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
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
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 27943

program revisions for the following

Federal program requirements: * Modifications in the Federal

Program for Non-HSWA Cluster VI

which include:

Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous

Waste Facilities, 54 FR 33376, Mining Waste Exclusion I, 54 FR

36592,

Testing & Monitoring Activities, 54 FR

40260,

Various FR Listings Changes to Part

124 Not Accounted for by Present

Checklists,

Mining Waste Exclusion II, 55 FR

2322,

Modifications of F019 Listing, 55 FR

5340,

Testing & Monitoring Activities;

Technical Corrections, 55 FR 8948,

Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes;

Technical Amendment, 55 FR 18726, Financial Responsibility: Settlement

Agreement Correction, 55 FR 25976.

0 Modifications in the Federal

program for HSWA Cluster II include:

California List Waste Restrictions, 52 FR 25760,

Exception Reporting for SQGs, 52 FR

35894,

California List Waste Restrictions;

Technical Corrections SW 846, 52 FR

41295,

HSWA Codification Rule 2, 52 FR

45788,

Identification & Listing of Hazardous

Waste; Technical Correction, 53 FR

27162,

Farmer Exemptions; Technical

Correction, 53 FR 27164,

Land Disposal Restrictions for First

Third Scheduled Wastes, 53 FR 31138, Hazardous Waste Management

System; Standards for Hazardous Waste

Storage & Treatment Tank Systems, 53

FR 34079,

Land Disposal Restrictions, 54 FR

8264.

Land Disposal Restriction

Amendments to First Third Scheduled

Wastes, 54 FR 18836,

Land Disposal Restrictions for Second

Third Scheduled Wastes, 54 FR 26594,

Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction

to the First Third Scheduled Wastes, 54

FR 36967,

Reportable Quantity Adjustment

Methyl Bromide Production Wastes, 54

FR 41402,

Reportable Quantity Adjustment, 54

FR 50968,

Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine

Production Wastes, 55 FR 18496,

HSWA Codification Rule, Double

Liners: Correction, 55 FR 19262,

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third

Scheduled Wastes, 55 FR 22520,

Land Disposal Restrictions;

Correction, 55 FR 23935,

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,

and Disposal Facilities-Organic Air

Emission Standards for Process Vents

and Equipment Leaks, 55 FR 25454,

Toxicity Characteristics Revisions;

Correction, 55 FR 26988.

The State has agreed to seek the

needed program modifications

according to the following schedule:

Notice of intent to draft regulations

published in the State Register-March

27, 1992,

Revisions published in the State

Register for public comments-August

28, 1992,

Public comment period endsSeptember 30, 1992,

Completion of preparation of final

regulations-November 1, 1992,

Final regulations presented to the

Board-November 12, 1992,

Notice published approving

regulations in the State RegisterDecember 25, 1992,

Submission of Final Program Revision

Application for Non-HSWA Cluster VI

and HSWA Cluster 1I-March 1, 1993.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C.

6912(a), 6926 and 6974(B).

Dated: May 8, 1992.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 92-14749 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 am]

B LING COoE S60-so-M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

45 CFR Part 1080

Emergency Community Services

Homeless Grant Program

AGENCY: Administration for Children

and Families (ACF), HHS. Office of

Community Services.

ACTION: Final rule with comment period.

SUMMARY: The Office of Community

Services fOCS) is issuing final

regulations with a comment period to

accommodate changes relating to the

eligible uses of funds and application procedures for the Emergency

Community Services Homeless Grant

Program [EHP) which were added by the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Amendments Act of 1990,

Public Law 101-645. The conforming

regulations amend procedures that

States, territories, Indian tribes, and

other organizations must follow to apply

for and use the funds appropriated for

this program. Additionally, the

regulations specify changes in the

eligible use of funds awarded under the

auspices of this program. The changes

allow for a State applicant agency to use

up to five (5) percent of its funds

received to defray State administrative

costs. Additionally, the amendments

provide that not more than fifty (50)

percent of the funds may be used for the

purpose of renovation of buildings used

for providing services to the homeless.

