Act).
The EPA is proposing a limited approval because the 15% Plan, submitted
by Missouri, will result in significant emission reductions from the
1990 baseline and, thus, will improve air quality. Simultaneously, the
EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan because it fails
to demonstrate sufficient reductions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) to meet the 15% ROPP requirements. The EPA is proposing a limited
disapproval of the 15% Plan to the extent that the emission reductions
associated with Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be achieved.
The EPA is also proposing approval of specific control measures in
the 15% Plan because these rules will strengthen the SIP. However, the
EPA is proposing conditional approval of the control measure for the
control of emissions from municipal solid waste landfills and for the
control of emissions from solvent cleanup operations. A final action on
these control measures will incorporate these rules into the Federally
approved SIP.
The EPA is proposing full approval of Missouri's 1990 Base Year
Inventory. The inventory was submitted by the state to fulfill the
requirements of section 182(b) of the Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Royan W. Teter, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan Teter at (913) 551-7609 or Wayne
Leidwanger at (913) 551-7607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The St. Louis area was designated nonattainment for ozone in 1978.
On November 6, 1991, the EPA promulgated a rule which classified the
St. Louis area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area based on its
design value of 0.138 ppm. The nonattainment area consists of Madison,
Monroe, and St. Claire counties in Illinois; and Franklin, Jefferson,
St. Charles, and St. Louis counties and St. Louis City in Missouri.
Section 182(b) of the Act requires that each state in which all or
part of a moderate nonattainment area is located, submit, by November
15, 1992, a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator.
This inventory is for calendar year 1990 and is designated the base
year inventory. The inventory should include both anthropogenic and
biogenic sources of VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon
monoxide (CO), and must address actual emissions of these pollutants in
the nonattainment area during peak ozone season. The inventory should
include all point and area sources, as well as all highway and
nonhighway mobile sources.
In addition, section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires ozone
nonattainment area classifications of moderate and above to develop
plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent from the 1990 baseline. The
plans were to be submitted by November 15, 1993, and the reductions are
required to be achieved within six years of enactment or November 15,
1996. The Act also set limitations on the creditability of certain
types of reductions. Specifically, a state cannot take credit for
reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
measures (new car emission standards) promulgated prior to 1990, or for
reductions resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990 or required under section
211(h) of the Act, which restricts gasoline RVP. Furthermore, the Act
does not allow credit for corrections to vehicle I/M Programs or
corrections to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules as
these programs were required prior to 1990.
In today's action, the EPA proposes to fully approve the plan
element relating to the emission inventory. With regard to the 15%
Plan, the EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval. The
EPA also proposes to conditionally approve the 15% Plan as it relates
to the reduction credit claimed for the state's municipal solid waste
landfill rule.
II. Review of State Submittal
A. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory (EI)
As noted above, the CAA requires the submission of a comprehensive
EI for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone. The regulatory
significance of these inventories is established in section 182(b)(1)
of the Act. These inventories, termed ``base year'' inventories,
provide a baseline from which reasonable further progress towards
meeting necessary emissions reductions is measured, and provide the
foundation for the development of control strategies for attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
[[Page 10969]]
1. Inventory Development
The EPA issued guidance documents on emissions inventory
development were provided to all agencies involved in EI development
for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. A review of the inventory
indicates that it was developed consistent with the criteria set forth
in the guidance.
A detailed description of the development process for each portion
of Missouri's 1990 base year emission inventory can be found in the
EPA's technical support document (TSD). Region VII received a revised
draft 1990 base year inventory from Missouri on February 12, 1993. EPA
Region VII, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Emissions Inventory Branch (EIB), EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, and
contractors reviewed the inventory. Comments were sent to the state,
and a public hearing on the draft inventory, as well as the draft 15%
Plan, was held before the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC)
on January 27, 1994 and was adopted by the MACC on February 24, 1994.
The EPA received another draft revision of the base year inventory,
in conjunction with another draft of Missouri's 15% Plan, on November
1, 1994. This inventory revision was adopted by the MACC, after proper
notice and public hearing, on January 12, 1995. Missouri's final 1990
baseline emissions inventory was submitted to the EPA on January 20,
1995, in conjunction with Missouri's 15% ROPP. The EPA issued a finding
of completeness with respect to these submissions on July 13, 1995.
2. Review Criteria
The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's 1990 base year emission
inventory based on a Levels I, II, and III review process. The
inventory was reviewed in accordance with requirements specified in a
document entitled ``Quality Review Guidelines for 1990 Base Year
Emission Inventories,'' OAQPS, Research Triangle Park , North Carolina,
August 1992, which details the Level I and II review procedures. Level
III review procedures are specified in a memorandum dated October 7,
1992, from J. David Mobley, EIB Chief, to Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-
X, entitled ``Final Emission Inventory Level III Acceptance Criteria,''
and revised in a memorandum from John S. Seitz, OAQPS Director, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Region I-X, entitled ``Emission
Inventory Issues,'' June 24, 1993.
The Level I and II review process is used to determine that all
components of the base year inventory are present. The review also
evaluates the level of supporting documentation provided by the state,
and assesses whether the emissions were developed according to current
EPA guidance. Level I and II criteria must be passed before the Level
III final criteria can be considered. Missouri's submittal of the 1990
base year EI passed the Level I and II criteria.
