# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 1700 1992

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 11:31:37 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 10 

### / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 

### / Proposed Rules

PART 3-ADJUDICATION
Subpart A-Pension Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

1.The authority citation for part 3, subpart A, continues to read as follows:

Authority: 72 Stat. 1114; 38 U.S.C. 210, unless otherwise noted.

2.Add a new section to read as follows: §3.316 Claims based on chroniceffects of exposure to mustard gas.

Exposure to mustard gas while participating in full-body, field or chamber experiments to test protective clothing or equipment during World War II, together with the development ofa chronic form ofany ofthe following conditions manifested subsequent thereto, is sufficient to establish service connection for that condition: laryngitis, bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and corneal opacities. [FRDoc.92-1000 Filed 1-14-92; 8:45 am]
BILUNG COOE 8320-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52and 81 [MO11-1-5369; FRL-4093-31
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; State of Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Ambient air quality data for the period 1989 through 1991 indicate that the Kansas Cityozone nonattainment area has attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Therefore, in accordance with the Clean AirAct Amendments of1990, the state of Missouri has submitted an ozone maintenance plan which projects continued attainment ofthe ozone standard in the Kansas City area, and has requested redesignation of the area to attainment. EPA is proposing to approve the Kansas City ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Air Pollution Control State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state ofMissouri. In conjunction with the maintenance plan,EPA is also proposing to approve Missouri's request to redesignate the Kansas City area to attainment with respect to the ozone 

### NAAQS. In a separate Federal Register notice published today, EPAis also proposing to approve an analogous plan and redesignation request submitted by the Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment to address the Kansas portion ofthe ozone nonattainment area. DATES: Comments mustbe received by February 14, 1992. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to LarryA. Hacker, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Branch, 726Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The state submittal and theEPA-prepared technical support document (TSD) are available for public review at the above address and at the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, AirPollution Control Program,Jefferson State Office Building, 205 Jefferson Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### Larry A. Hacker at (913) 551-7020 (FTS 276-7020). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I.Background

The CleanAirAct as amended in 1977 ("the 1977Act") required areas failing to meetthe ozone NAAQS to develop SIPs with sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the standard. The Kansas City metropolitan

area (KCMA) wasdesignated under section 107 ofthe 1977 Act as nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS onMarch 3,1978. (The designations for Missouri are codified at 40CFR 81.326.) The Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) submitted a Part D ozone attainment SIP on July 2,1979, which EPAfully approved as meeting the requirements ofsection 110and PartD ofthe 1977Act. The 1979 SIP projected attainment by December 31, 1982, making the KCMA area a "nonextension area" under section 172 ofthe 1977 Clean AirAct. Although the KCMA appeared to have met the ozone standard by the end of1982, additional violations occurred in 1983 and 1984. On February 20, 1985, EPAnotified the Governor ofMissouri that the SIPwas substantially inadequate to attain the

ozone NAAQS (50FR 26198).

In response to the SIPcall, MDNR submitted a revised ozone control strategy on May 26, 1986, which demonstrated attainment by December 31, 1987. EPA proposed to approved the revised SIPon June 30,1988 (53 FR 24735). At the time ofthe proposal, EPA believed that the area had achieved the standard, as the 1985 through 1987 air quality data showed attainment. However, ozone violations occurred in June of1988.Therefore, EPA fully approved the revised control strategy (54 FR 10322 and 54 FR 46232), but deferred action on the attainment demonstration portion ofthe SIP.

More recently, however, the 1989 through 1991 air quality data show attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-549), and to ensure continued attainment ofthe standard with an adequate margin ofsafety, the
state submitted an ozone maintenance SIPfor the KCMA on October 9, 1991. Accompanying the maintenance SIP are
new and amended rules to control certain categories of sources which emit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and the state's request to redesignate the area to attainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS.

II. Evaluation Criteria

Together the Missouri and Kansas submittals meet all applicable requirements ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act. The EPA rulemaking docket checklist (included with EPA's TSD) provides a listing of applicable approval criteria. However, some ofthese criteria merit additional discussion which is contained below.

