Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: By this action the EPA grants final full approval to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri for the

purpose of meeting the requirements of the EPA's general conformity

rule. This fulfills the conditions of the approval granted on March 11,

1996, which became effective May 10, 1996.

DATES: This action is effective July 14, 1997 unless by June 13, 1997

adverse or critical comments are received.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,

726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air &

Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The EPA granted conditional approval to Missouri's SIP revision

(containing rule 10 CSR 10-6.300), regarding Conformity of General

Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, in a rulemaking dated

March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9642-9644). This conditional approval was

necessary because the state used a model rule developed by the State

and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of

Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) that made two

provisions of the Missouri rule more stringent than the Federal general

conformity rule. The rationale for the conditional approval and for the

EPA's determination regarding these provisions is explained in detail

in the Technical Support Document which accompanied the March 11, 1996,

conditional approval.

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA granted a conditional

approval based on Missouri's commitment to correct the noted

deficiencies not later than one year after the date of approval of the

plan revision. Missouri committed to correct these deficiencies within

one year from December 7, 1995. On November 20, 1996, Missouri

submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects the deficiencies and

meets the requirements of the conditional approval.

As requested by the EPA, this revised SIP specifically amends

sections (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) of 10 CSR 10-6.300 regarding conformity

analyses timeframes. Prior to the amendment, these cited sections

contained sentences regarded as clarifying language in the STAPPA/

ALAPCO model rule.

II. Final Action

The EPA is taking final action to approve revisions submitted on

November 20, 1996, which fulfills the conditional approval effective

May 10, 1996. This meets the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR

51.851 and 93.151.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective

July 14, 1997 unless, by June 13, 1997, adverse or critical comments

are received.

If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should

do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is

advised that this action is effective July 14, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements,

the Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact

on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

[[Page 26396]]

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

B. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by July 14, 1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect

the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does

it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be

filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Michael Sanderson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.

Subpart AA--Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(97) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(97) On November 20, 1996, the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) submitted a revised rule which pertains to general

conformity.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 10 CSR 10-6.300, entitled Conformity of General Federal

Actions to State Implementation Plans, effective September 30, 1996.

3. Section 52.1323 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.1323 Approval status.

* * * * *

(j) The state of Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-6.300 to remove

language in paragraphs (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) which made the language more

stringent than that contained in the Federal general conformity rule.

This fulfills the requirements of the conditional approval granted

effective May 10, 1996, as published on March 11, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-12553 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P