[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3901-3906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1761]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-6225-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Kansas City ozone maintenance area experienced a violation 
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in 1995. 
In response to this violation, Missouri submitted revisions to its 
ozone maintenance plan. These revisions pertain to the implementation 
of control strategies to achieve reductions in volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions within the Missouri portion of the Kansas City 
ozone maintenance area. A major purpose of these revisions is to 
provide a more flexible approach to maintenance of acceptable air 
quality levels in Kansas City, while achieving emission reductions 
equivalent to those required by the previously approved plan.
    The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the 1998 revisions to 
the Kansas City ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Missouri 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Final approval is contingent upon 
Missouri's submission of additional, enforceable control measures.
    In a separate Federal Register notice published today, the EPA is 
also proposing conditional approval of a similar plan submitted by the 
Kansas Department of Health and Environment to address the Kansas 
portions of the ozone maintenance area.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing on or 
before February 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Royan Teter, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101. The state submittal and the EPA-prepared technical 
support document are available for public review at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan Teter at (913) 551-7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Kansas City metropolitan area (KCMA), consisting of Clay, 
Platte, and Jackson Counties in Missouri and Johnson and Wyandotte 
Counties in Kansas, was designated nonattainment for ozone in 1978. The 
Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for areas with a prescribed amount of air 
quality data showing attainment of the standard to be redesignated from 
nonattainment to attainment, if the requirements of section 
107(d)(3)(E) are met. One of these requirements is for the area to 
adopt a maintenance plan consistent with the requirements of section 
175A. This plan must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS with a margin 
of safety sufficient to remain in attainment for ten years. Also, the 
plan must contain a contingency plan to be implemented if the area once 
again violates the standard.
    Ozone monitoring data from 1987 through 1991 demonstrated that the 
Kansas City nonattainment area had attained the ozone NAAQS. In 
accordance with the CAA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
(MDNR) revised the ozone SIP for the Missouri portion of the Kansas 
City area to recognize the area's attainment status. The EPA published 
final approval of the Missouri SIP on June 23, 1992. The SIP became 
effective on July 23, 1992 (57 FR 27939). This action effected the 
redesignation of the area to attainment.
    The contingency plan approved as part of the 1992 SIP identified 
four measures which were to be implemented upon subsequent violation of 
the standard in the Kansas City area. These contingency measures 
required: (1) Certain new or expanding sources of ozone precursors to 
acquire emissions offsets; (2) the installation of Stage II vapor 
recovery systems at retail gasoline stations or the implementation of 
an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for motor 
vehicles; (3) the implementation of transportation control measures 
achieving a 0.5 percent reduction in areawide VOC emissions; and (4) 
the completion of a comprehensive emissions inventory.
    In a letter from Dennis Grams, EPA Region VII Administrator, to 
David Shorr, MDNR Director, on January 31, 1996, the EPA informed the 
MDNR of a violation of the ozone NAAQS. Quality-assured air quality 
monitoring data indicated measured exceedances of the

[[Page 3902]]