With its submittal ofthe additional VOC rule actions, Missouri meets the Clean AirAct requirement that the SIP include all reasonably available control

measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)). The rules are also consistent withEPA policy as outlined in "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations-Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register," dated May 25, 1988 (referred to hereafter as the "Blue Book").

The Missouri submittal also includes a redesignation request, inwhich the state demonstrates that the area has fulfilled the redesignation requirements ofthe amended Act. Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Act provides specific requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment:
A. The area musthave attained the

applicable NAAQS (section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)); B. the area has a fully approved SIP

under section 110(k) ofthe Act (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)); C. the air quality improvement must be

permanent and enforceable (section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)); D. the area must have a fully approved

maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the Act (section 

### 107(d)(3)(E)[iv)); and 1700

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1700 1992

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 57, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 / Proposed Rules

E. the area has met all relevant

requirements under section 110and part Dofthe Act (section 107(d}{3)(E)(v)). Section 175A ofthe Act setsforth the maintenance plan requirement for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The plan mustdemonstrate continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS for atleastten years afterthe area isredesignated. Eight years after theredesignation, the state mustsubmit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment forthe ten years following the initial ten-yearperiod. Toprovide for thepossibility offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures adequate to assure prompt correction ofthe air quality problem.
Im. Review ofState Submittal
A. Maintenance Plan
1.Air Quality Data

The submittal contains an analysis of

ozone air qualitydata which is relevant to the maintenance plan andto the redesignation request. (The redesignation requestis discussed in Section III.Cofthis notice.) Ambient

ozone monitoring data for1989 through 1991 show attainment ofthe NAAQS in the Kansas City area, i.e., less than one expected exceedance peryear.For a complete discussion ofthe NAAQS, the reader is referred to 40CFR50.9 and appendix Hto that section. Although the 1991 data are not yet fully quality assured, EPAwill review thequality of these data in conjunction with its final action ofthis SIPsubmittal. EPA willnot take final action approving the redesignation unless it determines that attainment is based on three years of quality assured data.

Prior to the 1991 ozone season, the state had planned tobase the redesignation requeston the1967 through 1989 airquality data; however, these data did not indicate attainment in strict accord with EPA'sinterpretation ofthe ozone standard. Although, under appendix H, attainment cannotbe shown by the 1987 through 1989 data, the state's demonstrationjustifies the

use of1989emissions levels asbeing representative ofattainment.
2.Emissions Inventory

MDNR submitted comprehensive inventories ofactual VOC emissions from point, area, and mobile sources. Because 1989 emission data were not consistently available forall VOC

sources in theKCMA, 1988 was selected

asthe baseyear and wasused to project emissions to 1989 and future years.The 1989 VOC inventory is considered most representative ofattainment conditions because: (1) No ozone exceedances occurred in 1989;,and (2)EPA's Phase I gasoline volatility controls (54 FR 11868)

were implemented in 1989,resulting in significant VOC emission reductions.

Therefore, the attainment emission inventory forpurposes ofthis SIP is based upon the 1989 emission values. All VOC emission estimates were reported in kilograms per typical

summer day. The state submittal contains the detailed inventory data and summaries by county and source category.

The state demonstrated that point

source VOC emissions were not artifically low due to local economic downturn. The state examined historical employment data for the Kansas City

area for the years 1987 through 1989. No economic downturn was evident; employment in themanufacturing sector remained relatively stable during the period.

The state's inventory methodology

was consistent with EPA guidance applicable at the time the plan was being developed (EPA-450/4-88-19, December 1988). Eighty percent rule effectiveness was applied for source categories subject to state regulations. Stationary sources with emissions greater than 10 tons per year were inventoried as point sources.

Mobile source emission estimates

were generated using EPA'sMOBILE4 model. For the 1988 base year (prior to EPAvolatility restrictions), a 10.5 psi RVPgasoline volatility was used. In accordance with theEPA Phase I volatility restrictions, a9.5 psi RVP gasoline volatility was inputfor 1989. For 1990 and 1991, a gasoline volatility of9.0psi RVP was used in accord with the KCMA's voluntary RVP reduction program (discussed further below). In accord with EPA's original June 11, 1990, Phase II volatility restrictions (56 FR 23658), a gasoline volatility of7.8 psi RVP was assumed for1992 and later
years.

