Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31485

[FR Doc. 00–12387 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 103–1103; FRL–6701–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Missouri’s

15% Rate-of-Progress Plan (ROPP), and

Missouri rule 10–CSR 10–5.300,

‘‘Control of Emissions From Solvent

Metal Cleaning.’’ This Plan is intended

to fulfill the requirements of section

182(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state

submittals are available at the following

address for inspection during normal

business hours: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Royan Teter at (913) 551–7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this action?

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP

revision been met?

What action is EPA taking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the CAA requires states

to develop air pollution regulations and

control strategies to ensure that state air

quality meets the national ambient air

quality standards established by EPA.

These ambient standards are established

under section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to EPA

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by us.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that we have

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, we are

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in section 304 of

the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

On November 12, 1999, Missouri

submitted a revised ROPP. The plan

established the 1996 target level of

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions for the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

Missouri achieves the required

reductions through a combination of 19

state and 9 Federal measures.

On February 17, 2000, (65 FR 8083)

EPA proposed to approve Missouri’s

ROPP and VOC rule 10 CSR 10–10.300.

The public provided comments on the

proposed action. We are responding to

those comments below.

Have the Requirements for Approval of

a SIP Revision Been Met?

The state submittal has met the public

notice requirements for SIP submissions

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The

submittal also satisfied the

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

Appendix V. In addition, as explained

above and in more detail in the

technical support document which was

part of the proposed action, the revision

meets the substantive SIP requirements

of the CAA, including section 110 and

implementing regulations.

Response to Comments

The Missouri Coalition for the

Environment and the Sierra Club

submitted jointly written comments

regarding our February 17, 2000

proposal (65 FR 8083) to approve

Missouri’s 15% ROPP, and Missouri

rule 10–CSR 10–5.300, ‘‘Control of

Emissions From Solvent Metal

Cleaning.’’ Their paraphrased comments

and EPA’s responses follow.

1. Comments Relating to the Statutory

Requirements for Review of the ROPP

Comment: The commenters stated

that the ROPP should be disapproved

because it fails to show reasonable

further progress ‘‘as a matter of law.’’

The commenters argue that the St. Louis

nonattainment area is currently

classified as ‘‘serious’’ under section

181 of the Act, and is therefore subject

to the reasonable further progress (RFP)

requirements of section 182(c) rather

than 182(b).

In addition, they argue section 182(b)

is no longer relevant for purposes of

determining RFP because it governs RFP

toward the goal of attainment by 1996

whereas it is now 2000. They contend

the plan should be disapproved based

on the premise that section 182(c) is the

applicable CAA requirement and their

conclusion that Missouri’s plan does not

purport to satisfy the RFP requirements

of section 182(c).

Response: The St. Louis area is

classified under section 181(a) of the

Act as a moderate ozone nonattainment

area, and has not been reclassified

under section 181(b) as suggested by the

commenters. In any event, the RFP

requirements of section 182(b)(1) are

applicable to all areas classified as

31486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

moderate or higher, and must be met

regardless of an area’s classification and

attainment date.

The RFP requirements of the CAA are

structured in an additive fashion. For

example, section 182(c) states that

serious areas must meet the

requirements of both subsections (b) and

(c). As stated in the proposal on

Missouri’s submission, the scope of this

rulemaking is limited to determining

whether the submission meets the RFP

requirements in section 182(b)(1).

Whether it also meets additional

requirements of the Act, even if such

requirements were relevant, is beyond

the scope of the rulemaking.

2. Comments on the Adequacy of EPA’s

Notice of Its Statutory Authority for the

Rule

Comment: The commenters argue that

EPA failed to give notice of its statutory

authority to approve a 15% Plan which

relies on reductions in VOC emissions

achieved after November 15, 1996 (the

date specified in section 182(b)(1)(A)(i)

for achieving the reductions). The

commenters state that EPA has not met

the notice requirements of section

307(d)(3)(C) of the Act, or section 553 of

the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA).

Response: As a preliminary matter,

EPA notes that section 307(d) is not

applicable to this rulemaking. Section

307(d)(1) lists the actions to which

section 307(d) applies, and the list does

not include approval of SIP

submissions. See, e.g., Missouri

Limestone Producers v. Browner, 165 F.

3d 619, 621 (8th Cir. 1999). Therefore,

the rulemaking is governed by the

provisions of section 553 of the APA,

which requires, in relevant part, that a

notice of proposed rulemaking include

‘‘reference to the legal authority’’ for the

proposed rule, and ‘‘a description of the

subjects and issues involved’’ in the

proposed rule. APA, section 553(b). In

general, the notice must be sufficient to

allow for ‘‘informed public comment.’’