ozone standard on July 11, 12, and 13, 1995, at the Liberty monitoring 
site in Kansas City. The highest recorded value for each day was 0.128 
ppm, 0.161 ppm, and 0.131 ppm, respectively. These exceedances, in 
combination with the measured exceedance of 0.128 ppm recorded on July 
29, 1993, constitute a violation of the standard.
    As a result of this violation, Missouri was required to implement 
the contingency measures identified in the approved SIP. In a July 28, 
1995, letter from Roger Randolph (Air Pollution Control Program 
Director), to William Spratlin (Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division 
Director), Missouri requested guidance on responding to the KCMA ozone 
violation. Specifically, Missouri requested flexibility in utilizing 
control measures other than those identified in the approved SIP. Via 
an August 17, 1995, letter from William Spratlin to Roger Randolph, the 
EPA affirmed that Missouri and Kansas may substitute other contingency 
measures for those in the approved SIP, provided: (1) The substitute 
measures would achieve substantially equivalent emission reductions; 
(2) the substitute measures were submitted as a SIP revision; and (3) 
the substitute measures were implemented before the 1996 ozone season. 
It must be emphasized that this flexibility was extended to both Kansas 
and Missouri.
    To address the short-term need to control emissions, Missouri 
promulgated an emergency rule to limit the summertime Reid Vapor 
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline sold within the KCMA to 7.2 pounds per 
square inch (psi) (10 CSR 10-2.330). The emergency rule was to expire 
on October 27, 1997. Prior to its expiration, the state promulgated a 
permanent regulation. The permanent rule was published in the Code of 
State Regulations (CSR) on September 30, 1997, and became effective 
October 30. On October 9, 1997, the EPA published a rule, which 
conditionally approved the state emergency rule upon receipt of an 
equivalent, adopted permanent rule. The state fulfilled the 
requirements of the conditional approval by submitting a permanent 
Missouri rule on November 13, 1997. The EPA published full approval of 
Missouri's permanent RVP rule on April 24, 1998 (Federal Register, Vol. 
63, No. 79, 20318). The approval became effective on May 24, 1998.
    To address the longer-term need to reduce VOC and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions, the Mid-America Regional Council's Air 
Quality Forum (MARC AQF), comprised of representatives from local 
governments, business, health, and environmental organizations, agreed 
to examine various alternative control strategies and recommend a suite 
of viable measures to Missouri and Kansas. The AQF recommended: (1) 
Expanding public education efforts; (2) low RVP gasoline; (3) motor 
vehicle I/M; (4) seasonal no-fare public transit; (5) a voluntary clean 
fuel fleets program; and (6) additional transportation control 
measures. The AQF also recommended a group of supplemental measures 
aimed at reducing ozone levels. The emissions reductions associated 
with the voluntary measures, specifically clean fuel fleets and 
transportation control, cannot be quantified due to their voluntary 
nature.
    The MDNR presented a maintenance SIP, with the AQF recommendations, 
to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) on June 24, 1997. At 
that time, the MACC recommended inclusion of a more timely and less 
politically sensitive control measure in place of the I/M provision. As 
a result, on October 7, 1997, the AQF recommended the implementation of 
a reformulated gasoline (RFG) program in the KCMA. In response, 
Missouri has committed to pursuing, among other options, petitioning 
the EPA to require the sale of RFG in the KCMA under the provisions of 
the Federal RFG program.
    The final state submittal provides for continued monitoring, 
emissions inventory updates, a summertime RVP limit, and several 
programs for which emissions reductions cannot be quantified, including 
completion of a stationary source study, voluntary clean fuel fleets, 
seasonal low-fare transit, air quality conscious land use planning, and 
bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation planning. In addition, 
the revised plan contains commitments to adopt either the Federal RFG 
Program, a state fuel regulation, or a Stage II regulation.
    If violations continued to occur after implementation of the above 
measures, the state will adopt further regulations as necessary, 
selected from a list including, but not limited to, Stage II vapor 
recovery, enhanced I/M, emissions offsets from new or modified sources, 
and mandatory clean fuel fleets.
    According to state estimates, limiting the summertime RVP of 
gasoline to 7.2 psi achieves VOC emissions reductions of only 4.0 tons 
per day. As such, additional reductions are necessary to provide for 
reductions substantially equivalent to those (8.4 tons per day) 
obtainable by implementing the contingency measures in the previously 
approved SIP. The implementation of an RFG program is therefore 
critical to meeting Missouri's obligation to achieve the necessary 
reductions.

II. Evaluation Criteria

    To evaluate the maintenance plan, the EPA referred to requirements 
of section 175A of the Act. The EPA also issued guidance specifically 
to address applicable procedures for handling redesignation requests, 
including maintenance plan provisions ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, 
Air Quality Management Division, to EPA Regional Division Directors, 
dated September 4, 1992. In addition, the EPA reviewed the maintenance 
plan for evidence that the substitute control measures provide for 
emissions reductions which are substantially equivalent to those 
approved in the 1992 SIP, pursuant to guidance given in the August 17, 
1995, letter, from William Spratlin to Roger Randolph. Finally, the EPA 
evaluated the revised maintenance with respect to the ``Guidance for 
Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' 
from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators.