Due to the marginal, but persistent, history ofozone nonattainment in the KCMA, EPA and the states ofMissouri and Kansas believed that an additional areawide VOC control measure was necessary to ensure that the ozone standard could be maintained with an adequate margin ofsafety. The states of Missouri and Kansas, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), and the Chamber ofCommerce worked cooperatively to implement a voluntary program to control the volatility of gasoline supplied to the area for 1990 and 1991. Despite its voluntary nature, the program reduced gasoline volatility from 9.5 to 9.0 psi RVP from June 1 through September 1 inboth 1990 and 1991. All petroleum refiners and pipeline companies agreed to participate. Also, theEPA Field Operations Support Division performed volatility tests of gasoline samples from the KCMA. The
tests confirmed that theprogram achieved its goal. (As discussed in section lIli.A.3.below, additional reduction ofgasoline volatility will be accomplished, beginning in 1992, as a result ofEPA's Phase 11 volatility standards.)

The voluntary RVP control program resulted in a 8,189 kg/day areawide reduction inthe projected 1990 VOC inventory. This equates to a 3.3 percent reduction from the 1989 attainment VOC inventory. Thus, the 8,189kg/day VOC reduction serves as the attainment margin of safety. The stateshave committed to maintain future VOC emissions at orbelow the co-called "action level", i.e., VOC emissions will
not be allowed to encroach upon the margin ofsafety. The action level concept is detailed in the abovementioned EPA TSD.

3. Demonstration ofContinued Attainment

a.Statedemonstration. The state's demonstration ofcontinued attainment relies, in part, on EPA's Phase II gasoline volatility requirements. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated state-by-state Phase 11 RVPgasoline standards in order to continue reductions in VOC emissions. Accordingly, under the Phase II program, a fuel volatility limit of7.8 psi RVP was scheduled to become effective in 1992 and each year thereafter during the ozone season (May through September) in the state ofMissouri.

However, the federal gasoline volatility requirements were modified by the 1990 CAAA, and EPA promulgated revised Phase 1Igasoline volatility requirements on December 12, 1991 

### (56 FR 65704). This latest rule revises the maximum allowable RVP from 7.8 to 9.0 psi in those areas which

are currently designated as unclassifiable orin attainment with the NAAQS for ozone. However, as applicable to the KCMA, theRVP limit of 7.8will go into effect as the area is presently designated nonattainment.

TheMissouri portion ofthe KCMA

was designated as nonattainment for

ozone in the recently published part 81 Federal Registernotice, November 6, 1991 (56 FR 50788). Therefore, continuation ofthe 7.8 psi RVP limit is 

### federally enforceable in the KCMA,

even after the area is redesignated to 1701

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1701 1992

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 / Proposed Rules

attainment, because ofits nonattainment designation inthe November 6,1991 Federal Register notice. Also, the requirement for7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed necessary to

ensure attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard as demonstrated by the mobile source emissions inventory projections (based on use of7.8 psi RVP) inMissouri's ozone maintenance plan for the KCMA.

Areawide VOC emission were projected forthe ten-year period following maintenance plan development. Theprojections show that the ozone standard will be maintained, i.e., VOC emissions arenot expected to exceed the "action level" during this time period. Areawide VOC emissions

are expected to decrease by over 20 percent during the next tenyears.

The state's projection ofVOC emissions is based on the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and EPA's Phase IIvolatility controls. The projections were developed priorto passage of the 1990 CAAA Amendments; thus, thefederal on-board vapor recovery requirement and the new federal tailpipe standards werenot considered.

b.Additional EPA Analysis.At the time Missouri and Kansas developed theirmaintenance plans, the current version ofEPA'smobile source emissions model was MOBILE4.O. Since that time, MOBILE4.1 has become available. MOBILE4.1 was run to determine that effect, ifany, the new model would have on the demonstration ofcontinued attainment of the ozone standard.For any givenyear, MOBILE4.1 predicted lower VOC emissions than MOBILE4.0; however, the relative year-to-year trends were essentially identical. Thus, thenew effect ofMOBLLEA.1 on the demonstration of continued attainment

wasnot significant

Using MOBILE4.1, the KCMA attainment level ofVOC emissions changed from245,060 kg/day to 227,007 kg/day. For this analysis, EPA determined the action level ofVOC emissions to be 218,009 kg/day. Using MOBILE4.1 forprojecting the mobile

source component ofthe emissions inventory, thetotal KCMAVOC emissions in the year 2000are projected to be 183,601 kg/day,which is 16 percent below the actionlevel. Given this substantial margin (34,408 kg/day), EPA believes that VOC emissions will remain below the actionlevel through theyear 2002. (tenyears after the redesignation becomes effective).