The Level III review process consists of an evaluation of the EI in
terms of ten criteria. For a base year EI to be acceptable, it must
pass all of the acceptance criteria. A summary of the EPA's Level III
review of Missouri's 1990 base year EI is given below:
1. An approved Inventory Preparation Plan (IPP) must be provided,
and the quality assurance procedures identified in the IPP must be
performed and its implementation documented. Missouri submitted, and
the EPA approved, an IPP for the St. Louis nonattainment area.
2. Adequate documentation must be provided to enable the reviewer
to determine the emission estimation procedures and the data sources
used to develop the inventory. The final inventory report for St. Louis
contains adequate documentation to determine the estimation procedures
and data sources used to develop the inventory.
3. The point source inventory must be complete. Evidence suggests
that the inventory is comprehensive and includes all relevant sources
within the nonattainment area.
4. Point source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance. Missouri's 1990 base year
emissions inventory indicates that the point source calculations were
performed in accord with current EPA guidance.
5. The area source inventory must be complete. A review of the
source categories included in Missouri's base year inventory reveals
that Missouri included the appropriate source categories.
6. The area source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance. The documentation for the area
sources portion of Missouri's inventory contains example calculations
which are consistent with the relevant EPA guidance.
7. Biogenic emissions must have been prepared according to current
EPA guidance. The biogenic emissions were calculated using the EPA PC-
BEIS model.
8. The method used to develop vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)
estimates (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a network
transportation planning model) must follow the EPA guidance. The East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC) is the metropolitan planning
organization responsible for developing VMT estimates for the St. Louis
nonattainment area. On May 5, 1993, the Missouri Highway and
Transportation Department (MHTD) requested Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) approval of the EWGCC's use of the MINUTP travel
demand model as a basis for Missouri's SIP. FHWA concurred on the use
of MINUTP for the St. Louis SIP in a June 7, 1993, letter to MHTD
citing several criteria to be met. EWGCC met the FHWA criteria in three
reports which are included in the SIP documentation pertaining to the
mobile sources inventory. The EPA concurs that the method used to
develop VMT estimates was adequately described and documented.
9. The appropriate version of the MOBILE model must be correctly
used to produce emission factors for each of the vehicle classes. The
most current version of the EPA's MOBILE model, MOBILE5a, was correctly
used to calculate on-road emission factors for the St. Louis
nonattainment area.
10. Nonroad mobile emissions must be prepared according to current
EPA guidance for all of the source categories. The nonroad mobile
emission estimates were correctly prepared according to current EPA
guidance.
Based on the EPA's Level III review, Missouri has satisfied all of
the requirements for purposes of providing a comprehensive, accurate,
and current inventory of actual emissions in the ozone nonattainment
area. For documentation of the EPA's evaluation, including details of
the review procedure, the reader is referred to the EPA's TSD.
3. Proposed Action
The state has submitted a complete inventory containing point,
area, biogenic, on-road, and nonroad mobile source data, and
accompanying documentation. The EPA is proposing full approval of the
1990 base year ozone emission inventory submitted to the EPA for the
St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment area. The following table
summarizes the 1990 base year inventory for the St. Louis nonattainment
area and boundary point sources within 25 miles.
[[Page 10970]]
1990 St. Louis Ozone SIP Inventory Summary
[Tons per ozone season weekday (TPD)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions CO emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources................................................... 87.37 377.61 24.33
Area sources.................................................... 87.74 29.47 28.99
Mobile sources.................................................. 123.50 135.00 913.20
Nonroad sources................................................. 64.30 114.32 408.08
Biogenics....................................................... 189.70 0.00 0.00
-----------------------------------------------
Total emissions........................................... 552.61 656.40 1374.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 15% Plan
As noted above, section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas develop plans to reduce areawide
VOC emissions from a 1990 baseline by 15 percent, net of growth, in the
nonattainment area. The plans were to be submitted by November 15,
1993, and the reductions were required to be achieved within six years
after enactment or November 15, 1996. The CAA also set limitations on
the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically, states
cannot take credit for reductions achieved by FMVCP measures or for
reductions due to controls on RVP promulgated prior to 1990, or
required under section 211(h) of the Act which restricts gasoline RVP.
Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit for corrections for I/M
programs or corrections to RACT rules where these programs were
required prior to 1990.
The state of Missouri submitted a 15% Plan for the St. Louis
nonattainment area on November 15, 1993. On January 14, 1994, the EPA
notified Governor Mel Carnahan that the submittal was incomplete. The
submittal did not contain officially adopted regulations and, in the
case of the enhanced motor vehicle I/M program, the state lacked the
appropriate legislative authority to adopt regulations. Pursuant to
Sec. 110(k)(1)(C) of the Act, a determination of incompleteness is
treated as a failure to submit a plan. As such, one of the sanctions
provided in Sec. 179(b) would be imposed 18 months from the date of the
finding, or in this case, by July 14, 1995.
A subsequent 15% Plan was adopted by the MACC, after proper notice
and public hearing, on January 12, 1995, and submitted to the EPA on
January 13, 1995. Two supplements were adopted by the MACC on March 30,
1995, and submitted to the EPA on July 11, 1995. The EPA found the
entire 15% Plan submittal complete on July 13, 1995, thereby stopping
the sanctions clock.
The EPA is proposing a limited approval of Missouri's 15% Plan
because the Plan will result in significant emission reductions from
the 1990 baseline and, thus, will improve air quality. Simultaneously,
the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan because it
fails to demonstrate sufficient reductions of VOCs to meet the 15% ROPP
requirements.