III. Review of Submittal

    According to the September 4, 1992, memo from John Calcagni 
regarding ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' a maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the 
ozone NAAQS for at least ten years after redesignation. Section 175A of 
the CAA defines the general framework of a maintenance plan. The 
Calcagni memo identifies the following list of core provisions 
necessary to ensure maintenance of the ozone NAAQS: emission inventory, 
maintenance demonstration (including control measures), air monitoring 
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. 
Below is a discussion of each of these provisions, as addressed in the 
1998 revision to the Kansas City SIP for control of ozone.

A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory for the KCMA was revised in 1995. In a 
direct final rule (61 FR 18251), published on April 25, 1996, the EPA 
approved the revised emissions inventory. The emissions inventory 
estimated VOC and NOX actual emissions for 1990 and 1992 
while using industrial growth factors to project VOC and NOX 
emissions for 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Point, area, mobile, biogenic 
VOC, and NOX emission totals were estimated. The

[[Page 3903]]

inventory summarized totals for each emissions category and reported 
emissions by source type. VOC emissions for the entire KCMA were 
estimated at 322,557 and 286,279 kilograms per summer day in 1990 and 
1992, respectively. The present SIP revisions are based on the 
inventory as revised in 1995.

B. Control Measures

    The state has provided estimates of the achievable emissions 
reductions for only two of the many measures (7.2 RVP gasoline and RFG) 
included in the SIP. These estimates were evaluated to determine 
whether they are substantially equivalent to the reductions for which 
the 1992 SIP provides. In accord with the original maintenance plan, 
implementation of a regulation requiring Stage II vapor recovery 
systems at retail gasoline stations would result in daily VOC emissions 
reductions of 6.9 tons per day. An additional 1.5 tons per day of VOC 
reductions would be achieved through implementation of transportation 
control measures, making the 1992 SIP designed to reduce VOC emissions 
of by a minimum of 8.4 tons per day. Accordingly, Missouri must 
demonstrate the substitute control measures will provide for areawide 
VOC reductions of at least 8.4 tons per day.
1. Gasoline Volatility Control
    Typically reported as RVP, volatility is a measure of the tendency 
of gasoline to evaporate. RVP, expressed in psi, denotes the pressure 
exerted by a vapor at 100 deg.F. The evaporation of gasoline adds to 
the quantity of VOCs in the atmosphere contributing to ozone formation.
    As a result of the ozone violation in 1995, Missouri developed an 
emergency regulation for the Missouri portion of the KCMA to limit the 
summertime RVP of gasoline to 7.2 psi. This regulation became effective 
May 1, 1997, and expired at midnight on October 27, 1997. In the 
meantime, the state worked to develop a permanent regulation limiting 
summertime RVP of gasoline to 7.2 psi. This regulation was presented at 
public hearing at the May 29, 1997, MACC meeting. The MACC adopted the 
regulation at the same meeting. The final order of rulemaking was 
published in the September 3, 1997, Missouri Register. The final 
permanent rule was published in the CSR on September 30, 1997, and 
became effective October 30. On October 9, 1997, the EPA published a 
conditional final rule, which was contingent upon Missouri submitting 
the final permanent rule by November 30, 1997. Missouri submitted the 
permanent rule on November 13, 1997. Therefore, the EPA published final 
approval of the 7.2 psi RVP rule on April 24, 1998 (63 FR 20318). The 
rule became effective on May 26, 1998.
    Emissions estimates for on-road mobile sources were developed using 
the EPA MOBILE5a model. Evaporative emissions from off-road mobile 
sources were estimated to decrease by 2.7 percent, assuming 90 percent 
of the off-road emissions are combustive and 10 percent are 
evaporative. Missouri has demonstrated that limiting the volatility of 
gasoline to 7.2 psi will reduce VOC emissions by 4.0 tons per day 