EPA also performed an analysis of projected NO. emissions forthe KCMA. Given that VOC emissions willremain below the action level (as discussed above in section III.A.2.) for thenext ten years, EPAwished to determine what increases to NO, emissions, ifany, could be anticipated. Even with no growth in VOC emissions, an increase in NO. emissions (and the associated changes in atmospheric chemistry) could resultin violations ofthe ozone standard in the KCMA. EPA's analysis showed no increase in KCMANO. emissions through theyear 2005. Therefore, with VOC emissions at, or below, the action level, and with NO. emissions notincreasing, violations of the ozone standard are not anticipated. Pursuant to section 175A(a) of theAct, EPA finds that themaintenance plan demonstrates continued attainment of the ozone standard for the ten-year period following the effective date ofthe redesignation. 4. Annual Tracking and Inventory Updates
Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the KCMA depends, in part,

onthe state's efforts toward tracking VOC emissions. The state has committed to completing comprehensive VOC point source inventory updates at least twice in each five-year period following the effective date ofthe area's redesignation. For years in which no comprehensive update is performed, the state willupdate theinventory using

source permit and shutdown data.

Area and mobile source inventories willbe updated at least once every five years to take advantage ofnew data and estimation procedures, e.g., U.S. Census data, revised EPA mobile source emission models, etc.For years in which

no comprehensive area and mobile

source inventories are developed, the state will estimate emissions using the most recently available projections from existing area and mobile source inventories

The state will submit annual progress reports to EPAwhich will summarize available VOC emissions data. Thus,on
an annual basis, EPA and the state can ascertain whether actual VOC emissions are within the attainment inventory.
5. Contingency Plan

The level ofVOC emissions in the KCMA will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the ozone NAAQS in thefuture. Although further reductions ofVOC emissions are projected to occur duringthe next ten years, the state has provided contingency measures to be implemented in the event of a future

ozone air quality problem. Two potential scenarios could result in the implementation ofcontingency

measures. The first scenario would be

an increase in VOC emissions which exceeds the "action line" level (encroaching into the emission margin of safety), but does not result in ozone violations.The second situation, regardless ofthe actual VOC emissions, would be violations ofthe NAAQS. As mentioned above, the state will provide annual progress reports which will evaluate the integrity ofVOC emissions safety margin. Section 5.3 ofthe state submittal gives the details ofthe contingency provisions under both scenarios. Contingency measures include: (1) VOC emission offsets for

new and modified stationary sources; (2) transportation control measures; (3) Stage II vapor recovery; (4) a vehicle I/ M program; (5) VOC controls on minor

new sources: and (6) RACT for sources covered by new EPA Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents. Contingency controls would require the state's legislative and/or administrative approval before they could be implemented. The contingency measures provided in the state submittal meet the requirements ofsection 175A(d) ofthe Act.

6. Commitment to Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accord with section 175A ofthe Act, the state has committed to submit a revised maintenance SIP eight years after the area is redesignated to attainment.

B.AdditionalReasonably Available ControlTechnology(RACT) Regulations

In accord with section 172(b)(2) ofthe 1977Act, the KCMA was required to have SIPrulesrepresenting RACT for all VOC source categories covered by Group I, II,and III CTG documents. RACT rules were also required for all major non-CTG sources.