The intent of a 15% Plan is to determine a target level of
emissions and provide for any reductions needed to meet that target by
November 15, 1996. The target level of emissions for the St. Louis
nonattainment area is 263.9 TPD. The emission reductions necessary to
meet the target are 53.7 TPD. The 15% Plan, submitted by the state of
Missouri, includes specific control measures towards meeting the
emissions target.
The 15% Plan, submitted by the state of Missouri, includes specific
control measures used to achieve reductions credit. In the technical
review section of this document, each control measure is evaluated as
to its ability to strengthen the SIP and to the validity of the
emission reductions projected. The majority of the control measures in
the 15% Plan will strengthen the SIP and, therefore, the EPA is
proposing approval or conditional approval of these specific measures
and limited or conditional approval of the reduction credit claimed for
the associated emission reductions. However, for the following control
measure, the EPA believes the amount of emission reduction claimed by
the state is not appropriate.
I/M Program
Section 182 of the Act requires states with moderate ozone
nonattainment areas to implement a basic I/M program. A basic I/M
program began operation in St. Louis in January 1984. Numerous audits
of this program indicated shortfalls in emission reductions, and the
EPA issued an SIP call to correct deficiencies in the I/M SIP.
The state of Missouri developed a centralized enhanced I/M program
to correct deficiencies in the basic I/M program and to obtain credits
toward the 15% Plan requirement. This enhanced I/M program is a
critical part of the 15% Plan because it provides the single largest
source of emission reductions towards meeting the 15 percent reduction
requirement. Based on a series of MOBILE model runs, the state has
estimated that the enhanced I/M program accounts for 23.13 TPD in
emission reductions. However, the EPA notes that individual mobile
source controls, e.g., low RVP fuels, I/M programs, repair technician
training, etc., have synergistic effects within the MOBILE model when
considering multiple control programs. Therefore, the reduction from
the enhanced I/M program, when considered with the other components of
the mobile source control program, is approximately 19.26 TPD of the
29.41 TPD of VOC reductions that will result from the combined effects
of 7.0 RVP gasoline, enhanced I/M, and repair technician training. If
the state chooses to implement an enhanced I/M program, it must
demonstrate that the program, in combination with other components of
the 15% Plan, will achieve the overall level of emission reductions
necessary to reach the target level of emissions in the 15% Plan.
On May 13, 1994, the state received the legislative authority to
establish a centralized, enhanced I/M program for the counties of St.
Charles, Jefferson, and St. Louis, and the city of St. Louis. The state
submitted an SIP revision upgrading the basic I/M program to an
enhanced program on September 1, 1994, and the EPA found the submittal
complete on the same day.
During the 1995 session of the Missouri legislature, funding for
the operation of enhanced I/M program was deleted from the state's
budget. The EPA has also identified other deficiencies in the I/M
element which are discussed in a separate rulemaking, which is
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and TSD for the I/M
SIP element of the Missouri SIP. The EPA
[[Page 10971]]
has determined that the emission reduction assumed to result from
implementation of the enhanced I/M program cannot be expected to be
achieved. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the
15% Plan, to the extent that the emission reductions associated with
Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be achieved.
1. Technical Review
A. Calculation of Target Level Emissions
The calculation of the total VOC emissions reductions required to
meet the 15% Plan requirements equals the sum of 15 percent of the
adjusted inventory, plus reductions to offset any growth that takes
place between 1990 and 1996, plus any reductions that result from
corrections to the I/M or VOC RACT rules. The following table
summarizes the calculations for the St. Louis nonattainment area.
Calculation of Required Reduction (Tons/Day)
1990 Emission inventory....................................... 357.5
1990 Adjusted................................................. 311.9
15% of adjusted............................................... 46.8
Total expected reductions (RACT, noncreditable FMVCP and RVP,
and I/M)..................................................... 94.5
1996 Target................................................... 263.9
1996 Projection (1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-
1990 controls)............................................... 317.6
Required reduction............................................ 53.7
It must be noted that Missouri's point source projections
methodology, which is included in the 1996 projection portion of the
above table, deviates from that recommended by the EPA. The projected
point source inventory in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal was
developed using the 1990 adjusted base year inventory, actual 1992 data
for VOCs based on emission inventory questionnaires from sources in the
area, and growth factors derived from Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
On January 23, 1996, Missouri submitted a revision to the 15% Plan
which utilizes the methodology discussed below to project the point
source portion of the 1990 15% plan base year inventory to 1996. The
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) believes, and the EPA
concurs, that the methodology that it has used to project the 1990
adjusted base year inventory to the attainment year of 1996 uses the
best projection data available at this time. A thorough review of
Missouri's modified approach was conducted by the EPA to determine
consistency with the intent of the EPA guidance. The reader is referred
to the EPA's TSD for a detailed analysis of Missouri's methodology and
the EPA's rationale in proposing approval of this method.