Id. at 623.

EPA believes that the notice criteria in

section 553(b) were met in the notice of

proposed rulemaking on the ROPP. The

notice contained a description of the

statutory requirements in section

182(b)(1) of the Act against which

submission was evaluated and a

description of how the submission

meets those requirements. The notice

contains a description of the issues

involving the November 15, 1996

deadline, and a discussion of the

rationale for approving a ROPP

extending beyond that date. See 65 FR

8089–8091.

EPA notes that the commenters

submitted extensive comments which

took issue with EPA’s stated legal basis

for proposing to approve the ROPP.

Therefore, EPA believes that the notice

of proposed rulemaking provided

sufficient notice to allow for ‘‘informed

public comment’’ and to satisfy the

requirements of the APA. The fact that

the commenters disagree with EPA’s

basis for approval, to which EPA is

responding below, does not mean that

EPA failed to provide adequate notice of

the basis for the proposed approval.

3. Comments Relating to the ROPP’s

Sufficiency With Respect to the

Statutory Requirements

Comment: In general, the commenters

assert that since section 182(b)(1)

requires that the plan include a 15%

decrease in baseline emissions by

November 15, 1996, EPA cannot

approve a plan which includes

reductions occurring after 1996.

Response: This assertion is contrary to

relevant case law and would provide a

disincentive for states to continue to

achieve emission reductions in an area

once a statutory date is missed, thus

defeating the purpose of section

182(b)(1). As EPA explained in the

proposal, even after the November 15,

1996 deadline for demonstrating the

15% VOC reduction has passed, the

requirement to achieve the emission

reduction remains, and the reduction

must be demonstrated as soon as

practicable. This is based on the ruling

in Delaney v. EPA, 898 F. 2d 687, 691

(9th Cir. 1990), stating that once a

statutory deadline has passed and has

not been replaced by a later one, the

deadline then becomes as soon as

possible, which EPA has interpreted to

be as soon as practicable. The Missouri

submission indicates, and EPA agrees,

that this date is 2003, when the full

reductions from the second phase of

Missouri’s motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program will be realized.

As indicated in EPA’s proposal, neither

Missouri nor EPA has been able to

identify any practicable measures which

are not included in the plan and which

could accelerate this demonstration

date.

EPA also notes that the commenters

do not take issue with the analysis of

other measures, but only with the

determination that a plan with a

demonstration date after 1996 can be

approved. For the reasons stated above

and in the proposal, EPA believes that

the Missouri submission can be

approved even though the

demonstration date is after 1996.

EPA also notes that, under the

commenters’ view that a 15% ROPP

with a post-1996 demonstration date

cannot be approved, there would be a

disincentive for a state to adopt and

implement a plan for achieving the 15%

ROPP reductions, since EPA would be

required to disapprove any post-1996

plan submitted by a state. In addition,

EPA would be unable to promulgate a

Federal plan after 1996, since it would

also be unable to achieve emission

reductions by 1996. EPA’s approach

keeps the requirement for emission

reductions in place after 1996, and

ensures that the reductions will be

achieved as soon as practicable after

that date.

Comment: Referring to language in

section 182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA the

commenters assert that Missouri’s ROPP

falls short of achieving the required

VOC emissions reductions. They note

that Missouri’s plan only accounts for

emissions growth between 1990 and

1996 and contend that the plan should

also account for growth that occurred

between 1996 and the time the state’s

plan was submitted. They further

contend that Missouri’s use of 1996

emissions projections (developed by

applying economic growth factors to

emissions estimates from previous

years), is arbitrary and capricious for

two reasons: (1) Their belief that there

is no basis for relying on emissions

projections at this late date, asserting

that 1996 actual emissions should be

inventories instead; and (2) the ROPP

does not account for growth after 1996.

Response: Section 182(b)(1)(A)(i)

reads, ‘‘By no later than 3 years after the

date of enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, the state shall

submit a revision to the applicable

implementation plan to provide for

volatile organic compound emission

reductions within 6 years after the

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, of at least 15

percent from baseline emissions

accounting for any growth in emissions

after the year in which the Clean Air Act

Amendments are enacted.’’ As

acknowledged by the commenters, the

statute clearly contemplated that states

would submit their ROPP by 1993 and

implement them by 1996. The growth

for which they must account is clearly

tied to 1996.

The 1993 due date leads to a

reasonable conclusion that Congress

intended for the states to determine the

required level of emissions reductions

based on projected as opposed to actual

emissions. Such an approach provides

for equitable treatment of the states. It

ensures there is no advantage gained

from delayed implementation of

emission control measures until after

the compliance date has passed and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31487

actual emissions can be estimated,

rather than risk implementing a control

plan designed around emission

projections that are too high.

