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 40 CFR 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 the Kansas 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 1992Federal 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 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, 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 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 ofthe state's submission, the relevant requirements of the Act, and EPA'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 to maintain 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, EPA believes that statesmay make thedemonstration through one oftwo alternatives:

(1)A demonstration 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 strategy for the area, will not

cause any violations ofthe ambient standards. Ofthese two choices, 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 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 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 the projection 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, EPA provided that an area which is redesignated 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 is based 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 would have 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 1992Federal 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 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 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 ofthe Kansas 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 is redesignated 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 the period 1989 through 1991, indicate that the Kansas City ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS forozone. Therefore, in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), and to ensure continued attainment of the standard with an 27939

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27939 199227940 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

adequate margin ofsafety, the state of Missouri has submitted an ozone maintenance plan which projects continued attainment of theozone standard in the Kansas City area.

Both the Missouri and Kansas plans
meet all the applicable requirements of the CAA. The Missouri submittal complies with section 175A of the Act which sets forth maintenance plan requirements for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The state's demonstration of continued attainment relies in part on EPA's Phase II gasoline volatility requirements. The plan demonstrates continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least tenyears after the

area is redesignated. Eight years after the redesignation, the state commits to submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the
ten years following the initial ten-year period. And, in the event offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures adequate to ensure prompt correction of the air quality problem.

Accompanying the maintenance plan

are new state rules which control certain categories ofsources which emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions.

Finally,the state submittal also includes a redesignation request in which the state demonstrates that the

area has fulfilled the redesignation requirements of the amended Act pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(e).

On January 15, 1992, in the Federal Register (57 FR 1705), EPA proposed to approve the state's maintenance plan and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules, and to promulgate the redesignation. (In a separate notice published the same day, EPA proposed to approye an analogous maintenance plan and redesignation request submitted by the state ofKansas.) The reader should consult EPA's proposed rulemaking and technical support document fora detailed discussion ofthe state's submission, therelevant requirements of the Act, andEPA's proposed action.
If.Response to Comments

EPA received 71 letters commenting

on the proposed rulemaking. All "
commenters supported theproposed action except one (Phillips Petroleumartlesville, Oklahoma). Phillips requested that EPA disapprove the maintenance plan based on four arguments. Phillips' comments consist of three technical issues concerning the demonstration included by Kansas and Missouri to show that the area would continue to maintain the ozone standard, and one policy issue concerning the appropriate mix of controls necessary to maintain the standard. A summary of Phillips' comments, and EPA'sresponse to them, follow.

Comment: Phillips alleges that the methodology that Missouri used in plan development is unable to quantitatively determine the types ofozone precursor control needed and the extent to which precursor emissions reductions (including NO.) may be required to maintain the ozone standard. Phillips alleges that EPA should require urban grid-based air quality modeling.

Response: In the 1990 Amendments to the Act, Congress specifically added section 175A which specifies the requirements for maintenance plans. There is no requirement in section 175A,

or in other applicable provisions ofthe Act, for photochemical grid modeling to demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard in areas like Kansas City, which have attained the standard. Such modeling is only required for certain

areas which have not attained the standard. The requirement for such modeling applies to those areas with the

more serious or complex ozone nonattainment problems (e.g., section 182(c)(2](A), which requires modeling for

areas classified as "serious"). EPA believes the lack of such a requirement formaintenance plans was intended to give EPA and the states flexibility in ademonstrating maintenance of the standard. Accordingly, for maintenance demonstrations, EPA believes that
states may make the demonstration through one oftwo alternatives: (1)A demonstration that the future emission inventory willnot exceed the inventory that existed at the time of the request for redesignation, or (2) an appropriate modeling analysis which shows that the future mix ofsources and emission rates, when combined with the control strategy forthe area, willnot cause any violations ofthe ambient standards. Of these two choices, the state elected to base its maintenance demonstration on the emission inventory analysis.EPA believes that theprojection and analysis offuture emissions meet the requirements ofsection 175A, and that the state's emission inventory methodology is consistent with.EPA guidance, as discussed in the proposed rulemaking.