As noted in the above table, the total creditable state reductions
needed to meet the 15 percent requirement are 53.7 TPD. The state's
methodology for selecting growth factors and applying them to the 1990
base year emissions inventory to estimate the growth in emissions from
1990 to 1996 is acceptable. However, it must be noted that the point
source projection methodology submitted on January 23, 1996, resulted
in a different total required emission reduction than the one in the
July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal, which was 51.7 TPD. Missouri has yet
to submit the new total required emission reduction to the EPA as a
revision to its 15% Plan. Missouri submitted a draft of the revised
total to the EPA on February 8, 1996, and will hold a public hearing on
the revision on April 25, 1996. As such, the EPA is proposing to
approve the revised total of emission reductions required of Missouri's
15% Plan with the understanding that the state will submit the revision
in a timely manner prior to the EPA taking final action on Missouri's
15% Plan.
B. Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions
Missouri has submitted a plan to achieve the required emission
reductions. A summary of the creditable and noncreditable emission
reductions in Missouri's final 15% Plan control measures are summarized
in the following table. Note that if all the control measures in
Missouri's 15% Plan were creditable, the total emission reductions
would exceed the total required VOC reduction target by 0.16 TPD.
Some of the emission credit claimed for specific measures is
different than those submitted in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan
submittal. The formally submitted 15% Plan includes a list of control
measures which the state claimed would achieve total VOC emission
reductions of 55.80 TPD.
The original list of emission reductions claimed reductions from
sources subject to the hazardous organic National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (HON) rule as .36 TPD, as compared to
.08 TPD in the above table. The original .36 TPD includes .27 TPD
reductions from the inclusion of Borden Deco Products as an affected
source. The state has since determined that this facility is not
subject to the HON NESHAP rule, and has adjusted the amount of credit
claimed accordingly.
An emission reduction credit of .6 TPD from Early Toxics Reductions
was included in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. This emission
reduction credit was based on an Early Reductions Program application
submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, Inc. This application has since been
withdrawn. Therefore, the state has eliminated the emission reduction
credit claimed for Early Toxics Reductions.
Finally, the state claimed an emission reduction credit of 1.0 TPD
for rule effectiveness improvements in its officially submitted 15%
Plan. The state has since chosen not to implement this program.
Therefore, the above table does not include a 1.0 TPD emission
reduction credit for this control measure.
Missouri has yet to submit these changes to the EPA as an SIP
revision. Missouri submitted a draft of the revised list of VOC control
measures to the EPA on February 8, 1996, and will hold a public hearing
on the revision on April 25, 1996. As such, the EPA is proposing to
approve this element of Missouri's 15% Plan with the understanding that
the state will submit the revised 15% Plan projections in a timely
manner prior to the EPA taking final action on Missouri's 15% Plan. If,
however, the state fails to finally submit these changes as an SIP
revision, the EPA intends to disapprove the plan as it relates to the
credits discussed above and the emission reduction target.
The following is a concise description of each control measure
submitted by the state to achieve the reduction credit in the 15% Plan.
In general, the EPA is proposing approval of the following control
measures as a strengthening of the SIP, and is proposing limited
approval of the emission reductions projected in the state submittal
for these measures. However, in some instances, the EPA is proposing
limited approval of the emission reductions claimed with the
understanding that the state will fulfill certain requirements in a
timely manner before the EPA takes final action on the 15% Plan. If the
state fails to submit the identified corrections in a timely manner,
the EPA intends to disapprove the plan as it relates to these
requirements. Specific details are outlined within the description of
the affected control measure.
Ract Fix-ups
Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to make corrections
to their RACT rules to make up for deficiencies (e.g., improper
exemptions) in preamendment SIPs. The emissions
[[Page 10972]]
reductions associated with corrections accounting for missing rules,
incorrect emission limits, or required capture systems are not
creditable towards the 15 percent reduction requirements of the Act;
however, the amount of emissions reductions from such corrections must
still be quantified as they are a part of the total required
reductions. What follows is a discussion regarding Missouri's RACT fix-
ups and the associated emissions reductions.
1. Control of Emissions from Aluminum Foil Rolling [Missouri rule 10
CSR 10-5.451]
Alumax Foils Inc., located within the city of St. Louis, emits
approximately 12.5 TPD of VOCs during the production of aluminum foil.
Prior to 1990, the facility was not considered a large source of VOC
emissions. In 1989, the EPA changed the definition of VOCs by removing
the exemption for low vapor pressure organics. The primary source of
air emissions from Alumax had been exempted from the pre-1989
definition of VOCs. Under the new definition, Alumax is a major source
of VOCs within the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area and must be
controlled by RACT. The MDNR developed an RACT rule for aluminum foil
rolling, 10 CSR 10-5.451, ``Control of Emissions from Aluminum Foil
Rolling.'' The rule also requires controls beyond RACT for large
aluminum foil rolling mills. MDNR claims average VOC emission
reductions of 3.0 TPD for these controls. The EPA concurs with this
claimed reduction for 15% Plan purposes.
2. Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-
5.440]
During 1993, MDNR determined that Continental Baking Company is a
major source that was never subject to RACT. MDNR promulgated a
regulation that will control the VOC emissions from this bakery. The
facility's actual VOC emissions from bakery ovens in 1993 were 71 tons
per year (TPY). This rule requires the facility to install emissions
control equipment which achieves an overall VOC emission reduction of
98 percent from baking ovens. The EPA concurs with Missouri's estimate
that VOC emissions will be reduced by 0.2 TPD as a result of the
regulation.
It must be noted that as of the date of this action, the rule does
not specify a reference method by which compliance is to be determined.