Though not directly relevant to this

rulemaking, but nonetheless important

to achieving the air quality standards,

EPA notes that neither Missouri nor

EPA intends to ignore post-1996

changes in the area’s emissions

inventory. Appropriate consideration of

such changes is paramount to ensuring

that ozone levels in the St. Louis area

are reduced to acceptable levels.

Missouri has accounted for such

changes in its attainment demonstration

upon which EPA proposed action on

April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404).

Comment: The commenters stated

that, even if a plan could be submitted

after the statutory deadline for achieving

the 15% reductions, most of the

reductions included in the Missouri

submission are not creditable because

they did not occur prior to November

15, 1996.

Response: As stated previously, once

the statutory deadline for demonstrating

the 15% ROPP reductions has passed,

the requirement remains in effect, and

the new deadline is a date which is as

expeditious as practicable. Similarly,

ROPP reductions are creditable if the

state shows that the reduction will

occur by the new ROPP demonstration

date. Because Missouri has shown that

the remaining reductions will occur by

the 2003 demonstration date, EPA

believes that the reductions are

creditable under section 182(b)(1).

4. Comments Relating to the Absence of

Contingency Measures in the 15% Plan

Comment: The commenters argue that

Missouri’s submission should not be

approved because it does not include

‘‘any specific contingency measures,’’

and EPA’s proposal makes no reference

to the contingency measures to be

approved as part of the 15% ROPP. The

commenters assert that section 172(c)(9)

of the Act requires that contingency

measures meeting the requirements of

that section must be included in any

ROPP, and that failure to do so must

result in disapproval of the plan. The

commenters argue that this view linking

the requirements of section 172(c)(9)

with the requirements for ROPP was

announced as an EPA interpretation of

section 172(c)(9) in the April 16, 1992,

General Preamble (57 FR 13,498).

Response: EPA does not agree that the

contingency measure requirement in

section 172(c)(9) must be met in order

to meet the requirements for an

approvable 15% ROPP. The Act requires

contingency measures as part of the

overall SIP and not as feature of each

component of that plan, such as the

15% ROPP. Contrary to the commenters’

contention, our position is supported by

the plain language of section 172(c)(9).

While the other subsections in section

172(c) begin with ‘‘such plan provisions

shall * * * ,’’ section 172(c)(9) begins

with ‘‘such plan shall * * *.’’ ‘‘Such

plan’’ refers to the overall

nonattainment plan rather than an

individual element or provision of it.

The difference in language between the

contingency measures requirement and

the other requirement in section 172(c)

emphasizes that the contingency

measures serve to backstop the entire

nonattainment plan and not just

particular elements of it.

This interpretation is consistent with

the statement in the General Preamble

cited by the commenters which,

contrary to their characterization, did

not state that contingency measures

must be included in the ROPP. In the

General Preamble, EPA stated the Act’s

requirements for nonattainment plan

submittals for moderate nonattainment

areas. these included the requirement

for a 15% ROPP (discussed in section

III.A.3.(a)), an attainment demonstration

(discussed in section III.A.3.(b)), and

contingency measures (discussed in

section III.A.3.(c)), see 57 FR 13,498,

13507–13,512, as well as other

requirements for moderate areas.

EPA stated that it expected the

contingency measures would be

submitted at the same time as these

other plan elements, but did not state

that the 15% ROPP or any other specific

submittals were required to include

contingency measures. Logically, had

EPA intended to assert that contingency

measures are required in 15% Plans, it

would have said so in the General

Preamble discussion of the requirements

for 15% ROPP (section III.A.3.(a)),

which contained a lengthy discussion of

the contents of 15% Plans.

The commenters correctly note that

EPA’s proposal did not address the

issue of whether the various VOC rule

submittals, including rule 10 CSR 10–

5.300 (which EPA proposed to approve

into the SIP in the February 17, 2000,

proposed rulemaking), were adequate to

meet the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c)(9). The

issue was not addressed because the

proposal related only to whether

Missouri met the 15% ROPP

requirements in section 182(b)(1).

In the proposal (65 FR 8083, 8088),

EPA noted that rule 10–5.300 had been

submitted as part of the state’s 1998

contingency measure SIP, and that a

small fraction of the VOC reductions

(0.64 tons per day out of an approximate

total of 9 tons per day) was included in

the state’s 15% Plan demonstration.