Further, awarded funds may be used for

the provision of, or referral to, violence

counseling for homeless children and

individuals, and for associated training

of individuals working with this

homeless population. Corresponding to

the statutory changes, the regulations

also delete the requirement that ninety

(90) percent of a State's grant be

awarded to specified agencies and

organizations that, as of January 1, 1987, were providing assistance to meet the

critically urgent needs of homeless

individuals.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

23, 1992. The statutory changes being

implemented were effective October 1,

1991. We will consider comments to this

final rule submitted on or before August

21, 1992.

ADDRESS: Address comments to: Joseph

R. Carroll, Office of Community

Services, ACF, Mail Stop: OCS/IOD, 370

L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,

DC 20447.

Comments will be available for public

inspection Monday through Friday,

exclusive of Federal holidays, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Department's offices at

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph R. Carroll, (202) 401-9354 and

Sheldon Shalit, (202) 401-4807.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act, Public Law 100-77 (July

22, 1987), established a number of

programs to assist homeless persons,

including the Emergency Community

Services Homeless Grant Program (EHP)

(Title VII, Subtitle D, sec. 751-754 and

762 of Pub. L. 100-77) (42 U.S.C. 11461-

11464 and 11472). Additional EHP

amendments were enacted by title VII,

subtitle A, section 704 of Public Law

101-628 (November 7, 1988). The

McKinney Act has since been amended

by Pub. L. 101-645 with respect to

eligible uses of the EHP funds (Title VII.

subtitle D, sec. 753 of Pub. L. 101-645

(November 29, 1990)). The EHP program

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27943 1992
27944 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

is operated by the Office of Community

Services (OCS) within the

Administration for Children and

Families (ACF) of the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS). The

McKinney Act provides that the funds

appropriated for the EHP program are to

be distributed to States that receive

funds under the Community Services

Block Grant (CSBG) program (42 U.S.C.

9901 et seq.), using the allocation

formula that applies to the CSBG

program. In addition, the Act sets aside

EHP funds to be awarded directly to

certain Indian tribes.

These regulations specify several

changes relating to the use of program

funds. First, the Act provides that up to

five (5) percent of the monies allocated

to the States and territories may be

retained by the State agency to defray

administrative costs. Second, the Act

provides for two additional eligible uses

for the funds: (1) Up to fifty (50) percent

of the amounts awarded under the

program may be used for renovation of

buildings used to provide

comprehensive services to homeless

individuals; and (2) funds may be used

for the provision of, or referral to,

violence counseling for homeless

children and individuals and the

provision of violence counseling training

to persons working with homeless

children and individuals. Further, the

Act, as amended, deletes the current

requirement that a State award not less

than ninety (90) percent of grant funds to

certain homeless service organizations

providing assistance as of January 1,

1987. These regulations apply to funds

appropriated for fiscal years 1992 and

thereafter.

Certain conforming changes also

implement related statutory provisions.

Since the McKinney amendments now

authorize the use of grant funds for

renovation projects, section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, Pub.

L. 89-665 (October 15, 1966), 16 U.S.C.

470f, requires certain procedures to take

into account the effect of any project on

a building that is included on, or eligible

for inclusion on, the National Register of

Historic Places. See 36 CFR part 800--

Protection of Historic and Cultural

Properties. Also, section 836 of the

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable

Housing Act, Pub. L 101-625 (November

28, 1990), effective October 1, 1991,

amended section 401 of the McKinney

Act, 42 U.S.C. 11361, to replace the

reference to the "comprehensive

homeless assistance plan" with the "comprehensive housing affordability

strategy." Under the transitional

provisions of that section, both phrases

may be in use at the same time. These

final regulations therefore reflect the

alternative nomenclature.

Justification for Dispensing With Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) creates an exception to general

notice and comment rulemaking

procedures where the agency for good

cause finds that those procedures are

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest. This final rule

with a comment period implements

statutory changes to the EHP program

contained in the Stewart B. McKinney

Homeless Assistance Amendments of

1990, Public Law 101-645, which was

enacted into law on November 29, 1990.