The EPA communicated this deficiency to Missouri via letter to the
staff director of Missouri's Air Pollution Control Program (APCP) on
August 18, 1995. Missouri has since amended the rule to include the
necessary compliance provisions. A public hearing addressing the
revisions was held on January 25, 1996. The MACC adopted the revised
rule on February 29, 1996. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve
this rule, with the understanding that the revised rule will be
officially submitted prior to the EPA taking a final action on
Missouri's 15% Plan. If the revised rule is not submitted in a timely
manner, the EPA intends to disapprove the rule.
3. Control of Emissions from Offset Lithographic Printing [Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-5.442]
This rule reduces emissions from sources performing a plano graphic
method of printing known as offset lithography. The process involves
the utilization of printing and nonprinting areas which are essentially
in the same plane on the surface of a thin metal printing plate.
The offset lithography rule will result in a reduction of 0.8 TPD
of VOC emissions. A reduction of this magnitude represents an
approximate 57 percent control of the 1.4 TPD of point source emissions
from major sources. The reduction includes rule effectiveness (RE). The
EPA concurs with the state's projected emission reductions.
Mobile Sources
1. Control of Gasoline RVP [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.443]
This rule changes the RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 7.0 psi. The
rule is based on a per gallon compliance standard in which every gallon
of gasoline sold within the nonattainment area should meet the 7.0 psi
requirement. Refiners accomplish this RVP reduction by modifying the
refining process to remove the more volatile gasoline components such
as butane. The low RVP fuel control reduces evaporative emissions from
both on-road vehicles and nonroad vehicles and equipment and provides
associated reductions in gasoline evaporation losses from refueling and
fuel storage/distribution.
The EPA concurs with the 9.55 TPD in expected VOC emission
reductions associated with this rule. However, as noted in the
discussion regarding the I/M program, individual mobile source controls
have synergistic effects within the MOBILE model when considering
multiple control programs. Any changes to the mobile source control
strategy which the state chooses to make may affect the emission
reductions claimed for this measure, and the state would have to
demonstrate that the overall reductions are still consistent with the
target level of emissions in the 15% Plan.
2. Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
The state has included several TCMs such as a work trip reduction
program, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, and a
gasoline price increase from the Missouri fuel tax in its 15% Plan that
have projected emission reductions of 1.795 TPD. However, Missouri is
only claiming a 1.0 TPD emission reduction credit in its 15% Plan. The
EPA has reviewed the TCMs included in the state's 15% Plan and agrees
with the state's assessment of creditable reductions.
Point Source/Area Source Controls
1. Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading, and Transfer [Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-5.220]
This rule requires Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery equipment
for petroleum facilities in the St. Louis nonattainment area. The rule
incorporates the limit imposed by the new Federal NESHAP for Stage I
which limits total organic compound emissions to 10 milligrams per
liter of gasoline loaded at gasoline terminals. It incorporates the
EPA's ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control
Programs.'' The rule establishes permitting procedures for gasoline
refueling facilities. It sets requirements for gasoline deliveries to
underground storage tanks and requires that vent pipes for storage
tanks be equipped with pressure vacuum valves. It also establishes an
Advisory Committee to provide a forum for discussion between the
regulated community and government agencies.
The state claims, and the EPA agrees with, an emission reduction of
4.2 TPD from this rule.
2. Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.455 will require large users of cleanup
solvents to reduce the amount of emissions from such solvents. MDNR has
determined that the rule will definitely affect three facilities, and
has determined the emission reduction credit accordingly. All of these
facilities are automobile manufacturers in the St. Louis area. The rule
allows the affected sources two options for compliance. The first
option is to show a 30 percent reduction in total solvent usage with
respect to the base year of 1990. The second option is to perform
solvent usage studies, screening tests, and trial evaluations as
[[Page 10973]]
a means of reducing solvent usage. With this option, the affected
facility will submit a written summary of the results and a proposal
for reducing cleanup solvent emissions to the MDNR by a specified
deadline. The proposal is subject to approval by the MDNR director. The
three affected facilities produce a total of 946 TPY of VOCs from
cleanup solvents. In calculating reductions which are creditable
towards the CAA-mandated 15 percent, Missouri has assumed that all of
the affected facilities will opt for option one. Missouri has provided
documentation showing that the affected facilities have selected that
option. A 30 percent reduction would result in a decrease of 283.8 TPY
of VOCs. This translates to a daily VOC emissions reduction of 0.91
TPD. Therefore, the EPA concurs with Missouri's estimate.
However, because the rule allows sources to choose option two,
which does not require an equivalent reduction and does not provide
standards for determining an acceptable alternative emission reduction,
the EPA does not believe the rule (as opposed to the emission reduction
credit) can be approved. Missouri has agreed to revise the rule to
eliminate option two, and has agreed to provide a commitment to revise
the rule. Therefore, the EPA proposes to conditionally approve the rule
with the understanding that Missouri will submit the appropriate
commitment prior to the EPA's final rulemaking on the plan.
3. Permanent Plant Closings
The 15% Plan indicates that nine plants have permanently ceased
operations in the nonattainment area. All nine are listed as
significant emitters of VOCs in the 1990 base year inventory. The VOC
reductions from permanent plant closings total 6951 lb/day or 3.48 TPD.
The EPA concurs with the credit associated with permanent plant
closings.
4. Open Burning Restrictions [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.070]
This rule will reduce VOC emissions from the burning of residential
wastes primarily in rural areas where open burning is still allowed.