At the time EPA approved the SIP control strategy (54FR 10322 and 54 FR 46232), EPA and the state believed that all the RACM requirements had been met; rules were inplace for all applicable CTG and non-CTG source categories. Moreover, the rules had been revised for consistency with EPA's "Blue Book." However, during the maintenance plan development process, EPAlearned that the state needed an additional RACTregulation to address

an unregulated non-CTG major source category-lithographic printing. The
state also made corrections to its cutback asphalt and definitions rules. These rule actions are discussed below. All ofthe state's existing and new VOC RACT rules will remain in effect after 

### 1702

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1702 1992

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 / Proposed Rules

the KCMA is redesignated to attainment forthe ozone NAAQS.
10 CSR 10-2.340 Control ofEmissions from Lithographic Printing Facilities

This non-CTG RACT rule applies to nine existing facilities and new facilities that have thepotential to emit more than 100 TPY ofVOC fromlithographic printing operations. VOCs from heat-set inks and the associated dryers are required to be reduced by 90 to 93 percent overpre-RACT levels through the installation ofadd-on control equipment.Evaporative emissions from cleanup solvents will be reduced by49 percent, with VOCs from fountain solutions decreasing by 8 percent. VOC emission reductions fromfountain solutions are not as large as had been anticipated because many ofthe subject facilities have already reduced the use ofalcohol additives, or have converted to low-VOC alcohol substitutes. The rule

was adopted bythe Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) after proper notice and public hearing and will become effective tendays after its date ofpublication in the Code of State Regulations (CSR).

Appendix Gofthe state submittal contains a demonstration that the rule constitutes RACT. Inits RACT determination, the state generally relied upon research conducted by other states that haveproposed oradopted similar rules, feedback fromlocal lithographic printers, information provided by printing trade associations and trade publications, and research conducted for EPA's pendingpublication ofa CTG document for lithographic printing (scheduled forrelease sometime in 1992- 93).
10CSR 10-2.220 Liquefied Cutback AsphaltPaving Restricted

This rule, as amended, now applies during themonths ofApril through October. Previously, the applicable

season hadbeen May through September. Therule now includes recordkeeping requirements on the production, sales, and use ofcutback asphalt. Such records mustbe maintained for at least twoyears and mustbe made available to the state uponrequest. The rule amendment was adopted by theMACC after proper notice and public hearing and will become effective ten days after its date ofpublication in the CSR.

10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions



### In this rule, the state expanded its definition of"person" so it would better apply to the gasoline marketing industry.The term "person" now applies to any legal successor, employees, or agents ofthe entities previously included in the definition. The definitions of "Reid Vapor Pressure" and "gasoline" were updated, and a definition of "retail outlet" was added. The amendments to the definitions rule

were adopted by the MACC after proper notice and public hearing and will become effective ten days afterbeing published in the CSR.

EPA believes that these three rules (as discussed above) constitute RACT for all affected sources. Therefore, EPA
proposes approval ofthese rules.

C.Redesignation Request
The Missouri redesignation request for the KCMA meets the five requirements ofsection 107(d)(3](E). Following is a briefdescription ofhow the state has fulfilled each ofthese requirements. EPA's TSD contains a

more in-depth analysis ofthe submittal with respect to certain ofthese criteria.

1. Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS

The KCMA has provisionally met the first statutory criterion of attainment of the ozone NAAQS. EPA's analysis ofthe

ozone air quality data is discussed above in Section III.A.1. EPA will not take final action approving the redesignation unless it determines that attainment is based on three years of quality assured data.

2. Reductions are Permanent and Enforceable

EPA approved the Missouri SIP control strategy forthe KCMA satisfied thatthe rules, and therefore the emission reductions achieved as a result ofthose rules, were enforceable. Since that time, the Agency has remained satisfied with those rules and has not issued a SIPcall pursuant to section 110(a)(2](H), finding them to be inadequate. The emissions inventory, discussed in section III.A.2. above, is based on reductions achieved through control measures in the SIP; therefore, EPA finds that the emission reductions

arepermanent and enforceable.

