# + 2

(,1 1/,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

40CFR Part 52
Air pollution control,Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

40CFRPart 81
Airpollution 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 forpart 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 andAir 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 ofKansas 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 oftheKansas City metropolitan area was designated

as nonattainment for ozone in 40CFR part 81. Therefore, theAdministrator approves continuation ofthe 7.8 RVP limit as federally enforceable in the Kansas Citymetropolitan area,even after the area isredesignated to attainment, because ofits nonattainment designation effective January 6, 1992. Also, the requirement for 7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed necessary toensure attainment and maintenance ofthe ozone standard as demonstrated by the emissions inventory projections (based onuse of 7.8psi RVP) in Kansas' ozone maintenance plan forthe Kansas City metropolitan area.

40CFR part81 is amended as follows:

PART 81-AMENDED]

1.The authoritycitation for part81 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 amendedby revising the entries for Johnson andWyandotte 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 ifNovember 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 ofAreas 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, andJackson 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 ofthe Kansas City nonattainment area. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on July 23, 1992. ADDRESSES: Copies ofdocuments 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, AirPollution Program, Jefferson State Office Building, 205 Jefferson Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101; and the Public Information Reference Unit, Environmental ProtectionAgency, 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 ofquality assured ambient air quality data, for theperiod 1989 through 1991, indicate that the Kansas City ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS forozone. 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 199227940 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

adequate margin ofsafety, the state of Missouri has submitted an ozone maintenance plan which projects continued attainment of theozone 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 tenyears 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 offuture 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 ofsources 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 fora detailed discussion ofthe state's submission, therelevant requirements of the Act, andEPA's proposed action.
If.Response to Comments

EPA received 71 letters commenting

on the proposed rulemaking. All " commenters supported theproposed 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'sresponse to them, follow.

Comment: Phillips alleges that the methodology that Missouri used in plan development is unable to quantitatively determine the types ofozone 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 ofthe Act, for photochemical grid modeling to demonstrate maintenance ofthe 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), whichrequires modeling for

areas classified as "serious"). EPA believes the lack of such a requirement formaintenance 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 oftwo alternatives: (1)A demonstration that the future emission inventory willnot exceed the inventory that existed at the time of therequest for redesignation, or (2) an appropriate modeling analysis which shows that the future mix ofsources and emission rates, when combined with the control strategy forthe area, willnot cause any violations ofthe ambient standards. Of these two choices, the state elected to base its maintenance demonstration on the emission inventory analysis.EPA believes that theprojection and analysis offuture emissions meet the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe ozone standard without an increase inVOC emissions. EPA agrees that violations caused by increased NO. emissions are theoretically possible, although the exact relationship between NO, emissions and the formation ofozone is notcertain. However,in the case ofthe Kansas City maintenance plan,EPA performed an analysis ofprojected NO, emissions for the metropolitan area. EPA'sanalysis showed noincrease in NO, emissions through the year 2005. Coupled withthe projection that VOC emissions will be below the level existing atthe time ofthe redesignation request, EPA concludes that there is an adequate technical basis in the plan to demonstrate that the ozone standard willbe maintained.

EPA also notes that historically VOC control hasbeen successful in bringing the Kansas City area into attainment of the ozone standard, which is another basis forthe conclusion that maintenance ofboth VOC andNO. emissions levels willresult in continued attainment..

For the foregoing reasons, EPA does notagree that photochemical grid modeling is legally required or technically necessary to show maintenance ofthe 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 ofa "quantitative analysis" through urban grid modeling, there is no basis forestablishing the "margin of safety" included in the plan.

Response:The comment assumes that photochemical grid modeling is necessary to demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard. As discussed above, EPA believes that the demonstration included in the maintenance plan is adequate in the absence of suchmodeling.

The need for a margin ofsafety is clearly demonstrated in the Kansas City maintenance plan.That margin, provided primarily through the delivery ofgasoline with a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) limit of7.8 psi, is essential due to the marginal nature ofozone attainment in the area. Since 1990, exceedances of the ozone standard have occurred when RVPlevels were between 8.5 and 9.0 psi. Therewere two exceedances ofthe standard in 1990 and two in 1991. Because these exceedances did not
occur at thesame monitor site, they did notconstitute violations ofthe 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 ofsafety during thenext several ozone

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27940 1992Feea eitr/Vl 7 o 2 

### /Tedy ue2,19 ue n Reuain 27941

seasons, since other control measures,
as discussed below, require a much longerimplementation period.

Section 211(h)(2) ofthe CAA allows EPA to impose an RVP requirement "lower than 9.0psi 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 fuelvolatility regulations (56FR 64704, December 12, 1991). In that rulemaking, EPAprovided that an area which is redesignated to attainment must remain subject to the 7.8psi RVP unless it shows through a maintenance plan demonstration that it is no longerneeded (56 FR 64706). In the lattercase, 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 of7.8 psi to maintain the standard. Only ifthe state hadbeen able to implement other control

measures with equivalent emission reductions to ensure maintenance ofthe standard would EPA have theoption of relaxing the Phase IIvolatility controls.

