+(,121/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 27936 1992 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Fri Nov 2 20:51:11 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.
27936 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

Final Rulemaking Action

Because no public comments were

received concerned USEPA's proposed

rulemaking action to extend the stay

beyond the three months provided in

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (42

U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)), USEPA announces

an extension of the stay for Riverside

Laboratories and Reynolds Metals

Company, but only as long as necessary

to complete reconsideration of the rules

identified in the proposal.

At that time, USEPA will publish a

rule in the Federal Register notifying the

public of the withdrawal of this stay.

USEPA intends to complete its

reconsideration of the rules and,

following the notice and comment

procedures of § 307(d) of the CAA, take

appropriate action. If the

reconsideration results in emission

limitations and standards which are

different than the otherwise applicable

Federal Implementation Plan rules,

USEPA will propose an appropriate

compliance period following final

adoption of the new emission limitations

and standards. In essence, USEPA'will

seek to ensure that the affected parties

are not unduly prejudiced by the

Agency's reconsideration. Note that, like

the rules themselves, any USEPA

proposal regarding the appropriate

compliance period would be subject to

the notice and comment procedures of

CAA section 307(d).

USEPA recognizes the interests of the

State of Wisconsin in this matter. The

regulatory requirements that are

affected by today's proposal were

undertaken in the context of a

settlement agreement between USEPA

and the States of Wisconsin and Illinois.

In recognition of those obligations,

USEPA will reconsider the rules in

question as expeditiously as practicable.

This stay will be effective

immediately upon signature of the

Administrator pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

533(d) (1) and (3) for good cause and

because it relieves a restriction.

Correction

In the codification of a Stay affecting

Viskase Corporation, Allsteel,

Incorporated and General Motors

Corporation which was published in the

May 31, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR

24722) in the third column on page 24723,

in § 52.741(z)(1) the date on which the

stay was initiated was incorrectly listed

as January 4, 1991. The correct date on

which the stay was initiated is July 1,

1991. USEPA is correcting this error in

today's Federal Register. USEPA regrets

any inconvenience that this error has

caused.

Under Executive Order 12291, this

action is not "Major". It has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: June 12, 1992.

F. Henry Habicht II,

Acting Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows;

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52 is

revised to read as follows:

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

Subpart 0-Illinois

2. Section 52.741, is amended by

revising paragraphs [z)(1) and (z)(4) to

read as follows:

§ 52.741 Control strategy: Ozone control

measures for Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry and Will Counties.

z) * * *

(1) The following rules are stayed

from July 1, 1991, until USEPA completes

its reconsideration as indicated:

(i) 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)[i)(M)(2) and (3),

and 40 CFR 52.741(e)(5);

(ii) 40 CFR 52.741(u) and (v), including

40 CFR 52.741(u)(4) and (v)(4) only as it

applies to Viskase Corporation's

cellulose food casing manufacturing

facility in Bedford Park Illinois; and

(iii) 40 CFR 52.741(u), including 40 CFR

52.741(u)(4), only as applies to Allsteel

Incorporated's adhesive lines at its

metal furniture manufacturing

operations in Kane County, Illinois.

When USEPA concludes its

reconsideration, it will publish its

decision and any actions required to

effectuate that decision in the Federal

Register.

(4) The following rules are stayed

from June 12, 1992 until USEPA

completes its reconsideration as

indicated:

(i) 40 CFR 52.741(e) only as it applies

to Riverside Laboratories Incorporated;

and

(ii) 40 CFR 52.741(x) and (y) only as it

applies to Reynolds Metals Company.

When USEPA concludes its

reconsideration, it will publish its

decision and any actions required to

effectuate that decision in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 92-14607 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[KS1-1-5439; FRL-4126-61

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; and Designation

of Areas for Air Ouality Planning

Purposes; State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In today's notice EPA is

taking final action to approve revisions

to the Kansas State Implementation Plan

(SIP). The revision includes the Kansas

ozone maintenance plan for the Kansas

City area and related Kansas rule

revisions. EPA is also approving the

state's request to redesignate Johnson

and Wyandotte Counties (the Kansas

portion of the Kansas City

nonattainment area) 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

Missouri maintenance plan and

redesignation request for the Missouri

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 Kansas Department of Health

and Environment, Forbes Field, Building

740, Topeka, Kansas 66620, 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), as amended, and to

ensure continued attainment of the

standard with an adequate margin of

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27936 1992
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

safety, the state of Kansas has

submitted an ozone maintenance plan

which projects continued attainment of

the ozone standard in the Kansas City

area.

Both the Kansas and Missouri plans

meet all the applicable requirements of

the CAA, as amended. The Kansas

submittal complies with section 175A of

the Act which sets forth raintenance

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 approve an analogous

maintenance plan and redesignation

request submitted by the state of

Missouri.) 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.

II. Response to Comments

EPA received 71 letters commenting

on the proposed rulemaking. All

commenters supported the proposed

action except one (Phillips Petroleum

Company, Bartlesville, 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 Kansas 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

demonstrating 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 ahd NO,,

emissions levels will relt 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

measupes. RVP control is the only.

measure that can provide immediate

VOC reduction and the desired margin

of safety during the next several ozone

27

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27937 1992
27938 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

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 requirement unless it shows

through a maintenance plan

demonstration that it is no longer

needed (56 FR at 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, as amended, 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 source 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, 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

state's 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

cbntrolled, 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

RACT is 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 Kansas 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 29, 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

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27938 1992
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