+(,121/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 27939 1992 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Fri Nov 2 20:53:07 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 12, 1992.

William K. Reilly,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52, subpart R is amended

as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 is

revised to read as follows:

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

Subpart R-Kansas

2. Section 52.870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(26) to read as

follows:

§ 52.870 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(26) Revisions to the state

implementation plan for the Kansas City

metropolitan area were submitted by the

Governor on October 23, 1991. Revisions

include a maintenance plan which

demonstrates continued attainment of

the NAAQS for ozone through the year

2002. Rule revisions were also submitted

on October 23, 1991.

(i) Incorporation by reference,

(A) Article 19-Ambient Air Quality

Standards and Air Pollution Control,

revised Kansas Administrative

Regulations (K.A.R.) 28-19-61,

Definitions, and K.A.R. 28-19-62,

Testing procedures; and new rules

K.A.R. 28-19-76, Lithography printing

facilities, and K.A.R. 26-19-77, Chemical

processing facilities that operate alcohol

plants or liquid detergent plants. These

rules were published August 22, 1991,

and became effective October 7, 1991.

(ii) Additional material

(A) State of Kansas Implementation

Plan, Kansas City Metropolitan Area

Maintenance Provisions, October 1991.

3. Section 52.873 is amended by

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a) and adding a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.873 Approval status. *, * * * *

(b) The Kansas portion of the Kansas

City metropolitan area was designated

as nonattainment for ozone in 40 CFR

part 81. Therefore, the Administrator

approves continuation of the 7.8 RVP

limit as federally enforceable in the

Kansas City metropolitan area, even

after the area is redesignated to

attainment, because of its

nonattainment designation effective

January 6, 1992. Also, the requirement

for 7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed

necessary to ensure attainment and

maintenance of the ozone standard as

demonstrated by the emissions

inventory projections (based on use of

7.8 psi RVP) in Kansas' ozone

maintenance plan for the Kansas City

metropolitan area.

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81-AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority- 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7501-7515, 7601.

2. In § 81.317 the designation table for

ozone is amended by revising the entries

for Johnson and Wyandotte Counties to

read as follows:

§ 81.317 Kansas.

KANSAS-OZONE

Designated area Designation classification

Date Type Date Type

Kansas City Area:

Johnson County ............................................ July 23, 1992 ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment .................. Wyandotte County ................. July 23, 1992 ..................... Uncassifiable/Attainment ..................

'This date if November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 92-14594 Filed 6-Z2-92; 8:45 am]

WILLING COOE 6560-S--

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Moll-1-5440; FRL-4140-71

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In today's notice EPA is

taking final action to approve revisions

to the Missouri State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The revision includes the

Missouri ozone maintenance plan for the

Kansas City area and related Missouri

rule revisions. EPA is also approving the

state's request to redesignate Clay,

Platte, and Jackson Counties, Missouri,

to attainment with respect to the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). In a separate Federal Register

notice published today, EPA is taking a

concurrent final action regarding the

Kansas maintenance plan and

redesignation request for the Kansas

portions of the Kansas City

nonattainment area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective on July 23, 1992.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at: the Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101; the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources, Air Pollution

Program, Jefferson State Office Building,

205 Jefferson Street, Jefferson City,

Missouri 65101; and the Public

Information Reference Unit,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Larry A. Hacker at (913) 551-7602 (FTS

276-7602).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Three years of quality assured

ambient air quality data, for the period

1989 through 1991, indicate that the

Kansas City ozone nonattainment area

has attained the NAAQS for ozone.

