[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26395-26396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12553]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 023-1023(a); FRL-5822-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this action the EPA grants final full approval to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri for the 
purpose of meeting the requirements of the EPA's general conformity 
rule. This fulfills the conditions of the approval granted on March 11, 
1996, which became effective May 10, 1996.

DATES: This action is effective July 14, 1997 unless by June 13, 1997 
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 the EPA Air & 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Hess at (913) 551-7213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The EPA granted conditional approval to Missouri's SIP revision 
(containing rule 10 CSR 10-6.300), regarding Conformity of General 
Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, in a rulemaking dated 
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9642-9644). This conditional approval was 
necessary because the state used a model rule developed by the State 
and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of 
Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) that made two 
provisions of the Missouri rule more stringent than the Federal general 
conformity rule. The rationale for the conditional approval and for the 
EPA's determination regarding these provisions is explained in detail 
in the Technical Support Document which accompanied the March 11, 1996, 
conditional approval.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA granted a conditional 
approval based on Missouri's commitment to correct the noted 
deficiencies not later than one year after the date of approval of the 
plan revision. Missouri committed to correct these deficiencies within 
one year from December 7, 1995. On November 20, 1996, Missouri 
submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects the deficiencies and 
meets the requirements of the conditional approval.
    As requested by the EPA, this revised SIP specifically amends 
sections (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) of 10 CSR 10-6.300 regarding conformity 
analyses timeframes. Prior to the amendment, these cited sections 
contained sentences regarded as clarifying language in the STAPPA/
ALAPCO model rule.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve revisions submitted on 
November 20, 1996, which fulfills the conditional approval effective 
May 10, 1996. This meets the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.851 and 93.151.
    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 this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective 
July 14, 1997 unless, by June 13, 1997, adverse or critical comments 
are received.
    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. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action is effective July 14, 1997.
    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., 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 
Clean Air Act (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 Administrator 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)).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    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,

[[Page 26396]]

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive 
Order 12866 review.

B. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA submitted 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 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 14, 1997. 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, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 9, 1997.
Michael Sanderson,
Acting 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)(97) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (97) On November 20, 1996, the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR) submitted a revised rule which pertains to general 
conformity.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule 10 CSR 10-6.300, entitled Conformity of General Federal 
Actions to State Implementation Plans, effective September 30, 1996.
    3. Section 52.1323 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1323  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (j) The state of Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-6.300 to remove 
language in paragraphs (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) which made the language more 
stringent than that contained in the Federal general conformity rule. 
This fulfills the requirements of the conditional approval granted 
effective May 10, 1996, as published on March 11, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-12553 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P