Phillips also suggested that NO. emissions should be examined using the photochemical grid model because an increase in NO, emissions could result in violations ofthe ozone standard without an increase inVOC emissions. EPA agrees that violations caused by increased NO. emissions are theoretically possible, although the exact relationship between NO, emissions and the formation ofozone is notcertain. However,in the case ofthe Kansas City maintenance plan,EPA performed an analysis ofprojected NO, emissions for the metropolitan area. EPA'sanalysis showed noincrease in NO, emissions through the year 2005. Coupled with the projection that VOC emissions will be below the level existing atthe time ofthe redesignation request, EPA concludes that there is an adequate technical basis in the plan to demonstrate that the ozone standard willbe maintained.

EPA also notes that historically VOC control hasbeen successful in bringing the Kansas City area into attainment of the ozone standard, which is another basis forthe conclusion that maintenance ofboth VOC and NO. emissions levels willresult in continued attainment..

For the foregoing reasons, EPA does notagree that photochemical grid modeling is legally required or technically necessary to show maintenance ofthe standard. The methodology used by the state to demonstrate continued maintenance of the standard is adequate to meet the requirements of section 175A.

Comment:Phillips argues that due to the lack of a "quantitative analysis" through urban grid modeling, there is no basis forestablishing the "margin of safety" included in the plan.

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

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

occur at thesame monitor site, they did notconstitute violations ofthe NAAQS. However,these exceedances do indicate that the standard will likely be jeopardized without further control

measures. RVP control is the only

measure that can provide immediate VOC reduction and the desired margin ofsafety during thenext several ozone

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

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

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

Section 211(h)(2) ofthe CAA allows EPA to impose an RVP requirement "lower than 9.0psi in any area, formerly

an ozone nonattainment area, which has been redesignated an attainment area." EPA discusses this authority in the
context of areas newly redesignated to attainment in its federal fuel volatility regulations (56FR 64704, December 12, 1991). In that rulemaking, EPAprovided that an area which is redesignated to attainment must remain subject to the 7.8psi RVP unless it shows through a maintenance plan demonstration that it is no longerneeded (56 FR 64706). In the lattercase, EPA could raise the volatility level to 9.0 psi.The Kansas City maintenance plan does not support such a change and, in fact, relies on the lower limit of7.8 psi to maintain the standard. Only ifthe state hadbeen able to implement other control

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

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

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

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

EPA also notes that the new tailpipe standards will not become effective until 1994.Because these standards apply only to new vehicles, itwill take several years for the emission reductions to occur as new vehicles are added to the total vehicle population. For these reasons, the new tailpipe standards are not adequate to demonstrate near-term maintenance of the standard. When the state submits its revised maintenance plan (which is required ineight years), the effect ofthe

new tailpipe standards, as well as other changes in emission inventory methodology, will be considered. Prior to that time, the tailpipe emission standards are not sufficient to demonstrate maintenance of theozone standard.

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

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

Response:EPA believes that the
states properly considered an appropriate range ofmeasures and their
cost effectiveness. EPA believes thatthe states' selection ofRVP controls demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard in Kansas City.The maintenance plan submitted by the state includes an analysis ofthe cost effectiveness ofvarious control
measures, including an I/M program, Stage IIvaporrecovery, and additional RACTcontrols on minorsources, in addition to gasoline volatility controls. This information shows that RVP

- control is the most cost-effective

measure per ton of VOC controlled. Information submitted by the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) during the comment period states that the RVP restriction costs approximately $500 per ton ofemissions controlled, an amount halfas expensive

as the next most costeffective strategy forthe area (Stage II). MDNR comments that reductions may be possible by requiring both Stage IIvapor recovery and I/M, but MDNR's analysis indicates that the cost would be higher perton of VOC controlled forthese measures. Stage IIwould alsobe a cost borne primarily by the petroleum industry. MDNR also comments that the amount ofVOC emissions controlled by the RVP program is second only to RACT-if imposed on smaller, 25 tons/year sources-but that the cost ofRACT is alsogreater. In addition, the state concluded that I/M, Stage II,and RACT would take time to implement due to the legislative and administrative lead times required, whereas RVP control is already in place. RVP reduction is the only measure that achieves immediate VOC reductions. Finally, RVP control and costsare incurred only during the

ozone season, andthus are not annual costs as are the other measures. EPA also rejects Phillips' argument that thepetroleum industry isbearing the burden for futuregrowth. EPA notes that the states have adopted many regulations over theyears in an effort to attain and maintain the ozone standard. These have included RACT regulations for all ofthe major stationary sources in the area.Furthermore, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Standards have also been, and will continue to be,effective in lowering VOC emissions.EPA believes the states have, in fact,adopted and implemented, in conjunction with EPA, a wide range ofmeasures to address the ozone problem. Ultimately, the CAA places theresponsibility on the
states to select the appropriate control strategy necessary to attainand maintain theNAAQS.