3. A Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

In today's notice,EPA is proposing approval of the state's maintenance plan for the KCMA. As discussed above in Section III.A., EPA finds that the Missouri submittal meets the requirements ofsection 175A. IfEPA determines after notice and comment that it should give final approval to the maintenance plan, the KCMA will have

a fully approved maintenance plan in accordance with section 175A. EPAwill
not redesignate the area to attainment before itgives final approval to the maintenance plan. 4. Fully Approved SIPMeeting the Requirements ofsection 110 and Part D

a.Section 110Requirements.In 1980 and 1989, EPA fully approved the state's SIPforthe KCMA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) ofthe 1977Act (45FR 24140, 45 FR 85005, 54 FR 10322, and 54 FR46232). The amended Act, however, modifies several ofthese requirements. Moreover, the amended Act requires that for redesignation a nonattainment area must have a fully approved SIPunder section 110(k)-a new provision. EPA addresses the modified portions of section 110(a)(2) below. As discussed in Section III.B above, the state has submitted two new rules for SIP approval. By today's action, EPA
proposes approval ofthese two rules, and the maintenance plan. Contingent
upon final approval ofthe SIP,EPA proposes approval ofthe Missouri SIP forthe KCMA under section 110(k) of the amended Act.EPA will not take final action redesignating the KCMA to attainment until it has issued a final approval ofthe entire SIPforthe KCMA.

Although section 110 was amended by the CAAA, the KCMA SIPmeets the requirements ofamended section 110(a)(2). A number ofthe requirements did not change in substance-section 110(a)(2)(B); (C); (E) (i) and (ii); (F); (G); (I); (J); (L) and (M)-and,therefore,EPA has determined that the presence ofa fully approved SIP indicates that these requirements have been met.

A few of the other requirements deserve a more detailed analysis. First, the section 110(a)(2) requirement that all elements ofthe SIP are enforceable, is essentially the same as the section 172(c)(6) requirement. As discussed below in relation to the section 172(c)(6) requirement, we have found that the existing SIP contains the necessary enforceable measures. Section, as to section 110(a)(2)(D, which also remains essentially unchanged, it is important to note that the state has provisions adequate to ensure that itis not contributing to nonattainment problems

across the state border. These provisions are found in the existing SIP. Third, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) establishes a new requirement that the
state retain the responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP elements. Since the state adopted and submitted the rules,it has retained direct responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation. Fourth, new section 110(a)(2)(I) reinforces the requirement that the state comply with all Part D requirements (discussed further below). Finally, 1703

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1703 1992

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 

### / Proposed Rules

section 110(a)(2)(K) reinforces EPA's 

### authority torequire statesto do air quality modeling to support SIP demonstrations. Since EPA is approving the demonstration ofcontinued attainment in the maintenance plan, Missouri has met thisrequirement for purposes ofredesignating the Missouri portion ofthe Kansas City ozone nonattainment area to attainment.

b.Part DRequirements.Before the KCMA may be redesignated to attainment, it also must have fulfilled the applicable requirements ofPart D. Under Part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 ofPart D sets forth requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas regardless of classification. Subpart 2of Part D establishes requirements for areas classified as marginal or above. For

ozone nonattainment areas, classification is based on the design value of the area. Areas that violated the ozone'standard during the three-year period (1987 through 1989), but had a design value ofless than 0.121 ppm,fell below the classification cutpoint of section 181 and were, therefore, deemed "submarginal" as ofthe date of
enactment ofthe 1990Amendments to the Act. On November 6, 1991, the KCMA was classified as submarginal (56FR 56694). Therefore, in order to be redesignated, the state need only meet the requirements ofsubpart 1ofPart D. Specifically, the state must meet the requirements setforth in section 172(c) and section 176.

1. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions

Since EPA didnot issue a SIP call after the state's 1988 approved submittal, the section 172(c)(1) RACM requirement (which is the same as the requirement is preamended section 17(b)(2) and (3)) was met by EPA's approval ofthe SIPunder the preamended Act.The state has actually attained the standard based on the three years ofdata from 1989 through 1991. Section 172(c)(1) requires the state to adopt and implement RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for the attainment of the NAAQS. At the time EPA approved the KCMA plan, the Agency determined that it was consistent with RACT and RACM requirements ofthe Act.As discussed previously herein,EPA later determined that additional RACT rules

were needed in the KCMA. The additional RACT rules, included in the state submittal, fulfill the RACT and RACM requirements ofthe Act.

