# + 2

(,1 1/,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 nopublic comments were received concerned USEPA's proposed rulemaking action to extend the stay beyond the threemonths provided in section 307(d)(7)(B) ofthe CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)), USEPA announces
an extension ofthe stay forRiverside Laboratories and Reynolds Metals Company, butonly as long asnecessary to complete reconsideration ofthe rules identified in theproposal.

At that time, USEPA will publish a rule in the Federal Register notifying the public ofthe withdrawal ofthis stay.

USEPA intends to complete its reconsideration ofthe rules and, following thenotice and comment procedures of §307(d) ofthe CAA, take appropriate action.Ifthe reconsideration results in emission limitations and standards which are different than the otherwise applicable Federal Implementation Planrules, USEPA will propose an appropriate compliance period following final adoption ofthe new emission limitations and standards. Inessence, USEPA'will seek to ensure that the affectedparties

are notunduly prejudiced bythe 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 ofthe State ofWisconsin in this matter.The regulatory requirements that are affected by today's proposal were undertaken in the context ofa settlement agreement between USEPA and the States ofWisconsin and Illinois. In recognition of those obligations, USEPA will reconsider the rules in question as expeditiously as practicable.

This stay willbe effective immediately upon signature of the Administrator pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5U.S.C. 533(d) (1)and (3)for good cause and because it relieves a restriction.
Correction

In the codification ofa Stay affecting Viskase Corporation, Allsteel, Incorporated and General Motors Corporation whichwas published inthe May 31, 1991, FederalRegister (56FR 24722) in thethird 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 isJuly 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 ofManagement and Budget for review.

List of Subjects in 40CFR Part 52

Airpollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated:June 12, 1992.
F. Henry Habicht II, ActingAdministrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter Iofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows;

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1.The authority citation forpart 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 ParkIllinois; 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, itwill 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, itwill publish its decision and any actions required to 

### effectuate that decision in theFederal Register. [FRDoc.92-14607 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M



### 40 CFR Parts 52and 81 [KS1-1-5439; FRL-4126-61 Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans;and Designation ofAreas forAirOuality 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 andWyandotte Counties (the Kansas portion of theKansas City nonattainment area) to attainment with respect to the ozone National Ambient AirQuality Standard (NAAQS). In a separate FederalRegister notice published today, EPA is taking a concurrent final action regarding the Missouri maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Missouri 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: theEnvironmental Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; the Kansas Department ofHealth andEnvironment, 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 ofquality 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 AirAct (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 ofKansas has submitted an ozone maintenance plan which projects continued attainment of the ozone standard inthe 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 theAct 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 IIgasoline volatility requirements. The plan demonstrates continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS for at leastten years after the

area isredesignated.

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, inthe event offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan contains contingency

measures adequate to ensure prompt correction ofthe 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 ofthe amended Act pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(e).

On January 15, 1992, inthe Federal Register (57 FR 1705), EPAproposed 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 proposedto 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 ofthe state's submission, the relevant requirements of the Act, andEPA'sproposed action.
II.Response to Comments

EPA received 71 letters commenting

on the proposed rulemaking. All commenters supported theproposed 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 theozone standard, andone policy issue concerning the appropriate mix of controls necessary tomaintain the standard. A summary ofPhillips' comments, and EPA'sresponse to them, follow.

Comment- Phillips alleges that the methodology that Kansas 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 theozone standard. Phillips alleges that EPA should require urban grid-based air quality modeling.

Response:In the 1990 Amendments to theAct. Congress specifically added section 175A which specifies the requirements formaintenance plans. There is norequirement in section 175A,

or in other applicable provisions ofthe Act, for photochemical gridmodeling to demonstrate maintenance oftheozone standard in areas likeKansas City, which have attained the standard. Such modeling is onlyrequired for certain

areas which have not attainedthe 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 thelack ofsuch a requirement for maintenance plans was intended to give EPA and the states flexibility in demonstrating maintenance ofthe standard. Accordingly,for maintenance demonstrations, EPAbelieves that statesmay make thedemonstration through one oftwo alternatives:

(1)Ademonstration that the future emissioninventory will not exceed the inventory thatexisted at the time ofthe request forredesignation, or (2) an appropriate modeling analysis which shows that the future mix ofsources and emission rates, when combined with the control strategyfor the area, will not
cause any violations ofthe ambient standards. Ofthese twochoices, the state elected to base its maintenance demonstration on the emission inventory analysis. EPA believes that the projection and analysis offuture 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 usingthe photochemical grid model because an increase in NO. emissions could result in violations ofthe ozone standard without anincrease 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
not certain. However, in thecase ofthe Kansas City maintenance plan, EPA performed an analysis ofprojected NO. emissions for the metropolitan area. EPA's analysis showed no increase in NO, emissions through the year 2005. Coupled with theprojection that VOC emissionswill be below the level existing at the time ofthe 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 thathistorically 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 ofboth VOC ahdNO,, emissions levels will relt in continued attainment.

