13846 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Subpart B—Receivers and

Receiverships

8. Section 627.2720 is amended by

removing paragraph (a); redesignating

paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) as

new paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);

and revising newly designated

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 627.2720 Appointment of receiver.

* * * * *

(b) The receiver appointed for a Farm

Credit institution shall be the Insurance

Corporation.

* * * * *

9. Section 627.2730 is amended by

removing paragraph (b); redesignating

paragraph (c) as new paragraph (b); and

revising newly designated paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

§ 627.2730 Preservation of equity.

* * * * *

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of

this section, eligible borrower stock

shall be retired in accordance with

section 4.9A of the Act.

* * * * *

10. Part 627 is amended by adding a

new subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D—Voluntary Liquidation

§ 627.2795 Voluntary liquidation.

(a) A Farm Credit institution may

voluntarily liquidate by a resolution of

its board of directors, but only with the

consent of, and in accordance with a

plan of liquidation approved by, the

Farm Credit Administration Board.

Upon adoption of such resolution to

liquidate, the Farm Credit institution

shall submit the proposed voluntary

liquidation plan to the Farm Credit

Administration for preliminary

approval. The Farm Credit

Administration Board, in its discretion,

may appoint a receiver as part of an

approved liquidation plan. If a receiver

is appointed for the Farm Credit

institution as part of a voluntary

liquidation, the receivership shall be

conducted pursuant to subpart B of this

part, except to the extent that an

approved plan of liquidation provides

otherwise.

(b) If the Farm Credit Administration

Board gives preliminary approval to the

liquidation plan, the board of directors

of the Farm Credit institution shall

submit the resolution to liquidate and

the liquidation plan to the stockholders

for approval.

(c) The resolution to liquidate and the

liquidation plan shall be approved by

the stockholders if agreed to by at least

a majority of the voting stockholders of

the institution voting, in person or by

written proxy, at a duly authorized

stockholders’ meeting.

(d) The Farm Credit Administration

Board will consider final approval of the

liquidation plan after an affirmative

stockholder vote on the resolution to

liquidate.

(e) Any subsequent amendments,

modifications, revisions, or adjustments

to the liquidation plan shall require

Farm Credit Administration Board

approval.

(f) The Farm Credit Administration

Board, in its discretion, reserves the

right to terminate or modify the

liquidation plan at any time.

§ 627.2797 Preservation of equity.

(a) Immediately upon the adoption of

a resolution by its board of directors to

voluntarily liquidate a Farm Credit

institution, the capital stock,

participation certificates, equity

reserves, and allocated equities of the

Farm Credit institution shall not be

issued, allocated, retired, sold,

distributed, transferred, assigned, or

applied against any indebtedness of the

owners of such equities. Such activities

could resume if the stockholders of the

Farm Credit institution disapprove the

resolution to liquidate or the Farm

Credit Administration Board

disapproves the liquidation plan. In the

event the resolution to liquidate is

approved by the stockholders of the

Farm Credit institution and the

liquidation plan is approved by the

Farm Credit Administration Board, the

liquidation plan shall govern

disposition of the equities of the Farm

Credit institution, except that if the

Farm Credit institution is placed in

receivership, the provisions of

§ 627.2730(a) shall govern further

disposition of the equities of the Farm

Credit institution.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of

this section, eligible borrower stock

shall be retired in accordance with

section 4.9A of the Act.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 97–7355 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–024–1024; FRL–5800–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision concerning Missouri Rule 10

CSR 10–2.330, submitted by the

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR). This revision would

set a summertime gasoline Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) limit of 7.2 pounds per

square inch (psi), and 8.2 pounds per

square inch for gasoline containing at

least 9.0 percent by volume but not

more than 10.0 percent by volume

ethanol, for gasoline distributed in Clay,

Jackson, and Platte Counties as part of

the state plan to maintain its clean air

quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Stan Walker, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Walker at (913) 551–7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA, or the Act)

requires states which have areas failing

to meet the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to

develop SIPs with sufficient control

measures to attain and maintain the

standard. The EPA designated the

Kansas City Metropolitan Area (KCMA)

as an area failing to meet the NAAQS on

March 3, 1978. The area designated as

nonattainment included five counties:

Platte, Clay, and Jackson Counties in

Missouri, and Johnson and Wyandotte

Counties in Kansas. In spite of a series

of SIP revisions, the area continued to

experience violations of the ozone

NAAQS throughout the 1980s. Each

time violations occurred beyond an

attainment date, the EPA notified the

Governor and called for a revision to the

Missouri SIP. In response to the last of

these SIP calls, MDNR submitted a SIP

revision which demonstrated attainment

of the ozone NAAQS by December 31,

1987. Although the area experienced a

number of violations in 1988, no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13847

violations were experienced during the

subsequent three-year period.