EPA believes that themargin ofsafety is based on a demonstrated need. EPA also believes the plan fully supports the continued enforcement ofPhase II volatility levels.

Comment:The plan does not account for the effects ofmore stringent motor vehicle emission standards mandated by the CAA andrevisions to EPA's MOBILE model. These effects are significant tothe determination ofthe type and extent ofcontrol-needed to maintain attainment.

Response:Atthe time Missouri and Kansas developed their maintenance plans, the applicable version ofEPA's mobile source emissions model was MOBILE4.0. Since that time, MOBILE4.1 hasbecome available. MOBILE4.1 was used by EPA prior to the proposed approval ofthe maintenance plan to determine what effect, ifany,that the

new model wouldhave 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, thenet 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, itwill 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 ineight years), the effect ofthe

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 theozone standard.

Comment:The plan places the burden for futuregrowth in theKansas City

area entirely on the petroleum industry. Amix ofcost effective measures, including enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) for motorvehicles, should be identified to accommodate future growth.

Response:EPA believes that the states properly considered an appropriate range ofmeasures andtheir cost effectiveness. EPA believes thatthe states' selection ofRVP controls demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard in Kansas City.The maintenance plan submitted by the state includes an analysis ofthe cost effectiveness ofvarious control
measures, including anI/M program, Stage IIvaporrecovery, and additional RACTcontrols on minorsources, 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 ofNatural Resources (MDNR) during the comment period states that the RVP restriction costs approximately $500 per ton ofemissions controlled, an amount halfas expensive

asthe next most costeffective strategy forthe area (Stage II). MDNR comments that reductions maybe possible by requiringboth Stage IIvapor recovery and I/M, butMDNR's analysis indicates that the cost would be higher perton of VOC controlled forthese measures. Stage IIwould alsobe a costborne primarily by the petroleum industry. MDNR also comments that the amount ofVOC emissions controlled bythe RVP program is second only to RACT-if imposed on smaller, 25 tons/year sources-but that the cost ofRACT is alsogreater. 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 costsare incurred only during the

ozone season, andthus are not annual costs as are the other measures. EPA also rejects Phillips' argument that thepetroleum industry isbearing the burden for futuregrowth. EPA notes that the states have adopted many regulations over theyears in an effort to attain and maintain the ozone standard. These have included RACT regulations for all ofthe 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 ofmeasures to address the ozone problem. Ultimately, the CAA places theresponsibility on the states to select the appropriate control strategy necessary to attainand maintain theNAAQS.

Although EPA has determined that the states' selection ofRVPis appropriate, this selection should notbe considered

as setting aprecedent 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 therequirements ofsection 175A. EPA ACTION: In today's notice EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP. This includes approving theKansas City

ozone maintenance plan,because it meets therequirements of section 175A ofthe Act, and approving the RACTrule submittals as meeting the RACT requirements ofthe Act. In addition, EPA is approving theredesignation request for theKansas City area because the state has demonstrated compliance with therequirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) forredesignation, as discussed in detail in the above referenced proposed rulemaking.

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofsection 3ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby August 24, 1992. Filinga petition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final ruledoes not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review, nordoes it extend the timewithin which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall notpostpone the effectiveness of such rule oraction.This action maynot Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121'/ Tuesday, June 23, 1992 

### / Rules and Regulations 27941

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27941 199227942 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

40CFRPart 52
Airpollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

40CFRPart 81
Air pollution control, National Parks. Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 12, 1992. William K.Reilly, Administrator.

40 CFR part 52, subpartAA is amended as follows:

PART 52-f(AMENDED]

1.The authority citation forpart 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 Identificationof plan.

* * * * (C) * * * (77)Revisions to the state implementation plan forthe Kansas City metropolitan area were submitted by the Director ofthe Missouri Department of Natural Resources on October 9,1991. Revisions include a maintenance plan which demonstrates continued attainment oftheNAAQS for ozone through theyear 2002. Rulerevisions

were also submitted on October 9, 1991. (i)Incorporation by reference. (A) Revised regulations 10CSR 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 ofEmissions from Lithographic Printing Facilities, effective December9, 1991. (ii)Additional material. (A) State ofMissouri Implementation Plan, Kansas City Metropolitan Area Maintenance Provisions, October 1991.

3.Section 52.1323 is amended by addingparagraph (h)to read as follows: §52.1323 Approval Status.

(h)The Missouri portion ofthe 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 ofthe 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 forpart 81 is revised to read as follows:

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

2. In §81.326 thedesignation 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 CityArea 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 Modificationof 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 tomodify its program in accordance with §271.21(g) to adopt the Federal program modifications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narindar Kumar,Chief, StatePrograms Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, EPARegion IV, 345 Courtland Street,NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

Final authorization to implement the Federal hazardous waste program within the State isgranted byEPA ifthe Agency finds that the State program (1) is "equivalent" to theFederal Program, (2) is "consistent" with the Federal program and other State programs, and (3) provides foradequate 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 Statemust 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 ofits 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