within the KCMA.
2. RFG
    RFG is a blend of gasoline containing oxygenates and lower levels 
of toxic substances. It is designed to reduce emissions of pollutants, 
including VOC from motor vehicle exhaust. RFG contains many of the same 
ingredients found in conventional gasoline, but in different 
quantities. The addition of oxygenates, such as ethanol or methyl 
tertiary butyl ether, increases its oxygen content, and thereby 
increases the combustion efficiency of the vehicle. The evaporative 
emissions can also be reduced depending on the RVP of the base gasoline 
to which the oxygenates are added.
    The RVP requirement for RFG in Missouri, as defined in 40 CFR 
80.71(a), is 7.2 psi. Emission reductions from RFG were modeled using 
the EPA MOBILE 5a. The MDNR modeled emission reductions from on-road 
mobile source emissions. Projected emissions are estimated to be 96.65 
tons per day in 2000. After implementation of 7.2 RVP, the emissions in 
2000 are projected to be reduced to 89.22 tons per day. If RFG were to 
be implemented in 2000, emissions are projected to be reduced to 74.88, 
for an estimated incremental reduction of 14.34 tons per day.
    As part of this proposed SIP revision, the MDNR commits to 
requesting that the Governor of Missouri petition the EPA to include 
the KCMA in the Federal RFG Program as of April 15, 2000. Previously, 
Missouri was prohibited from implementing RFG because the EPA had not 
promulgated the final regulation, making it possible for former 
nonattainment areas to participate in the Federal RFG program. However, 
this obstacle has been lifted by the EPA's rulemaking signed by the 
Administrator September 21, 1998, and published in the Federal Register 
on September 29, 1998 (63 FR 52093). Therefore, the EPA expects that 
the Governor of Missouri will request that the KCMA be included in the 
Federal RFG program. Upon fulfillment of this commitment, the EPA will 
propose to fully approve this SIP.
    If the state does not opt in to the RFG program, the state must, by 
the deadline established in the final conditional approval, implement 
one of the two proposed alternatives (either a state fuel or Stage II 
vapor recovery). In this case, the state must adopt and submit any 
necessary regulations to implement either of the proposed alternatives. 
The EPA will initiate a rulemaking on this subsequent revision. If the 
state fails to make such a submittal by the deadline specified in the 
final conditional approval, the conditional approval converts to a 
disapproval.
3. Clean Fuel Fleets
    Clean fuel fleets programs take advantage of vehicles relying on 
cleaner burning energy sources for fuel. These vehicles may operate on 
an array of fuels including electricity, compressed natural gas, 
propane, and ethanol blended gasolines. Because this program is 
voluntary, Missouri is not seeking and the EPA is not approving credit 
for emissions reductions under the maintenance plan.
4. Seasonal Low-fare Transit
    The AQF and the MARC board recommended the area's transit providers 
provide no-fare transit during peak ozone season beginning in 1997 to 
encourage people to choose public transportation over the use of 
personal motor vehicles. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 
requested the AQF endorse a reduced-fare program, commencing in 1998. 
Participation in this program is voluntary and difficult to estimate, 
and no permanent funding source has been identified. Therefore, 
Missouri is not seeking and the EPA is not approving credit for 
emission reductions for this program under this maintenance plan.
5. Stage II Vapor Recovery
    Stage II vapor recovery systems are used to control emissions of 
VOC containing gasoline vapors which are displaced during motor vehicle 
refueling. The vapors are captured using specially equipped nozzles and 
are routed back to the underground storage tank from which the gasoline 
is being pumped. Emissions estimates were calculated based on output 
from the EPA's MOBILE5a emissions model. If Stage II vapor recovery 
systems were required in the KCMA, VOC emissions from refueling could 
be reduced by 6.1 tons per day during the first year of use. The need 
for such systems is expected