Therefore, in accordance with the Clean

Air Act (CAA), and to ensure continued

attainment of the standard with an

27939

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27939 1992
27940 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

adequate margin of safety, the state of

Missouri has submitted an ozone

maintenance plan which projects

continued attainment of the ozone

standard in the Kansas City area. Both the Missouri and Kansas plans

meet all the applicable requirements of

the CAA. The Missouri submittal

complies with section 175A of the Act

which sets forth maintenance plan

requirements for areas seeking

redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment. The state's demonstration of

continued attainment relies in part on

EPA's Phase II gasoline volatility

requirements. The plan demonstrates

continued attainment of the applicable

NAAQS for at least ten years after the area is redesignated. Eight years after

the redesignation, the state commits to

submit a revised maintenance plan

which demonstrates attainment for the

ten years following the initial ten-year

period. And, in the event of future

NAAQS violations, the maintenance

plan contains contingency measures

adequate to ensure prompt correction of

the air quality problem.

Accompanying the maintenance plan

are new state rules which control

certain categories of sources which emit

volatile organic compounds (VOC)

emissions.

Finally, the state submittal also

includes a redesignation request in

which the state demonstrates that the

area has fulfilled the redesignation

requirements of the amended Act

pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(e).

On January 15, 1992, in the Federal

Register (57 FR 1705), EPA proposed to

approve the state's maintenance plan

and Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rules, and to

promulgate the redesignation. (In a

separate notice published the same day,

EPA proposed to approye an analogous

maintenance plan and redesignation

request submitted by the state ofKansas.) The reader should consult

EPA's proposed rulemaking and

technical support document for a

detailed discussion of the state's

submission, the relevant requirements of

the Act, and EPA's proposed action.

If. Response to Comments

EPA received 71 letters commenting

on the proposed rulemaking. All "

commenters supported the proposed

action except one (Phillips

Petroleumartlesville, Oklahoma).

Phillips requested that EPA disapprove

the maintenance plan based on four

arguments. Phillips' comments consist of

three technical issues concerning the

demonstration included by Kansas and

Missouri to show that the area would

continue to maintain the ozone

standard, and one policy issue

concerning the appropriate mix of

controls necessary to maintain the

standard. A summary of Phillips'

comments, and EPA's response to them,

follow.

Comment: Phillips alleges that the

methodology that Missouri used in plan

development is unable to quantitatively

determine the types of ozone precursor

control needed and the extent to which

precursor emissions reductions

(including NO.) may be required to

maintain the ozone standard. Phillips

alleges that EPA should require urban

grid-based air quality modeling.

Response: In the 1990 Amendments to

the Act, Congress specifically added

section 175A which specifies the

requirements for maintenance plans.

There is no requirement in section 175A,

or in other applicable provisions of the

Act, for photochemical grid modeling to

demonstrate maintenance of the ozone

standard in areas like Kansas City,

which have attained the standard. Such

modeling is only required for certain

areas which have not attained the

standard. The requirement for such

modeling applies to those areas with the

more serious or complex ozone nonattainment problems (e.g., section

182(c)(2](A), which requires modeling for

areas classified as "serious"). EPA

believes the lack of such a requirement

for maintenance plans was intended to

give EPA and the states flexibility in

ademonstrating maintenance of the

standard. Accordingly, for maintenance

demonstrations, EPA believes that

states may make the demonstration

through one of two alternatives: (1) A

demonstration that the future emission

inventory will not exceed the inventory

that existed at the time of the request for

redesignation, or (2) an appropriate

modeling analysis which shows that the

future mix of sources and emission

rates, when combined with the control

strategy for the area, will not cause any

violations of the ambient standards. Of

these two choices, the state elected to

base its maintenance demonstration on the emission inventory analysis. EPA

believes that the projection and analysis

of future emissions meet the

requirements of section 175A, and that

the state's emission inventory

methodology is consistent with.EPA

guidance, as discussed in the proposed

rulemaking.

Phillips also suggested that NO.

emissions should be examined using the

photochemical grid model because an

increase in NO, emissions could result

in violations of the ozone standard

without an increase in VOC emissions.

EPA agrees that violations caused by

increased NO. emissions are

theoretically possible, although the

exact relationship between NO,

emissions and the formation of ozone is

not certain. However, in the case of the

Kansas City maintenance plan, EPA

performed an analysis of projected NO,

emissions for the metropolitan area.

