[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