Although EPA has determined that the states' selection ofRVP is appropriate, this selection should notbe 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 therequirements ofsection 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 therequirements of section 175A ofthe Act, and approving the RACTrule submittals as meeting the RACT requirements ofthe Act. In addition, EPA is approving theredesignation request for the Kansas City area because the state has demonstrated compliance with therequirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) forredesignation, as discussed in detail in the above referenced proposed rulemaking.

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

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

### / Rules and Regulations 27941

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27941 199227942 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

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

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

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

40 CFR part 52, subpartAA is amended as follows:

PART 52-f(AMENDED]

1.The authority citation forpart 52 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart AA-Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(77) to read as follows:
§52.1320 Identificationof plan.

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

were also submitted on October 9, 1991. (i)Incorporation by reference. (A) Revised regulations 10CSR 10- 6.020, Definitions, and 10 CSR 10-2.220, Liquefied Cutback Asphalt Paving Restricted, effective August 30, 1991; and

new regulation 10 CSR 10-2.340, Control ofEmissions from Lithographic Printing Facilities, effective December9, 1991. (ii)Additional material. (A) State ofMissouri Implementation Plan, Kansas City Metropolitan Area Maintenance Provisions, October 1991.

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

(h)The Missouri portion ofthe Kansas City metropolitan area was designated

as nonattainment for ozone in 40 CFR part 81. Therefore, the Administrator
approves continuation of the 7.8 RVP limit as federally enforceable in the Kansas City metropolitan area, even after the area is redesignated to attainment, because of its nonattainment designation effective January 6,1992. Also, the requirement for 7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed
necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance ofthe ozone standard as demonstrated by the emissions inventory projections (based on use of 7.8 psi RVP) in Missouri's ozone maintenance plan for the Kansas City metropolitan area.

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--AMENDED]

1.The authority citation forpart 81 is revised to read as follows:

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

2. In §81.326 thedesignation table for

ozone is amended by revising the entries for Clay, Jackson, and Platte Counties to read as follows:

§81.326 Missouri.

Missouri-Ozone

Designation Classification Designated Area Dae TpeDate'= Type

Kansas CityArea Clay County

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

................ ............ Jackson County

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

....................... Platte County

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

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

* ,* * * * [FR Doc. 92-14593 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 aml
BILUNG CODE 6560-51-M

40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-4146-4]

South Carolina; Schedule of Compliance for Modificationof South Carolina's Hazardous Waste Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. ACTION: Notice of South Carolina's Compliance Schedule to adopt program modifications.

SUMMARY: On September 22, 1986, EPA promulgated amendments to the deadlines for State program modifications and published requirements for States to be placed on a compliance schedule to adopt the necessary program modifications. EPA is today publishing a compliance schedule for South Carolina to modify its program in accordance with §271.21(g) to adopt the Federal program modifications.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

Final authorization to implement the Federal hazardous waste program within the State isgranted by EPA ifthe Agency finds that the State program (1) is "equivalent" to theFederal Program, (2) is "consistent" with the Federal program and other State programs, and (3) provides foradequate enforcement (section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6226(b)). EPA regulations for final authorization
appear in 40 CFR 271.1-271.24. In order
to retain authorization, a 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 ofits hazardous waste program on November 22, 1985. (Federal Register.) 46437, November 8, 1985, Vol. 50, No. 217,

Today EPA is publishing a compliance schedule for South Carolina to obtain

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27942 1992Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 27943

program revisions forthe following Federal program requirements: * Modifications in theFederal Program for Non-HSWA ClusterVI which include:

Delay ofClosure Period for Hazardous Waste Facilities, 54 FR 33376,

MiningWaste Exclusion I,54 FR 36592,

Testing & Monitoring Activities, 54 FR 40260,

Various FRListings Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted forby Present Checklists,

MiningWaste Exclusion II, 55 FR 2322,

Modifications ofF019 Listing,55 FR 5340,

Testing &Monitoring Activities; Technical Corrections, 55 FR 8948,

Criteria for ListingToxic Wastes; Technical Amendment, 55 FR 18726,

Financial Responsibility: Settlement Agreement Correction, 55 FR 25976.

