Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

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