[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26395-26396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12553]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 023-1023(a); FRL-5822-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this action the EPA grants final full approval to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri for the
purpose of meeting the requirements of the EPA's general conformity
rule. This fulfills the conditions of the approval granted on March 11,
1996, which became effective May 10, 1996.
DATES: This action is effective July 14, 1997 unless by June 13, 1997
adverse or critical comments are received.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air &
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Hess at (913) 551-7213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The EPA granted conditional approval to Missouri's SIP revision
(containing rule 10 CSR 10-6.300), regarding Conformity of General
Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, in a rulemaking dated
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9642-9644). This conditional approval was
necessary because the state used a model rule developed by the State
and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) that made two
provisions of the Missouri rule more stringent than the Federal general
conformity rule. The rationale for the conditional approval and for the
EPA's determination regarding these provisions is explained in detail
in the Technical Support Document which accompanied the March 11, 1996,
conditional approval.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA granted a conditional
approval based on Missouri's commitment to correct the noted
deficiencies not later than one year after the date of approval of the
plan revision. Missouri committed to correct these deficiencies within
one year from December 7, 1995. On November 20, 1996, Missouri
submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects the deficiencies and
meets the requirements of the conditional approval.
As requested by the EPA, this revised SIP specifically amends
sections (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) of 10 CSR 10-6.300 regarding conformity
analyses timeframes. Prior to the amendment, these cited sections
contained sentences regarded as clarifying language in the STAPPA/
ALAPCO model rule.
II. Final Action
The EPA is taking final action to approve revisions submitted on
November 20, 1996, which fulfills the conditional approval effective
May 10, 1996. This meets the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.851 and 93.151.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective
July 14, 1997 unless, by June 13, 1997, adverse or critical comments
are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action is effective July 14, 1997.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create any new requirements but simply
approve requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements,
the Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,
[[Page 26396]]
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive
Order 12866 review.
B. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
D. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 14, 1997. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 9, 1997.
Michael Sanderson,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.
Subpart AA--Missouri
2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(97) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(97) On November 20, 1996, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) submitted a revised rule which pertains to general
conformity.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule 10 CSR 10-6.300, entitled Conformity of General Federal
Actions to State Implementation Plans, effective September 30, 1996.
3. Section 52.1323 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1323 Approval status.
* * * * *
(j) The state of Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-6.300 to remove
language in paragraphs (3)(C)4 and (9)(B) which made the language more
stringent than that contained in the Federal general conformity rule.
This fulfills the requirements of the conditional approval granted
effective May 10, 1996, as published on March 11, 1996.
[FR Doc. 97-12553 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