The corresponding changes to the

regulations permit a wider latitude of

action on the part of State and local

participating programs. The additional

services related to violence counseling

and the use of funds for renovation are

optional uses of funds under the law.

Since we have incorporated the

statutory amendments without

interpretation in section 1080.4, we find

that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as

to these new regulatory requirements is

unnecessary. Section 1080.4 includes a

reference to the existing law on historic

preservation. We have also made minor

changes to the application procedures

and reporting requirements described in

§ § 1080.5 and 1080.8 respectively in

order to ensure consistency with the

new amendments and related provisions

governing the impact of federally funded

renovation projects on historic buildings

and dealing with the coordination of

housing strategies. Section 1080.6 has

been revised to reflect redesignated cross-references. These changes are

technical and conforming in nature.

Accordingly, we find good cause for

dispensing with Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking as to these changes as well.

Summary of Regulatory Changes

Section 1080.4 Eligible Use of Funds

This section, specifies the eligible use

of funds, as amended by the legislation,

to include the following:

(b) Renovation of buildings to be used

to provide such services, except that not

more than 50 percent of such amounts

may be used for such purpose, and

provided that all procedures required

under the National Historic Preservation

Act are followed;

(f Provision of, or referral to, violence

counseling for homeless children and

individuals, and the provision of

violence counseling training to

individuals who work with homeless

children and individuals; and,

(g) Not more than 5 percent of the

amount received will be used to defray

State administrative costs.

Paragraph (b) specifies that not more

than 50% of the amount awarded to the

State may be used for renovation of

buildings used to provide

comprehensive services to the homeless.

This provision allows the recipient State

to limit each of its subgrantees to a

maximum of 50% of their respective

awards to be used for this purpose.

Alternatively, the State may permit

individual subgrantees to exceed the

maximum provided that no more than 50

percent of the State's total award is

used for renovation. This will allow the

State flexibility in applying the 50

percent limitation. States must describe

the use of these funds through the

submission of a renovation plan

statement that is attached to their initial

request for their State allocation. The

paragraph also requires compliance with

the National Historic Preservation Act.

Paragraph (f) allows for the costs

associated with either providing direct

care associated with the referral to or

provision of services known generally as

violence counseling.

It has been widely demonstrated and

accepted that one of the major causes or

symptoms related to homelessness and

the disruption of the family is the

prevalence of domestic violence. This

program use directly responds to that

need and ensures that the victims and

potentially the perpetrators may receive

counseling that will ameliorate the

effects of this disruptive and destructive

action. In addition to referral or

provision of actual counseling, funds

may be used to train staff to identify

and otherwise deal with the effects of

domestic violence. This training need

not be restricted to formal direct care

givers, but may be provided to a range

of employees, including support staff

and indirect care givers. This training

will increase the likelihood that victims

of domestic violence will be more

readily identified and be referred sooner

to counseling and supportive services.

Paragraph (g) specifies that a State

may use up to 5 percent of the total

amount awarded to the State for the

purposes of defraying the State

administrative costs in implementing,

operating and overseeing the program.

Section 1080.5 Application Procedures

for States

This section specifies the procedures

which States must follow in order to

receive the allocation of program funds.

In addition to the grant application, the

State must provide the assurances

specified by regulation. The statutory

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27944 1992
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

amendments deleted section 753(b)(1)(B)

of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11463(b)(1)(B))

which required not less than ninety (90)

percent of a State's grant be awarded to

existing homeless service organizations.

Accordingly, the corresponding

paragraph (b)(2) in the regulations is

removed, and paragraphs (b)(3) through

(b)(7) are redesignated as paragraphs

(b)(2) through (b)(6) respectively. The

amendment to the Act permitting use of

not more than five (5) percent of the

funds to defray State administrative

costs requires corresponding changes to

the assurances in paragraph (b(1) and

redesignated paragraph (b)(3).

Redesignated paragraph (b)(5) is

amended to cross-reference

redesignated § 1080.4(e). Redesignated

paragraph (b)(6) is amended to crossreference the Comprehensive Housing

Affordability Strategy. New paragraph

(b)(7) is added to implement

requirements relating to the

preservation of historic buildings.