[[Page 3904]]

to decrease over the long term, given there is a Federal requirement 
that all light duty vehicles and trucks be equipped with on-board vapor 
recovery systems beginning with model years 1998 and 2001, 
respectively; however, Stage II systems will remain an effective 
control measure for several years given that on-board systems will be 
phased in over nine years, and it will be several years before older, 
unequipped vehicles will be retired.
6. Additional Supplemental Measures
    The EPA supports Missouri's commitment to implement various 
additional programs aimed at reducing VOC and NOX emissions. 
Implementation of these programs will assist the KCMA in meeting both 
the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. Missouri is not claiming and the 
EPA is not approving emissions reductions from these programs for 
purposes of the SIP. These measures include enhanced traffic 
signalization, a potentially expanded transit system, enhanced land-use 
planning, stationary source emissions controls, expanded public 
education programs, and air quality data collection.

C. Air Monitoring Network

    The ambient air monitoring network which measures ozone 
concentrations in the KCMA consists of six monitoring stations. Five 
are located in Missouri at Liberty, Watkins Mill, Worlds of Fun, Kansas 
City International Airport (KCI), and Richards Gebaur Airport. The 
remaining monitoring station is located in Kansas City, Kansas. Liberty 
and Watkins Mill are downwind, assuming predominant winds are from the 
southwest. Two monitors, Worlds of Fun and KCI, are placed in populated 
areas. Richards Gebaur is considered an upwind site, designed to 
monitor ozone transport from outside the area. The final monitor is 
located in downtown Kansas City, Kansas, in Wyandotte County.
    Ozone concentrations may not exceed the 1-hour standard more than 
an average of once per year at any single monitoring site over any 
given three-year period. Eighteen exceedances of the ozone standard 
have been recorded in the KCMA from 1990 through 1998. Nine of these 
exceedances occurred in 1995, with three each at the Liberty and 
Watkins Mill sites, two at Worlds of Fun site, and one at the KCI site. 
Four exceedances recorded at the Liberty site constituted the violation 
triggering the implementation of the previously approved plan.

D. Maintenance of the Standard

    By virtue of the approval of the 1992 maintenance SIP, the 
Administrator deemed the VOC reductions, for which the contingency 
measures provided, necessary to promptly correct any violation of the 
1-hour ozone standard which might occur subsequent to redesignation of 
the area from nonattainment to attainment. Hence, the revised 
contingency measures must provide for the equivalent level of 
reductions. The Agency has determined that if Missouri meets the 
conditions set forth in this action, the revised plan will achieve the 
required reductions. The state has provided VOC emissions projections 
for the ten-year period following maintenance plan development. In 
addition, the state has committed to regularly updating the emissions 
inventory for the KCMA to ensure that emissions trends are 
appropriately tracked to facilitate future air quality planning 
activities.

E. Contingency Plan

    The revised maintenance plan includes additional control measures 
to replenish the contingency measures that are being implemented in 
response to the 1995 violation of the standard. These measures are to 
be implemented in the event that additional violations are recorded. 
The MDNR is committed to implement, in the order listed, the following 
measures upon violation of the 1-hour ozone standard: (1) Stage II 
vapor recovery, (2) enhanced I/M (I/M 240), (3) emission offsets, and 
(4) mandatory clean fuel fleets. The implementation of these control 
measures is dependent on obtaining administrative and legislative 
approval.

F. Additional Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
Regulations

    Because the KCMA was classified as a submarginal nonattainment 
area, Missouri was required to implement RACT controls under section 
182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The states of Missouri and Kansas implemented 
these regulations prior to the redesignation of the area. The MDNR 
implemented RACT on all major sources that were covered by control 
technique guideline (CTG) categories I, II, and III. In addition, the 
Department implemented non-CTG RACT on sources greater than 100 tons of 
VOC emissions per year.
    The MDNR conducted a stationary source study to determine sources 
that could further be controlled through RACT regulations. Based on 
this study, the MDNR recommends five VOC regulations to pursue: solvent 
cleaning, soybean oil extraction, aerospace surface coating, upgraded 
offset lithography, and volatile organic liquid storage.