The RACM requirement also provides that the SIP must provide for attainment. EPA never acted onMissouri's attainment demonstration for the KCMA. Under the amended Clean Air Act, the attainment demonstration requirement no longer applies toozone nonattainment areas that are classified

as marginal (section 182(a)(4)). For marginal areas, this specific provision overrides the general attainment demonstration requirement ofsection 172(c)(1) that is applicable to all ozone nonattainment areas. On November 6, 1991, the KCMA was designated as a submarginal ozone nonattainment area (56 FR 56694). Since submarginal areas, such as Kansas City, have an even less

severe ozone problem than marginal
areas, EPA is interpreting the section 172(c)(1) attainment demonstration requirement not to apply to submarginal

areas. Therefore, it is not necessary for EPA to take final action on the existing attainment demonstration for purposes ofredesignating the Missouri portion of the Kansas City ozone nonattainment

area.

Several section 172(c) requirements lose their continued force once an area has demonstrated attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The requirement for reasonable further progress (RFP) only has relevance during the time it takes an area to attain theNAAQS-each year the area must make RFP toward attainment. EPA originally approved the KCMA RFP demonstration under preamended section 172(c)(2) for the periodpreceding the statutorily approved attainment date.The preamended section 172(b)[3) requirement is essentially the same as the new section 172(c)(2) RFP requirement. Since the KCMA has attained the NAAQS, its SIP has already achieved RFP toward that goal. In addition,because the KCMA has attained the NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFPrequirement, the section 172(c) contingency measures are not applicable. Such contingency

measures must take effect if the area fails to meet an RFP milestone orfails to attain the NAAQS; the KCMA no longer has RFP milestones and has already attained the standard. The area, however, is still subject to the section 175A contingency measures.

Similarly, once an area is redesignated to attainment, nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements are not applicable. The

area is then subject toprevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements instead ofthe NSR program. EPA does not believe it appropriate torequire the state to adopt

a revised NSR program (meeting the requirements of the amended Act)just
to qualify for redesignation, since that program will be replaced by the existing Missouri PSD program upon redesignation and any corresponding amendments to the state rules.

As discussed in Section III.A.2. above, the state submittal includes an emissions inventory. The maintenance plan emissions inventory fulfills the section 172(c) requirement.

2. Conformity

Section 176 ofthe Act requires states to develop transportation/air quality conformity procedures which are consistent with federal conformity regulations and to submit these procedures as a SIPrevision by November 15,1992. EPA has not promulgated final conformity regulations; however,the state has committed to develop conformity procedures consistent with the final federal regulations and will submit an appropriate SIPrevision. Pages 95 and 96 ofthe state submittal discuss the general principles to which the state will adhere in developing conformity procedures for the Kansas City area.

On June 7,1991, EPA and the Department ofTransportation issued Interim Conformity Guidance for completing conformity determinations until the final conformity regulations are promulgated. MARC (the metropolitan planning organization for the Kansas City area) completed a conformity determination for Kansas Cityregional transportation plans and programs under the Interim Guidance, which the
state has reviewed and approved. The conformity determination is included as appendix Lto the state submittal.

EPA believes that the section 176 conformity requirement is sufficiently
met because the promulgation date for conformity procedures has not passed and the state has committed to adopt appropriate procedures.

IV. Conclusion

EPA is soliciting public comments on this notice and on issues relevant to EPA's proposed action. Comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the address above. Proposed Action

In today's notice, EPAproposes to approve the Kansas City ozone maintenance plan, and the RACT rule submittals, because itmeets the requirements ofsection 175A. In addition, theAgency is proposing approval ofthe redesignation request for the Kansas City area, subject to final 

### 1704

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1704 1992

### Federal RegidiW./ Vol. 57, No. 10 1 

### Wednesday, January 15, 1992 

## / Proposed Rules0

approval ofthe maintenance plan, because the state has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation. Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any SIP.Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in lightof specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under 5U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that this SIPrevision and redesignation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities (see 46 FR 8709).

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, and Ozone.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Airpollution control, National parks, and Wilderness areas.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Dated: January 3,1992. Morris Kay, RegionalAdministrator. 