Section 1080.8 Funding to Alternative

Organizations

This section specifies procedures for

funding alternative organizations in the

event a State did not participate in the

program. Paragraph (a) is amended to

delete a cross-reference to removed

J 1080.5[b)(2). The first sentence in

paragraph [c) is amended to crossreference redesignated § § 1080.5(b)(2),

(3), (5), (6), and new section (7).

Section 1080.8 Reporting Requirements

This section specifies the State's

reporting requirements. Existing text has

been subdivided and restated as an

initial sentence followed by paragraph

(a). This section has been amended

further by adding paragraphs (b) and (c)

to include items of information relative

to the changes in the law. These

additions include describing activities

related to expenditures for renovation,

including the effects of such activities on

historic properties; reporting on services

and/or training for domestic violence;

and, reporting on the use of

administrative funds.

Impact Analysis

Executive Order 12291

Executive Order 12291 requires that a

regulatory impact analysis be prepared

for major rules, which are defined in the

Order as any rule that has an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million or

more or has certain other specified

effects. The Department has determined

that these regulations are not major

rules within the meaning of the

Executive Order because they will not

have an effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or otherwise meet the

threshold criteria.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C.

605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-354),

that these rules will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The impact of

these regulations is primarily on States,

which are not considered small entities

under the Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Sections 1080.5 and 1080.8 contain

new application and information

collection requirements which are

subject to review and approval by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511, 94 Stat.

2812 (December 11, 1980), 44 U.S.C.

3501-3520. The referenced sections

require recipients to include in their

applications and annual reports

additional items of information relating

to changes in the McKinney Act. These

additions include reporting on the use of

administrative funds and the description

of activities related to expenditures for

renovation and for services and/or

training for violence counseling. This

data is necessary to ensure adherence to

the statutory cap on State

administrative costs and to enable the

Department to fulfill its obligation under

section 203(c) of the McKinney Act to

report to Congress and the Interagency

Council on the Homeless on the

implementation and effectiveness of the

programs funded by the Act.

On October 21, 1991. the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approved an extension of existing

application and reporting requirements,

as modified, for use through September

30, 1994. The approved collection has

been assigned OMB Control No. 0970-

0088.

Description of Respondents: State

Agencies and federally-recognized

Indian Tribes.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Burden

Annual Annual Average Annual

Section number of burden per burden

respondents frequency response hours

45 CFR 1080.5

Existing ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 1 83.16 4740

Proposed .................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 1 83.16 4740

45 CFR 1080.8

Existing ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 1 30.64 4044

Proposed .. .... ..... . ......................................................................................................................... . 132 1 30.64 4044

Total Existing Burden Hours: 8784

Total Proposed Burden Hours 8784

Total Difference: 0

Other organizations and Individuals

desiring to submit comments regarding

this burden estimate or any aspect of the

information collection requirements, or

estimated reporting burden, should

direct them to the Administration for

Children and Families, Office of

Community Services, (address above)

and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 3208,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Laura

Oliven, Desk Officer for ACF.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1080

Administrative practices and

procedures, Community action

programs, Grant programs-social,

Homeless assistance (Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance Programs 93.034,

Emergency Community Services for the

Homeless).

Dated: February 5, 1992.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Assistant Secretary for Children and

Families.

Dated: March 23, 1992.

Louis W. Sullivan,

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 45 CFR Ch. X is amended as

follows:

27945

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27945 1992
27946 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

1. The heading of Ch. X is revised to

read as follows:

CHAPTER X-OFFICE OF COMMUNITY

SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PART 1080-EMERGENCY

COMMUNITY SERVICES HOMELESS

GRANT PROGRAM

la. The authority citation for part 1080

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11302 (101 Stat. 485); 42

U.S.C. 11461-11464, 11472 (101 Stat. 532-533),

as amended.

2. Section 1080.4 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d)

as paragraphs (c) through (e) and by

adding new paragraphs (b), (f) and (g) to

read as follows:

§ 1080.4 Eligible use of funds. * * * * *

(b) Renovation of buildings to be used

to provide such services, except that not

more than 50 percent of such amounts

may be used for such purpose, and

provided that all procedures required

under the National Historic Preservation

Act are followed; * * * * *

(f) Provision of, or referral to, violence

counseling for homeless children and

individuals, and the provision of

violence counseling training to

individuals who work with homeless

children and individuals; and,

(g) Not more than 5 percent of the

amount received will be used to defray

State administrative costs.