EPA's analysis showed no increase in

NO, emissions through the year 2005.

Coupled with the projection that VOC

emissions will be below the level

existing at the time of the redesignation

request, EPA concludes that there is an

adequate technical basis in the plan to

demonstrate that the ozone standard

will be maintained.

EPA also notes that historically VOC

control has been successful in bringing

the Kansas City area into attainment of

the ozone standard, which is another

basis for the conclusion that

maintenance of both VOC and NO.

emissions levels will result in continued

attainment..

For the foregoing reasons, EPA does

not agree that photochemical grid

modeling is legally required or

technically necessary to show

maintenance of the standard. The

methodology used by the state to

demonstrate continued maintenance of

the standard is adequate to meet the

requirements of section 175A.

Comment: Phillips argues that due to

the lack of a "quantitative analysis"

through urban grid modeling, there is no

basis for establishing the "margin of

safety" included in the plan.

Response: The comment assumes that

photochemical grid modeling is

necessary to demonstrate maintenance

of the ozone standard. As discussed

above, EPA believes that the

demonstration included in the

maintenance plan is adequate in the

absence of such modeling.

The need for a margin of safety is

clearly demonstrated in the Kansas City

maintenance plan. That margin,

provided primarily through the delivery

of gasoline with a Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) limit of 7.8 psi, is essential due to

the marginal nature of ozone attainment

in the area. Since 1990, exceedances of

the ozone standard have occurred when

RVP levels were between 8.5 and 9.0 psi.

There were two exceedances of the

standard in 1990 and two in 1991.

Because these exceedances did not

occur at the same monitor site, they did

not constitute violations of the NAAQS.

However, these exceedances do indicate

that the standard will likely be

jeopardized without further control

measures. RVP control is the only

measure that can provide immediate

VOC reduction and the desired margin

of safety during the next several ozone

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27940 1992
Feea eitr/Vl 7 o 2 /Tedy ue2,19 ue n Reuain 27941

seasons, since other control measures,

as discussed below, require a much

longer implementation period.

Section 211(h)(2) of the CAA allows

EPA to impose an RVP requirement

"lower than 9.0 psi in any area, formerly

an ozone nonattainment area, which has

been redesignated an attainment area."

EPA discusses this authority in the

context of areas newly redesignated to

attainment in its federal fuel volatility

regulations (56 FR 64704, December 12,

1991). In that rulemaking, EPA provided

that an area which is redesignated to

attainment must remain subject to the

7.8 psi RVP unless it shows through a

maintenance plan demonstration that it

is no longer needed (56 FR 64706). In the

latter case, EPA could raise the

volatility level to 9.0 psi. The Kansas

City maintenance plan does not support

such a change and, in fact, relies on the

lower limit of 7.8 psi to maintain the

standard. Only if the state had been

able to implement other control

measures with equivalent emission

reductions to ensure maintenance of the

standard would EPA have the option of

relaxing the Phase II volatility controls.

EPA believes that the margin of safety

is based on a demonstrated need. EPA

also believes the plan fully supports the

continued enforcement of Phase II

volatility levels.

Comment: The plan does not account

for the effects of more stringent motor

vehicle emission standards mandated

by the CAA and revisions to EPA's

MOBILE model. These effects are

significant to the determination of the

type and extent of control-needed to

maintain attainment.

Response: At the time Missouri and

Kansas developed their maintenance

plans, the applicable version of EPA's

mobile sour ce emissions model was

MOBILE4.0. Since that time, MOBILE4.1

has become available. MOBILE4.1 was

used by EPA prior to the proposed

approval of the maintenance plan to

determine what effect, if any, that the

new model would have on the

demonstration of continued attainment

of the ozone standard. For any given

year, MOBILE4.1 predicted lower VOC

emissions than MOBILE4.0; however,

the level of VOC emissions necessary to

maintain the ozone standard is also

reduced correspondingly. Thus, the net

effect on the margin of safety is

insignificant.