EPA has not determined whether the

1998 submittal meets the requirements

of section 172(c)(9), and, as explained

above, can approve Missouri’s ROPP

demonstration without making that

determination. EPA will address the

SIP’s adequacy with respect to

contingency measures in a separate

rulemaking.

5. Comments Relating to EPA’s

Authority to Engage in Retroactive

Rulemaking

Comment: Finally, the commenters

object to EPA’s proposed action as

‘‘retroactive’’ rulemaking which is not

authorized under the Act. This

comment is based on their assertion that

EPA is proposing ‘‘to give legal effect as

of 1996 to events potentially occurring

in 2000 and beyond.’’

Response: This comment is based on

an incorrect characterization of EPA’s

proposal. Although not stated, this

comment appears to be based on the

commenters’ view, addressed above,

that EPA cannot approve a 15% ROPP

which relies on reductions occurring

after 1996, and that to approve such a

plan we are making it ‘‘retroactive’’ to

1996. However, this is not what EPA has

done. Rather, EPA has explained the

legal and policy basis for approving a

ROPP demonstration which extends

beyond 1966.

In addition, EPA’s approval of the

state plan does not take effect until the

future effective date specified in this

notice, and EPA’s approval of the plan

does not alter the effective dates (which

were established by Missouri during its

rulemaking process) of the rules on

which the plan relies. For these reasons,

EPA is not engaged in ‘‘retroactive’’

rulemaking and is authorized under the

Act to take this final action.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

We are taking final action to approve

Missouri’s 15% ROPP for the St. Louis

area and VOC rule 10 CSR 10–5.300. In

separate actions published in today’s

Federal Register, we are approving

several other VOC regulations which are

elements of the ROPP.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

31488 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.).

Because this rule approves preexisting

requirements under state law and does

not impose any additional enforceable

duty beyond that required by state law,

it does not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of tribal governments,

as specified by Executive Order 13084

(63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998).

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the states, on the

relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA.

This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, our

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), we have no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the CAA. Thus, the requirement of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this rule, we have

taken the necessary steps to eliminate

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859), March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the Executive

Order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

generally provides that before a rule

may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a

rule report, which includes a copy of

the rule, to each House of the Congress

and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. We will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the United States Senate,

the United States House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A major rule cannot take effect

until 60 days after it is published in the

Federal Register. This action is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

section must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 17, 2000.

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 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.

Dated: May 8, 2000.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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 et seq.

Subpart AA—Missouri

2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising the entry for

10–5.300, under Chapter 5, to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective date DPA approval date Explanation

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

*******

Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area

*******

10–5.300 .................... Control of Emissions From Solvent Metal

Cleaning.

May 30, 1998 ............. May 18, 2000. ............

*******

3. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph

(e) is amended by adding the following

entry at the end of the table: ‘‘15% Rateof-Progress Plan.’’

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31489

(e) * * *

EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory

SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State Submittal date EPA approval date Explanation

*******

15% Rate-of-Progress

Plan.

St. Louis ......................................................... 11/12/99 ..................... May 18, 2000 .............

[FR Doc. 00–12385 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–D

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 7 Tracking No. MO 101–1101; FRL–

6701–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a set of volatile organic

compound (VOC) rules for the St. Louis,

Missouri, nonattainment area. These

rules are intended to satisfy the

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) requirements of section

182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

Amendments of 1990. The VOC

reductions achieved by the

implementation of these rules will be

accounted for in the 15% Rate-ofProgress Plan (ROPP) and the

attainment demonstration for the St.

Louis nonattainment area as required in

section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act. EPA is

addressing the reductions as part of the

15% ROPP and the attainment

demonstration in separate rulemaking

actions.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state

submittals are available at the following

address for inspection during normal

business hours: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a SIP?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this action?

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP

revision been met?

What action is EPA taking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution regulations and control

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards established by EPA. These

ambient standards are established under

section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to EPA

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by us.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that we have

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, we are

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in section 304 of

the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

VOC emissions combine with

nitrogen oxide emissions on hot, sunny

days to form ground level ozone,

commonly known as smog. The purpose

of the following rules is to establish

RACT requirements for major sources of

VOC emissions to help reduce ozone

concentrations in the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. The St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area includes Franklin,

Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis

counties, and St. Louis City in Missouri.

We are taking final action to approve

as an amendment to the Missouri SIP

the following rules:

10 CSR 10–5.220 Control of Petroleum

Liquid Storage, Loading, and Transfer

Missouri has updated its existing rule

10 CSR 10–5.220 to improve the clarity

of the regulation and generally

strengthen the SIP. This rule restricts

VOC emissions from the handling of

petroleum liquids in five specific areas.