### IFRDoc. 92-1068 Filed 1-14-92; 8:45

### am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[K51-1-5370; FRL-4093-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas forAir QualityPlanning Purposes;State of Kansas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Ambient air quality data for the period 1989 through 1991 indicate that the Kansas City ozone nonattainment area has attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Therefore, in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the state ofKansas has submitted an ozone maintenance plan which projects continued attainment ofthe ozone standard in the Kansas City area, and has requested redesignation ofthe area to attainment for the ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve the Kansas City ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Air Pollution Control State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

### state ofKansas. In conjunction with the maintenance plan, EPA is also proposing to approve Kansas' request to redesignate the Kansas City area to attainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS. In a separate Federal Register notice published today, EPA is also proposing to approve an analogous plan and redesignation request submitted by theMissouri Department ofNatural Resources to address the Missouri portion ofthe ozone nonattainment area. DATES: Comments mustbe received by February 14, 1992.
ADDRESSES: 

### Comments shouldbe sent to Larry A. Hacker, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII,Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.The state submittal and the EPA-prepared technical support document (TSD) are available forpublic review at the above address and at the Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment, Forbes Field,Building 740, Topeka, Kansas 66620.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### Larry A. Hacker at (913) 551-7020 (FTS 276-7020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I.Background

The Clean AirAct as amended in 1977 ("the 1977Act") required areas failing to meetthe ozone NAAQS to develop SIPs with sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the standard (section 172(a)). The Kansas Citymetropolitan area (KCMA) was designated under section 107ofthe 1977 Act as nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS on March3,1978. (Thedesignations for Kansas are codified at 40CFR 81.317.) The Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment (KDHE) submitted a Part Dozone SIP on September 17, 1979, which EPA fully approved as meeting therequirements of section 110 and PartDofthe 1977Act. The 1979 SIPprojected attainment by December 31, 1982,making the KCMA

area a "nonextension area" under section 172 ofthe 1977 Act.Although the KCMA appeared to have met the ozone standard by the end of 1982, additional violations occurred in 1983 and 1984. On February 20, 1985, EPAnotified the Governor ofKansas,pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H), that the SIPwas substantially inadequate to attain the

ozone NAAQS (50FR 26198).

In response to the SIP call,KDHE submitted a revised SIPon July 2, 1986, which demonstrated attainment by December 31, 1987. EPA fully approved the revised SIPonMay 18, 1988 (53 FR 17700). At that time, EPAbelieved that 

### the areahas achieved the standard as the 1985through 1987 air qualitydata showed attainment. However,ozone violations occurred in June of1988. More recently, however, the 1989through 1991 air quality data show attainment ofthe

ozone NAAQS. Inan effort to comply with the 1990 CAAA (Pub.L.101-549), and toensure continued attainment of the standard with an adequate margin of safety, the state submitted an ozone maintenance SIP forthe Kansas City

area on October 23, 1991. Accompanying the maintenance SIP arenew rules to control certain categories ofsources which emitvolatile organic compound (VOC)emissions, and the state'srequest toredesignate the area to attainment withrespect to the ozone NAAQS. 

### II.

Evaluation Criteria Together, the Kansas and Missouri submittals meet allthe applicable requirements ofthe 1990CAA. The EPA rulemaking docket checklist (included with EPA's TSD) provides a listingof applicable approval criteria. However,

someofthese criteria merit additional discussion which is contained below.

With its submittal oftwo additional

new VOC rules,Kansas meets the CAA requirementthat the SIPinclude all reasonably available control measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)). The rules

are also consistent with EPApolicy as outlined in "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations-Clarification to appendixD ofNovember 24, 1987Federal Register," datedMay 25, 1988 (referred to hereafter

as the "Blue Book").

TheKansas submittal also includes a redesignation request, in which the state demonstrates that the area has fulfilled theredesignation requirements ofthe amended Act. Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Act provides specific requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment.

A. the area must have attained the applicable NAAQS (section 107(d)(3)(E)(i));

B.the area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) oftheAct (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii));

C.the air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable (section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)];

D. the area musthave a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A oftheAct (section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)); and

E. the area has met allrelevant requirements under section 110 and Part Dofthe Act (section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)).

Section 175A ofthe Act setsforth the maintenance planrequirement for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Theplan must demonstrate continued attainment - I 

### 1705

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1705 1992