3. Section 1080.5 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory

text, by removing paragraph (b)(2), by

redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) through

(b)(7) as paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6)

respectively, by revising newly

redesignated paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5),

and (b)(6), and by adding new

paragraph (b)(7) and the OMB Control

number at the end of the section, to read

as follows:

§ 1080.5 Application procedures for

States.

(b) * * *

(1) The State will award not less than

95 percent of the amounts it receives to:

(3) Not more than 5 percent of the

amount received will be used to defray

State administrative costs; * * * * *

(5) Not more than 25 percent of the

amounts received will be used for the

purpose described in § 1080.4(e) of these

regulations; and

(6) The State will have mechanisms in

place to assure coordination among

State and local agencies serving the

homeless. This will include coordination

at the State level with the agency

responsible for developing the

Comprehensive Homeless Assistance

Plan or the Comprehensive Housing

Affordability Strategy as required by

section 401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11361),

as amended by section 836 of the

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable

Housing Act.

(7) The State will have procedures in

place to assure compliance with the

provisions of the National Historic

Preservation Act prior to the awarding

of any amounts to be used for

renovating any properties that are listed

on, or eligible for inclusion on, the

National Register of Historic Places.

(Information collection requirements are

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 0970-0088.)

4. Section 1080.6 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and the first

sentence of paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 1080.6 Funding of alternative

organizations.

(a) If a State does not apply for or

submits an approvable application for a

grant under the Emergency Community

Services Homeless Grant Program, the

Secretary shall use the amounts that

would have been allocated to that State

to make grants to agencies and

organizations in the State that meet the

requirements of § 1080.5(b)(1). * * * * *

(c) Agencies and organizations

eligible to be funded under this section

shall submit an application meeting the

requirements of § § 1080.5(a) and

1080.5(b)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7), at a time

specified by the Secretary. * * *

5. Section 1080.8 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1080.8 Reporting requirements.

Each recipient of funds under the

Emergency Community Services

Homeless Grant Program shall submit

an annual report to the Secretary, within

6 months of the end of the period

covered by the report, on the

expenditure of funds and the

implementation of the program for that

fiscal year.

(a) The report is to state the types of

activities funded, any efforts undertaken

by the grantee and its subgrantees to

coordinate homeless activities funded

under this program with other homeless

assistance activities in the State and

communities, the number of individuals

served and any impediments, including

statutory and regulatory restrictions to

homeless individuals' use of the program

and to their obtaining services or

benefits under the program.

(b) Such annual report shall provide

information on the use of funds to

defray State administrative costs,

including the types of activities which

specifically address services to the

homeless and also those activities that

are related to the administrative costs

associated with the coordination and

integration of services to the homeless.

(c) States shall also provide

information in the annual report which

details programs, progress, and

activities that are specifically related to

expenditures for renovation, including

the effects of such activities on historic

properties, and the provision of, or

referral to, services for domestic

violence.

(Information collection requirements are

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 0970-0088.)

[FR Doc. 92-14606 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 415044-U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 1

[OST Docket No. 1; Amdt. 2491

Organization and Delegation of

Powers and Duties; Delegations to All

Administrators and the Assistant

Secretary for Administration

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

delegations to the Assistant Secretary

for Administration and all DOT

administrators to waive collection of

claims for erroneous payments of pay

and allowances by expanding the

authority to include waiver of erroneous

payments of travel, transportation, and

relocation expenses and allowances;

and by increasing from $500 to 1,500 the

amount that may be waived. This rule is

necessary to reflect in the Code of

Federal Regulations statutory changes to

the Secretary's authority.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1992.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Joyce B. Johnson, Office of Financial

Management, M-83, (202) 366-5631, or

Paul B. Larsen, Office of the General

Counsel (C-10), (202) 366-9161,

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27946 1992