EPA also notes that the new tailpipe

standards will not become effective

until 1994. Because these standards

apply only to new vehicles, it will take

several years for the emission

reductions to occur as new vehicles are

added to the total vehicle population.

For these reasons, the new tailpipe

standards are not adequate to

demonstrate near-term maintenance of

the standard. When the state submits its

revised maintenance plan (which is

required in eight years), the effect of the

new tailpipe standards, as well as other

changes in emission inventory

methodology, will be considered. Prior

to that time, the tailpipe emission

standards are not sufficient to

demonstrate maintenance of the ozone

standard.

Comment: The plan places the burden

for future growth in the Kansas City

area entirely on the petroleum industry.

A mix of cost effective measures,

including enhanced inspection and

maintenance (I/M) for motor vehicles,

should be identified to accommodate

future growth.

Response: EPA believes that the

states properly considered an

appropriate range of measures and their

cost effectiveness. EPA believes that the

states' selection of RVP controls

demonstrate maintenance of the ozone

standard in Kansas City. The

maintenance plan submitted by the state

includes an analysis of the cost

effectiveness of various control

measures, including an I/M program,

Stage II vapor recovery, and additional

RACT controls on minor sources, in

addition to gasoline volatility controls.

This information shows that RVP -

control is the most cost-effective

measure per ton of VOC controlled.

Information submitted by the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) during the comment period

states that the RVP restriction costs

approximately $500 per ton of emissions

controlled, an amount half as expensive

as the next most cost effective strategy

for the area (Stage II). MDNR comments

that reductions may be possible by

requiring both Stage II vapor recovery

and I/M, but MDNR's analysis indicates

that the cost would be higher per ton of

VOC controlled for these measures.

Stage II would also be a cost borne

primarily by the petroleum industry.

MDNR also comments that the amount

of VOC emissions controlled by the RVP

program is second only to RACT-if

imposed on smaller, 25 tons/year

sources-but that the cost of RACT is

also greater. In addition, the state

concluded that I/M, Stage II, and RACT

would take time to implement due to the

legislative and administrative lead times

required, whereas RVP control is

already in place. RVP reduction is the

only measure that achieves immediate

VOC reductions. Finally, RVP control

and costs are incurred only during the

ozone season, and thus are not annual

costs as are the other measures.

EPA also rejects Phillips' argument

that the petroleum industry is bearing

the burden for future growth. EPA notes

that the states have adopted many

regulations over the years in an effort to

attain and maintain the ozone standard.

These have included RACT regulations

for all of the major stationary sources in

the area. Furthermore, the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emission Standards have also

been, and will continue to be, effective

in lowering VOC emissions. EPA

believes the states have, in fact, adopted

and implemented, in conjunction with

EPA, a wide range of measures to

address the ozone problem. Ultimately,

the CAA places the responsibility on the

states to select the appropriate control

strategy necessary to attain and

maintain the NAAQS.

Although EPA has determined that the

states' selection of RVP is appropriate,

this selection should not be considered

as setting a precedent for other areas

requesting redesignation to attainment.

Each area should consider the cost

effectiveness and feasibility of

appropriate measures when developing

the required maintenance plans for

areas within the state.

For the foregoing reasons, and for the

additional reasons stated in EPA's

proposed approval at 57 FR 1705,

January 15, 1992, EPA has determined

that the Kansas City maintenance plan

meets the requirements of section 175A.

EPA ACTION: In today's notice EPA is

approving revisions to the Missouri SIP.

This includes approving the Kansas City

ozone maintenance plan, because it

meets the requirements of section 175A

of the Act, and approving the RACT rule

submittals as meeting the RACT

requirements of the Act. In addition,

EPA is approving the redesignation

request for the Kansas City area

because the state has demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation, as

discussed in detail in the above

referenced proposed rulemaking.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

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 August 24, 1992. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121'/ Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 27941

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27941 1992
27942 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National Parks.

Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 12, 1992.

William K. Reilly,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52, subpart AA is

amended as follows:

PART 52-f(AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 is

revised to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA-Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(77) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. * * * *

(C) * * *

(77) Revisions to the state

implementation plan for the Kansas City

metropolitan area were submitted by the

Director of the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources on October 9, 1991.

Revisions include a maintenance plan

which demonstrates continued

attainment of the NAAQS for ozone

through the year 2002. Rule revisions

were also submitted on October 9, 1991.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revised regulations 10 CSR 10-

6.020, Definitions, and 10 CSR 10-2.220,

Liquefied Cutback Asphalt Paving

Restricted, effective August 30, 1991; and new regulation 10 CSR 10-2.340, Control

of Emissions from Lithographic Printing

Facilities, effective December 9, 1991.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) State of Missouri Implementation

Plan, Kansas City Metropolitan Area

Maintenance Provisions, October 1991.

3. Section 52.1323 is amended by

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 52.1323 Approval Status.

(h) The Missouri portion of the Kansas

City metropolitan area was designated

as nonattainment for ozone in 40 CFR

part 81. Therefore, the Administrator

approves continuation of the 7.8 RVP

limit as federally enforceable in the

Kansas City metropolitan area, even

after the area is redesignated to

attainment, because of its

nonattainment designation effective

January 6,1992. Also, the requirement

for 7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed

necessary to ensure attainment and

maintenance of the ozone standard as

demonstrated by the emissions

inventory projections (based on use of

7.8 psi RVP) in Missouri's ozone

maintenance plan for the Kansas City

metropolitan area.

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7501-7515, 7601.

2. In § 81.326 the designation table for

ozone is amended by revising the entries

for Clay, Jackson, and Platte Counties to

read as follows:

§ 81.326 Missouri.

Missouri-Ozone

Designation Classification

Designated Area Dae TpeDate'= Type

Kansas City Area

Clay County .................................................................................. July 23, 1992... Unclassifiable/Attainment ................ ............

Jackson County ............................................................................. July 23, 1992... Unclassifiable/Attainment .......................

Platte County ................................................................................. July 23, 1992... Unclassifiable/Attainment ........................

This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* ,* * * *

[FR Doc. 92-14593 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 aml

BILUNG CODE 6560-51-M

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-4146-4]

South Carolina; Schedule of

Compliance for Modification of South

Carolina's Hazardous Waste Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV.

ACTION: Notice of South Carolina's

Compliance Schedule to adopt program

modifications.

SUMMARY: On September 22, 1986, EPA

promulgated amendments to the

deadlines for State program

modifications and published

requirements for States to be placed on

a compliance schedule to adopt the

necessary program modifications. EPA

is today publishing a compliance

schedule for South Carolina to modify

its program in accordance with

§ 271.21(g) to adopt the Federal program

modifications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Narindar Kumar, Chief, State Programs

Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste

Management Division, EPA Region IV,

345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Final authorization to implement the

Federal hazardous waste program

within the State is granted by EPA if the

Agency finds that the State program (1)

is "equivalent" to the Federal Program,

(2) is "consistent" with the Federal

program and other State programs, and

(3) provides for adequate enforcement

(section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6226(b)). EPA

regulations for final authorization

appear in 40 CFR 271.1-271.24. In order

to retain authorization, a State must

revise its program to adopt new Federal

requirements by the Cluster deadlines

specified in 40 CFR 271.21. See 51 FR

33712, September 22, 1986, for a

complete discussion of these procedures

and deadlines.

B. South Carolina

South Carolina received final

authorization of its hazardous waste

program on November 22, 1985. (Federal

Register.) 46437, November 8, 1985, Vol.

50, No. 217,

Today EPA is publishing a compliance

schedule for South Carolina to obtain

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27942 1992