The regulation would make it illegal for any residence to burn trash or
other man-made refuse. The burning of agricultural wastes from farming
operations will still be allowed in areas where it is currently
permitted. The burning of yard waste such as leaves would be restricted
during the ozone season. The VOC reductions from this control are 2.6
TPD which represents an overall 80 percent control effectiveness which
includes RE. The EPA concurs with credit associated with this rule.
5. Control of Emissions From Traffic Coatings
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.450 limits the VOC content in paints used
for traffic coating. This rule applies only in the St. Louis
nonattainment area. The maximum VOC content is set at 150 grams VOC/
liter. MHTD is the largest user of traffic coatings in the St. Louis
nonattainment area. VOC emissions from traffic coatings account for
1.65 TPD in the 1990 base year inventory. Projected 1996 traffic
coating emissions are 1.69 TPD.
The limit set by this rule is 63 percent lower than the VOC content
of paints used in 1990 by MHTD. For purposes of the 15 percent
calculations, Missouri has assumed that traffic paint users in 1990
were using coatings similar in VOC content to those used by MHTD. Using
a mass balance approach, Missouri has estimated a 60 percent reduction
can be expected as a result of this rule. This assumption corresponds
to a reduction in VOC emissions of 1.0 TPD. The EPA concurs with the
reductions as calculated by MDNR.
6. VOC Emission Reductions From ``Voluntary'' Reductions
Two sources within the nonattainment area, Leonard's Metal Inc.,
and Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemical Company, have reduced their VOC
emissions such that they are creditable towards the rate-of-progress
requirements of the Act. Although the facilties elected to reduce
emissions, the reductions are legally binding on the Companies.
Leonard's Metal entered into a Consent Agreement with the EPA
stipulating that the company will reduce its use of trichloroethylene
and methyl ethyl ketone.
Mallinckrodt shut down two processes associated with the production
of tannin.
As noted above, Leonard's Metal entered into a Consent Agreement
with the EPA. The agreement requires that the facility reduce its
emissions of methyl ethyl ketone by 50 percent and its emissions of
trichloroethylene by 100 percent by 1996. The total VOC reductions
claimed from Leonard's Metal are 0.04 TPD.
The permanent shutdown of certain processes resulted in 214.7 TPY
in VOC reductions from Mallinckrodt; however, the company elected to
bank 182.5 TPY consistent with Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.060, leaving 32.2
TPY or 0.10 TPD (assuming 312 days of operation) creditable towards the
15% Plan as they have been permanently retired.
Based on additional material submitted to the EPA on February 8,
1996, by the state, the EPA concurs with the emission reduction credit
claimed. However, this additional material must be submitted to the EPA
as a revision to Missouri's July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. The
state intends to include the required supporting material in its April
25, 1996, public hearing on revisions to its 15% Plan. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing approval of emission reduction claimed with the
understanding that the state will submit the required material in a
timely manner to the EPA as an SIP revision before the EPA takes final
action on the state's 15% Plan. As indicated previously, if the state
does not make the appropriate revision, the EPA intends to disapprove
the plan as it relates to these claimed reductions.
7. Control of Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Six municipal solid waste landfills are located in the St. Louis
area. Landfills emit VOCs, including methane, through the decomposition
of solid waste. The 1990 base year inventory indicates the nonmethane
VOCs emitted from these six landfills are 1.51 TPD. The submitted 15%
Plan includes a discussion of a rule which will result in a 1.48 TPD
reduction in VOC emissions. However, the submitted 15% Plan does not
include a final rule for this control measure.
The state of Missouri plans to use a yet-to-be-promulgated EPA
standard to develop a rule which controls emissions from all six
landfills in the St. Louis nonattainment area. However, final
promulgation of the EPA's emission standards for landfills has been
significantly delayed. In a October 21, 1994, letter to Gale Wright,
former Chief of the Air Branch, EPA, from Roger Randolph, Director,
MDNR, APCP, the state commits to developing this rule with
implementation in 1996. The state has made every effort to move forward
with this rule despite delays in the promulgation of the EPA's emission
standards. Missouri submitted a draft of a rule for the EPA comment on
May 17, 1995. The EPA provided comments on the draft rule in a June 26,
1995, letter to Jim Kavanaugh, Chief, Planning Section, MDNR, APCP.
Therefore, the EPA finds it reasonable to propose conditional approval
to the emissions reduction credit claimed in the submitted 15% Plan.
The EPA believes that conditional approval of this element of the 15%
Plan is also appropriate because, unlike the enhanced I/M element which
makes up over 40 percent of the claimed emission
[[Page 10974]]
reduction in the 15% Plan, the landfill rule would account for only 3
percent of the claimed emission reduction credit.
The state must submit the final rule to the EPA by no later than
November 15, 1996. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may
grant a conditional approval of this rule based on the state's
commitment to submit the rule 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 submit this rule by November
15, 1996, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of the emission
reductions claimed.
Federal Control Measures
1. Control of VOC Emissions From Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
The EPA is currently working on a Federal rulemaking that will
control VOC emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings. The rule will limit the VOC content of certain types of
coatings. The Federal rule will affect the manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, and users of various types of paints and coatings and will
apply nationwide.