0 Modifications in the Federal program for HSWA Cluster IIinclude:

California List Waste Restrictions, 52 FR25760,

Exception Reporting forSQGs, 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 forFirst Third Scheduled Wastes, 53 FR31138,

Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards forHazardous Waste Storage &Treatment Tank Systems,53 FR 34079,

Land Disposal Restrictions, 54 FR 8264.

Land Disposal Restriction Amendments toFirstThird Scheduled Wastes, 54 FR 18836,

Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Third Scheduled Wastes, 54 FR 26594,

Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the FirstThird 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, 55FR 23935, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities-Organic Air Emission Standards forProcess Vents and Equipment Leaks, 55 FR 25454,

Toxicity Characteristics Revisions; Correction, 55 FR26988.

The State has agreed to seek the neededprogram modifications according to the following schedule:

Notice ofintentto draft regulations published in the State Register-March 27, 1992,

Revisions published in the State Register forpublic comments-August 28, 1992,

Public comment period endsSeptember 30, 1992,

Completion ofpreparation offinal regulations-November 1,1992,

Final regulations presented to the Board-November 12, 1992,

Noticepublished approving regulations in the State RegisterDecember 25, 1992,

Submission ofFinal Program Revision Application forNon-HSWA Cluster VI and HSWA Cluster 1I-March 1,1993.

Authority: This notice isissued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b)ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by theResource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976, as amended. 42U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926 and6974(B).

Dated: May 8,1992. Patrick M. Tobin, Acting Regional Administrator. [FRDoc.92-14749 Filed6-22-92; 8:45 am] BLING COoE S60-so-M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45CFR 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 ofCommunity Services fOCS)is issuing final regulations with a comment period to accommodate changes relating to the eligible uses offunds and application procedures for theEmergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program [EHP) whichwere added by the Stewart B.McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of1990, Public Law 101-645. The conforming regulations amend procedures that States,territories, Indian tribes, and other organizations must follow to apply forand use the funds appropriated for this program. Additionally, the regulations specify changes in the eligible use of funds awarded under the auspices ofthis program. The changes allow for a State applicant agency to use up to five (5) percent ofits 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 ofbuildings 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 ofindividuals 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 ofJanuary 1, 1987,

were providing assistance to meet the critically urgent needs ofhomeless 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 forpublic inspection Monday through Friday, exclusive ofFederal holidays, 8:30a.m. to 5p.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) (TitleVII, Subtitle D, sec. 751-754 and 762 ofPub. L. 100-77) (42 U.S.C. 11461- 11464 and 11472). Additional EHP amendments were enacted by title VII, subtitle A, section 704 ofPublic Law 101-628 (November7, 1988). The McKinney Acthas since been amended by Pub.L. 101-645 with respect to eligible uses ofthe EHP funds (Title VII. subtitle D, sec. 753 ofPub. L. 101-645 (November 29, 1990)). The EHP program

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27943 199227944 Federal Register 

### / Vol. 57, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 23, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

is operated by the Office ofCommunity Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) ofthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The McKinney Act provides that thefunds appropriated for theEHP 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 ofprogram funds. First, the Actprovides that up to five (5)percent ofthe monies allocated tothe States and territories may be retained by the State agency to defray administrative costs. Second, the Act provides for two additional eligible uses for thefunds: (1)Up to fifty (50) percent ofthe amounts awarded underthe 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 forhomeless children and individuals and the provision ofviolence counseling training to persons working with homeless children and individuals. Further, the Act, as amended, deletes the current requirement that a State award notless than ninety (90)percent ofgrant funds to certain homeless service organizations providing assistance as ofJanuary 1, 1987. These regulations apply to funds appropriated forfiscal years 1992 and thereafter.