For theforegoing reasons, EPA does
not agree 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 ofsection 175A.

Comment:Phillips argues that due to the lack ofa "quantitative analysis" through urban grid modeling, there isno basis for establishing the "margin of safety" included in the plan.

Response:The comment assumes that photochemical gridmodeling 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 ofsuch modeling.

The need for a margin of safety 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 RVP levels were between 8.5 and 9.0psi. There were two exceedances ofthe standard in 1990and two in 1991. Because these exceedances did not

occur at the same monitor site. they did
not constitute violations ofthe NAAQS. However, these exceedances do indicate that the standard will likely be jeopardized without furthercontrol measupes. RVP control is the only.

measure that can provide immediate VOC reduction and the desired margin ofsafety 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 anRVP 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 inthe context ofareas newly redesignated to attainment in its federal fuel volatility regulations (56FR 64704, December 12, 1991). In that rulemaking, EPAprovided that an area which isredesignated to attainment must remain subject tothe 7.8 psi RVPrequirement unless it shows through a maintenance plan demonstration that it is nolonger needed (56 FR at 64706). In the latter
case, EPA couldraise thevolatility level to 9.0psi.The Kansas City maintenance plan does notsupport such a change and, in fact, relies onthe lower limit of 7.8 psi to maintain the standard. Only if the state hadbeen able to implement other control measures with equivalent emission reductions to ensure maintenance ofthe standard would EPA have the option ofrelaxing the Phase II volatility controls.

EPA believes that themargin ofsafety isbased on a demonstrated need. EPA also believes the plan fully supports the continued enforcement ofPhase II volatility levels. CommentThe plan does notaccount for theeffects ofmore stringent motor vehicle emission standards mandated by the CAA, as amended, andrevisions toEPA's MOBILE model. These effects

are significant to the determination of the 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 has become available. MOBILE4.1 was used byEPA prior to the proposed approval ofthe maintenance plan to determine whateffect, ifany,the new model wouldhave on thedemonstration ofcontinued attainment ofthe ozone standard.For any given year, MOBILE4.1 predicted lowerVOC emissions than MOBILE4.0; however, the level ofVOC emissions necessary to maintain the ozone standard is also reduced correspondingly. Thus, thenet effect onthe margin ofsafety is insignificant.

EPA alsonotes that the new tailpipe standards will notbecome 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 tothe totalvehicle 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 eightyears), 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 ofthe ozone standard.

Comment:The plan places the burden for future growth in the Kansas City

area entirely on thepetroleum industry. A mix of cost effective measures, including enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M)formotor vehicles, should be identified to accommodate future growth.

Response:EPA believes that the
statesproperly considered an appropriate range ofmeasures andtheir
costeffectiveness. EPA believes that the state's selection ofRVP controls demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard in Kansas City.

The maintenance plan submitted by the state includes an analysis of thecost effectiveness ofvarious 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 themost cost-effective

measure per ton ofVOC 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 cbntrolled, an amount halfas expensive

as the next most cost effective strategy for the area (Stage II). MDNR comments that reductions maybe possible by requiring both Stage II vaporrecovery and I/M,but MDNR's analysis indicates that the cost would be higher per ton of VOC controlled forthese measures. Stage II would also be a cost borne primarily by thepetroleum industry. MDNR also comments that the amount ofVOC emissions controlled by theRVP program is second only to RACT-if RACT is imposed on smaller, 25 tons/ year sources-but that the cost ofRACT 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 thepetroleum industry is bearing the burden for future growth. EPA notes that the states have adopted many regulations over theyears in an effort to attain and maintain the ozone standard. These have included RACTregulations 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 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 ofRVP 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 foregoingreasons, 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 ofthe Act, and approving the RACT rule submittals as meeting the RACT requirements of theAct. 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 ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements of Section 3 ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby August 29, 1992. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes ofjudicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial 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

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 authority citation 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 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, 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 1992