On March 22, 1995, guidance was issued by the Director of the EPA's
OAQPS regarding credit for 15% ROPPs for reductions from the AIM
coating rule. This guidance clarified the EPA's estimates of the
overall reductions expected to be achieved by the AIM rule. The
guidance assessed the reductions at 20 percent and allows states to
take full credit for this reduction without adopting or committing to
backup measures with the stipulation that states adopt any rules
necessary to make up for shortfalls, should the EPA's rule not achieve
a 20 percent reduction. Based on the March 22, 1995, guidance, Missouri
has claimed a reduction credit of 3.05 TPD from the forthcoming Federal
rule.
2. Control of VOC Emissions From Benzene Transfer Operations
The National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Benzene
Transfer Operations, codified at 40 CFR Part 61, subpart BB requires
owners or operators of benzene production facilities and bulk terminals
to install and maintain control devices which reduce benzene emissions
to the atmosphere by 98 percent (by weight) by July 23, 1991. There is
only one affected source within the Missouri portion of the St. Louis
nonattainment area--the Slay Bulk Terminal. For purposes of calculating
the available credit from this source of reductions, Missouri has
assumed that compliance has been achieved and that the difference in
emissions reported in 1990 and 1993 is fully creditable.
Emissions were reduced over that time frame by approximately 99.5
percent (0.74 TPD). Although this level of reduction may have occurred,
credit for this level of reduction is not allowed. The benzene rule
regulates the efficiency of the control device rather than stipulating
a specific emission limitation. The appropriate level of credit should
have been determined by calculating the difference between a 98 percent
reduction in projected 1996 emissions and the base year emissions from
this source. The EPA estimates the actual available credit to be
slightly higher than the state's estimate. Therefore, the EPA will
accept the state's claimed emission reduction credit towards the 15
percent reduction requirement.
3. Control of VOC Emissions From Autobody Refinishing Operations
The EPA plans to promulgate a national rule limiting the VOC
content of various autobody refinishing materials. The EPA issued
guidance in the form of a policy memorandum on November 29, 1994,
finding it acceptable to allow states a 37 percent credit for
reductions expected to occur as a result of the national rule.
Approximately 250 automobile refinishers in the nonattainment area
would be affected.
Missouri conducted a survey of the automobile refinishers in the
St. Louis area. The survey requested information on quantities of
refinishing coatings used annually, quantities of solvents used
annually, and number of jobs completed over certain time frames. The
survey was used to develop the inventory category for automobile
refinishing. The VOC inventory was determined to be 2.1 TPD, thus the
reductions from the Federal rule will be 0.78 TPD.
4. Tier I FMVCP
The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). Since
the standards were adopted after the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent
reduction goal. These control measures will result in a 0.6 TPY
reduction in VOC emissions during the pre-1996 time frame as calculated
using the MOBILE model; however, in later years, greater emission
reductions are expected as more fleet turnover occurs.
5. HON
The HON consists of four subparts setting standards for emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and six non-SOCMI processes. Many of the
HAPs regulated by the HON are also classified as VOCs. Recognizing this
overlap, the EPA issued a May 6, 1993, policy memorandum indicating
that a 5 percent reduction in VOC emissions is expected from sources
complying with the HON rule. In anticipation of such reductions, states
are allowed to receive 5 percent credit towards the 15 percent
reduction requirements of the Act. A single source (Mallinckrodt
Chemicals, Inc.), in the St. Louis nonattainment area is subject to the
equipment leak provisions of the HON rule. The 1990 baseline VOC
emissions from this facility were estimated at 652.84 TPY or 3380.23
lbs/day during the ozone season. Applying the authorized 5 percent
results in a credit of 169.01 lbs/day or 0.08 TPD.
Summary of EPA Action
The EPA has evaluated these submittals for consistency with the
Act, the EPA regulations, and the EPA policy. The EPA is proposing
approval, under Sec. 110(k)(3) and Sec. 301(a), of Missouri's base year
inventory because it fully meets the requirements in section 182 and
applicable EPA guidance described elsewhere in this document. The EPA
is proposing limited approval to the 15% Plan as its implementation
will result in a certain percentage of VOC emission reductions.
However, as discussed above, the EPA is proposing approval of
certain elements of the 15% Plan with the understanding that the state
will submit revisions before the EPA takes final action. [See the
specific discussion related to each element elsewhere in this
rulemaking for the EPA's rationale for this action.] Specifically, the
point source projection methodology submitted on January 23, 1996,
resulted in a different total required emission reduction than the one
in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal, which was 51.7 TPD. Also, the
list of control measures, as well as some of the emission credit
claimed for specific measures in this analysis, is different than those
submitted in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. The state has
submitted a draft of the recalculation of
[[Page 10975]]
the total emission reductions needed and a revised list of VOC control
measures so that the EPA may proceed with this rulemaking action.
However, the state must hold a public hearing on these elements, and
submit them to the EPA as a revision to its 15% Plan. The EPA proposes
to approve the draft revised emission reduction target with the
understanding that the state will fulfill its administrative
obligations before the EPA takes final action on the 15% Plan.
Also, the EPA is proposing approval of the emission reduction
credits associated with the reductions from Leonard's Metal, Inc., and
Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemical Company, and the claimed emission
reductions associated with Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.440 (Control of
Emissions from Bakery Ovens), with the understanding that the state
will fulfill certain requirements before the EPA takes final action on
the 15% Plan. [See specific discussions related to these measures
within this TSD for the EPA's rationale for this action.]
Failure to fulfill any of the specific requirements outlined above
in a timely manner will result in a disapproval of the emission
reduction target and associated emission reductions.