IV. Policy Review

    Because Kansas City has recorded a violation of the 1-hour ozone 
standard in 1995, and recent air quality analyses performed by Missouri 
suggest Kansas City is likely to violate the new 8-hour standard, 
Missouri must proceed to expeditiously implement the provisions of the 
maintenance plan which are the subject of today's action. Protecting 
the 1-hour ozone standard becomes increasingly important in light of 
new requirements being established to implement the revised 8-hour 
ozone standard, which was finalized July 16, 1997. For this new 
standard, the EPA will establish a special ``transitional'' 
classification for areas that participate in a regional strategy or 
that opt to submit early plans addressing the 8-hour standard. The 
transitional classification will be available only to those areas 
meeting certain criteria, including having air quality data meeting the 
1-hour standard by 2000. These transitional areas will be subject to 
less restrictive new source review and transportation conformity 
requirements than other nonattainment areas. These less restrictive 
requirements are important to companies seeking to expand existing 
operations or start new operations. Therefore, achieving the reductions 
associated with the maintenance plan proposed for approval today has 
critical implications for the ability of the KCMA to meet the 
requirements of the new 8-hour ozone standard. However, the control 
measures which would be conditionally approved are required to be 
implemented first and foremost to protect the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Based on air quality data from 1996 through 1998 (after the 
violation which triggered the contingency measures in the 1992 
maintenance plan), the Kansas City area may be able to demonstrate that 
it has now achieved the 1-hour ozone standard. However, the EPA's 
``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing 
PM10 NAAQS'' states that, in general, contingency measures 
which were triggered prior to revocation of the 1-hour standard must be 
retained. Therefore, although the EPA believes that the 1996 through 
1998 data justify the brief delay in implementation of the substitute 
contingency measures, it does not relieve the states of the need to 
implement RFG, or one of the alternatives identified in this notice.

[[Page 3905]]

V. Conclusion

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on this notice and on issues 
relative to the EPA's proposed action. Comments will be considered 
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the 
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the 
address above.

VI. Proposed Action

    In today's notice, the EPA proposes to conditionally approve 
Missouri's 1998 revisions to the Kansas City SIP for control of ozone. 
This includes the VOC control measures described above, the emissions 
reduction credits identified by the state, and the commitment to 
implement the additional reductions as expeditiously as practicable.
    Full approval of the SIP is conditioned upon receipt of one of the 
following: (1) A letter from the Governor of Missouri requesting that 
the EPA require the sale of Federal RFG within the Missouri portion of 
the KCMA beginning April 15, 2000; (2) an alternative state fuel 
regulation; or (3) a regulation requiring Stage II vapor recovery 
systems at retail gasoline stations. If the state fails to submit one 
of the above, the conditional approval converts to a disapproval. The 
EPA proposes to establish a deadline for meeting the condition which is 
one year from the effective date of the final rule conditionally 
approving the state's 1998 submittal. The statute requires that the 
condition be met within one year of the conditional approval. The EPA 
seeks comments on whether a shorter deadline should be established.
    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.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal Government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA 
complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to provide to the 
OMB a description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires the EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's proposal would not create a mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments. It would merely approve actions which the state has 
already chosen to take. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) 
of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. E.O. 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 
EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect 
on children.

D. E.O. 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with 
those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because 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 has already chosen to impose. Therefore, 
because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, 
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature 
of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of 
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. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. 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 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal

[[Page 3906]]

governments in the aggregate; or to 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 annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action would 
approve requirements which the state has chosen to undertake 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, would result from this action. This action would not 
result in annualized costs of 100 million dollars or more.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, 
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 15, 1999.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-1761 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P