Certain conforming changes also implement related statutory provisions. Since theMcKinney amendments now authorize the use ofgrant funds for renovation projects, section 106of 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 ofany project on
a building that is included on, or eligible for inclusion on, theNational Register of Historic Places. See 36 CFR part 800-- Protection ofHistoric and Cultural Properties. Also, section 836 ofthe Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L 101-625 (November 28, 1990), effective October 1,1991, amended section 401 ofthe McKinney Act, 42U.S.C. 11361, to replace the reference to the "comprehensive homeless assistance plan" with the "comprehensive housing affordability strategy." Under the transitional provisions ofthat section,bothphrases maybe inuse atthe same time. These final regulations therefore reflect the alternative nomenclature.

Justification forDispensing With Notice ofProposed Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) creates an exception to general notice and comment rulemaking procedures where theagency forgood

cause finds that those procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, orcontrary to thepublic interest.This finalrule with a comment period implements statutory changes tothe EHP program contained in theStewart B.McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-645, whichwas enacted into law onNovember 29, 1990. The corresponding changes tothe regulations permit a wider latitude of action on the part ofState and local participating programs. The additional services related to violence counseling and the use offunds for renovation are optional uses offunds 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 andrelated provisions governing the impact offederally funded renovation projects on historic buildings and dealing with thecoordination of housing strategies. Section 1080.6 has been revisedto reflect redesignated cross-references. These changes are technical and conforming in nature. Accordingly, we find good cause for dispensing withNotice ofProposed Rulemaking as tothese changes as well. Summary ofRegulatory Changes

Section1080.4 Eligible UseofFunds

This section, specifies the eligible use offunds, as amended by the legislation, to include the following:

(b)Renovation ofbuildings tobe used to provide such services, except that not

more than 50percent ofsuch amounts may be used for suchpurpose, and provided that allprocedures required under the National Historic Preservation Act are followed;

(f Provision of, orreferral to,violence counseling for homeless children and individuals, andthe 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 willbe used to defray State administrative costs.

Paragraph (b) specifies that not more than 50%ofthe 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 ofits subgrantees to a maximum of50%oftheir 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 ofthese funds through the submission ofa 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 forthe 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 ofthe major causes or symptoms related to homelessness and the disruption ofthe family is the prevalence ofdomestic 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 ofactual 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, butmay 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 andbe referred sooner to counseling and supportive services.

Paragraph (g) specifies that a State
may use up to 5percent ofthe total
amount awarded to the State forthe purposes ofdefraying the State administrative costs in implementing, operating and overseeing the program.
Section 1080.5 ApplicationProcedures forStates

This section specifies the procedures which States must follow in order to receive the allocation ofprogram funds. In addition to the grant application, the State mustprovide 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) ofthe Act (42U.S.C. 11463(b)(1)(B)) which required notless than ninety (90) percent ofa State's grantbe awarded to existing homeless service organizations. Accordingly, the corresponding paragraph (b)(2) in theregulations is removed, andparagraphs (b)(3) through (b)(7) are redesignated asparagraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6) respectively. The amendment to the Act permitting use of notmore 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 ofhistoric buildings.
Section1080.8 FundingtoAlternative Organizations

This section specifies procedures for funding alternative organizations in the
event a State did notparticipate in the program. Paragraph (a) is amended to delete a cross-reference toremoved 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 ReportingRequirements

This section specifies the State's reporting requirements. Existing text has been subdivided and restated as an initial sentence followed byparagraph (a). This section hasbeen amended further by addingparagraphs (b)and (c) to include items ofinformation relative to the changes inthe law.These additions include describing activities related to expenditures forrenovation, including the effects ofsuch activities on historicproperties; reporting on services and/or training fordomestic violence; and,reporting on theuse of administrative funds. Impact Analysis

Executive Order 12291

Executive Order 12291 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be prepared formajor rules, which are definedin the Order as any rule that has an annual effect onthe economy of$100million or
more orhas certain other specified effects. The Department has determined that these regulations are not major rules within the meaning ofthe Executive Order because theywill not have an effect on the economy of$100 million or more, or otherwise meet the threshold criteria. RegulatoryFlexibility Act of 1980
The Secretary certifies,under 5U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted bythe Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980 (Pub. L96-354), that these rules will nothave a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. The impact of these regulations is primarily on States, which are not considered small entities under the Act. Paperwork ReductionAct

Sections 1080.5 and 1080.8 contain

new application and information collection requirements which are subject to review and approval bythe Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) under thePaperwork Reduction Act of1980, 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 ofinformation relating
to changes in theMcKinney 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) ofthe McKinney Act to report to Congress and the Interagency Council on the Homeless on the implementation and effectiveness ofthe programs funded by the Act.