Furthermore, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of the
emission reduction credits associated with the draft rule for the
control of emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. As discussed
above, if the state fails to submit a final rule to the EPA by November
15, 1996, the conditional approval will be converted to a disapproval.
Likewise, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of Rule 10 CSR
10-5.455, Control of Emissions from Solvent Cleanup Operations. If the
state fails to submit a final amended rule, as discussed above, by 12
months from the EPA's final action, the conditional approval will be
converted to a disapproval.
The EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan
because it does not achieve the required emission reductions.
Specifically, Missouri's submittal has not demonstrated that the
enhanced I/M program can be implemented in a manner which will achieve
the claimed emission reduction credit. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan, to the extent that emission
reductions associated with Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be
expected to be achieved. To gain full approval, Missouri will need to
submit a revised plan which achieves the necessary reductions to meet
the 15% Plan requirements.
Conformity
40 CFR 93.128(b), of the Federal transportation conformity rules,
as amended on November 14, 1995 (40 CFR 51.448(b)), states that if the
EPA disapproves a plan revision containing a control strategy, thus
initiating the sanction process under CAA section 179, the conformity
status of the transportation plan and transportation improvement
program (TIP) shall lapse 120 days after the EPA's final partial
disapproval. No new project-level conformity determinations may be
made. No new transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to
conform until the state submits an SIP revision fulfilling the same CAA
requirements and conformity to this submission is determined.
However, if the EPA disapproves the submitted control strategy SIP,
but makes a protective finding, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway
sanctions are imposed on the nonattainment area under section 179(b)(1)
of the Act. A protective finding, as defined in the Federal
Transportation Conformity rule, as amended, means that the EPA has made
a determination that the control strategy SIP would have been
considered approvable with respect to requirements for emissions
reductions, if all committed measures had been submitted in enforceable
form as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). No new transportation
plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until another SIP
revision fulfilling the same CAA requirements is submitted and
conformity to this submission is determined.
The emissions budget is the mechanism the EPA has identified for
demonstrating consistency between emissions expected from
implementation of transportation plans, TIPs, and projects with
estimates of emissions in the SIP from on-road motor vehicles. Motor
vehicle emissions budgets are the explicit or implicit identification
of the on-road motor vehicle-related portion of the projected emission
inventory used to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone for a
particular year specified in the SIP. The motor vehicle emissions
budget establishes a cap on the predicted highway and transit vehicle
VOC and NOX emissions which, if exceeded, will result in a
nonconformity finding.
The Mobile Source emissions budget in the submitted 15% Plan is
60.31 TPD. This budget is the 1996 base year mobile emissions minus the
reductions attributable to the mobile category. These reductions
include the enhanced I/M program, the control of RVP in gasoline and
TCMs. As stated above, the EPA has determined that the emission
reduction assumed to result from implementation of the enhanced I/M
program cannot be expected to be achieved. Therefore, if the EPA takes
final action to disapprove the I/M portion of the 15% Plan, the EPA
could not make a protective finding for the purposes of conformity. As
such, the conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP shall
lapse 120 days after the EPA's final limited disapproval.
Sanctions
Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a
submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment
based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements
required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions
set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected
within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two
sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and the
imposition of emission offset requirements. The 18-month period
referred to in section 179(a) would begin on the effective date
established in a final limited disapproval action. If the deficiency is
not corrected within six months of the imposition of the first
sanction, the second sanction will apply. The process for imposing and
lifting sanctions is set forth at 40 CFR 52.31.
Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). If the EPA takes final
action to disapprove portions of the Missouri submission, as discussed
above in this notice, the sanction and FIP clocks would be triggered as
discussed in this paragraph.
If the EPA takes final action to conditionally approve a portion of
the submittal, as discussed above in this notice, and the conditional
approval is subsequently converted to a disapproval as provided in
section 110(k)(4), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment,
the 18-month period referred to in section 179(a) of the Act will begin
on the effective date of the conversion of the conditional approval to
a disapproval. The sanctions process at 40 CFR 52.31 will apply if the
18-month period expires and the deficiency has not been corrected. (See
paragraph above.)
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or
[[Page 10976]]
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. Sec. 600 et seq.,
the 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, the 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.
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 impose any new requirements, the 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 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 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
The EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the 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 requirements or impose any new Federal requirement.
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.
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, the EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the 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, the 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 the SIP revision which has been proposed for
limited approval in this action, the state has elected to adopt
portions of the program provided for under section 182(b) of the CAA.
The rules and commitments proposed for limited and conditional approval
in this action may bind state and local governments to perform certain
actions and also require the private sector to perform certain duties.
The proposed action would have no impact on tribal governments as
regulators. To the extent that the rules and commitments being given
limited approval by this action will impose or lead to the imposition
of any mandate upon the state, local, or tribal governments, either as
the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose or
lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private sector, the
EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these requirements under state law.
The EPA has also determined that the proposed limited disapproval
would not impose any mandate on the private sector. Existing rules
previously approved by the EPA remain in effect and would not be
impacted by the limited disapproval. With respect to the impact on
state and local governments, the state may choose, but is not required,
to respond to a limited disapproval by revising and resubmitting the
plan. In any event, the EPA estimates that the cost to state and local
government of revising the plan would be less than $100 million in the
aggregate.
Therefore, the EPA has determined that this proposed action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6236 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P