On October 21, 1991. the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved an extension ofexisting application and reporting requirements,

as modified, for use through September 30, 1994. The approved collection has been assigned OMB Control No. 0970- 0088.

Descriptionof 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

Otherorganizations and Individuals desiring to submit comments regarding this burden estimate orany aspect ofthe information collection requirements, or estimated reporting burden, should direct them to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, (addressabove) and tothe Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Laura Oliven, Desk Officer forACF.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1080

Administrative practices and procedures, Community action
programs, Grant programs-social, Homeless assistance (Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance Programs 93.034, Emergency Community Services for the Homeless). Dated: February 5, 1992. Jo Anne B.Barnhart, AssistantSecretary forChildrenand Families.

Dated: March 23, 1992. LouisW. Sullivan, Secretaryof Healthand HumanServices.

For the reasons set forthin the preamble, 45 CFR Ch. Xis 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 OFHEALTH 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 offunds.

* * * * *

(b) Renovation ofbuildings to be used
to provide such services, except that not

more than 50 percent ofsuch amounts maybe used for suchpurpose, and provided that all procedures required under theNational Historic Preservation Act are followed;

* * * * *

(f)Provision of, orreferral to, violence counseling for homeless children and individuals, andthe provision of violence counseling training to individuals who work with homeless children and individuals; and,

(g)Not more than 5percent ofthe
amount received willbe used to defray State administrative costs.

3.Section 1080.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, byremoving 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) andthe OMB Control number at theend ofthe section, to read

as follows:

§ 1080.5 Applicationprocedures for States. 

## (b)* * * (1)The State will award not less than 95 percent of the amounts itreceives to:

(3)Not more than 5percent ofthe amount received will be used to defray State administrative costs;

* * * * *

(5)Not more than 25 percent ofthe
amounts received will be used for the purpose described in §1080.4(e) ofthese 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 theagency responsible fordeveloping the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan or theComprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy asrequired by section 401 ofsuch Act (42U.S.C. 11361),

as amended by section 836ofthe Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. (7)The State will haveprocedures in place to assure compliance with the provisions ofthe National Historic Preservation Actprior to the awarding ofany amounts to be used for renovating any properties that are listed
on, oreligible for inclusion on, the National Register ofHistoric Places. (Information collection requirements are approved bythe Office ofManagement and Budget under control number 0970-0088.)

4. Section 1080.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)and the first sentence ofparagraph (c) toreadas follows:

§ 1080.6 Funding of alternative organizations. (a) Ifa State does not apply for or submits an approvable application for a grant under theEmergency Community Services Homeless GrantProgram, the Secretary shall use the amounts that would have been allocated to that State
to make grants to agencies and organizations inthe State that meet the requirements of 

### §1080.5(b)(1).

* * * * *

(c) Agencies and organizations eligible to be funded underthis 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 offunds under the Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program shall submit

an annual report to the Secretary, within 6 months ofthe end ofthe period covered by the report, onthe expenditure of funds and the implementation oftheprogram for that fiscal year.

(a) The report is to state the types of activities funded, any efforts undertaken by the grantee andits subgrantees to coordinate homeless activities funded under this program with other homeless assistance activities in the State and communities, the number ofindividuals served and any impediments, including statutory and regulatory restrictions to homeless individuals' use ofthe program and to their obtaining services or benefits under the program. (b) Such annual report shall provide information on the use offunds 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 ofsuch activities on historic properties, and theprovision of,or referral to, services fordomestic violence. (Information collection requirements are approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget under control number 0970-0088.) [FRDoc. 92-14606 Filed 6-22-92; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 415044-U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office ofthe Secretary

49 CFR Part 1

[OST Docket No. 1;Amdt. 2491
Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties; Delegations toAll Administrators and theAssistant Secretary forAdministration

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the delegations to theAssistant Secretary forAdministration and all DOT administrators to waive collection of claims forerroneous payments ofpay and allowances by expanding the authority to include waiver oferroneous payments oftravel, 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 ofFinancial Management, M-83, (202) 366-5631, or Paul B. Larsen, Office ofthe General Counsel (C-10), (202) 366-9161, Department ofTransportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 27946 1992