In an effort to comply with the 1990

Amendments to the CAA, and to ensure

continued attainment of the ozone

NAAQS with an adequate margin of

safety, the state submitted an ozone

maintenance SIP for the Missouri

portion of the KCMA on October 23,

1991. Accompanying the maintenance

SIP were several new rules to control

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from certain categories, the

state’s request to redesignate the KCMA

as an attainment area with respect to the

ozone NAAQS, and a commitment to

implement certain contingency

measures should the area exceed certain

emission levels or experience additional

violations. The EPA approved the

maintenance SIP and redesignated the

KCMA to attainment on June 23, 1992.

During the three-year period

following approval of the maintenance

SIP, a number of exceedances of the

ozone standard were recorded in the

KCMA. As a result, the KCMA was once

again in violation of the ozone NAAQS.

The EPA notified the state of the

violation on January 31, 1996, and

requested that the contingency measures

in the approved plan be implemented.

Due to various problems associated with

implementation of contingency

measures in the approved contingency

plan, the local community undertook an

evaluation of substitute measures which

could be implemented. After an

extensive evaluation of available

options, the Mid-America Regional

Council (MARC), in conjunction with

the Kansas City Air Quality Forum,

recommended a package of measures to

Kansas and Missouri. This

recommendation contained a number of

measures for implementation as

contingency measures, including lower

volatility gasoline. This notice and the

accompanying technical support

document (TSD) provide an analysis of

the lower volatility gasoline portion of

the package of substitute measures.

II. Regulatory Objective

RVP is a measure of a fuel’s volatility

and thereby affects the rate at which

gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs;

RVP is directly proportional to the rate

of evaporation. Consequently, the lower

the RVP, the lower the rate of

evaporation. Lowering the RVP in the

summer months can offset the effect of

summer temperature upon the volatility

of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers

emissions of VOCs. VOC is an important

component in the production of ground

level ozone in the hot summer months.

Reduction of RVP will help the state’s

effort to attain and maintain compliance

with the NAAQS for ozone.

III. State Submittal

On January 29, 1997, MDNR

submitted to EPA Region VII a request

for authorization to regulate fuel

volatility. This plan was submitted as

part of a host of contingency measures

necessary for the KCMA to maintain

clean air quality. Included in the

submittal was a letter from Roger D.

Randolph, Director, MDNR, to William

A. Spratlin, EPA Region VII Director,

Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division,

requesting authorization to implement a

lower RVP requirement in the Kansas

City area; Emergency Rule 10 CSR 10–

2.330, Control of Gasoline Reid Vapor

Pressure; Draft Permanent rule 10 CSR

10–2.330; a request for an exemption

under Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean

Air Act; and a letter requesting the EPA

to parellel process the rule to provide

adequate time for gasoline facilities to

prepare for the change in fuel volatility.

The state will hold a public hearing on

April 24, 1997.

The EPA is parallel processing this

SIP revision concurrently with the

state’s proposal and adoption

procedures for amending its SIP.

Parallel processing is being done

pursuant to the December 19, 1996,

request from the state.

This revision is being proposed under

a procedure called parallel processing,

whereby the EPA proposes rulemaking

action concurrently with the state’s

procedures for amending its regulations.

If the proposed revision is substantially

changed in areas other than those

identified in this notice, the EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another notice of proposed rulemaking.

If no substantial changes are made other

than those areas cited in this notice, the

EPA will publish a final rulemaking

notice on the revisions. The final

rulemaking action by the EPA will occur

only after the SIP revision has been

adopted by Missouri and submitted

formally to the EPA for incorporation

into the SIP.

IV. Analysis of the SIP

A. Necessity Finding

Under sections 211(c) and 211(h) of

the CAA, the EPA has promulgated

nationally applicable Federal standards

for RVP levels in motor vehicle gasoline.

Because a Federal control promulgated

under section 211(c)(1) applies to the

fuel characteristic RVP, nonidentical

state controls are prohibited under

section 211(c)(4). Section 211(c)(4)(A) of

the Act prohibits state regulation

respecting a fuel characteristic or

component for which the EPA has

adopted a control or prohibition, unless

the state control is identical to the

Federal control. Under section

211(c)(4)(C), the EPA may approve a

nonidentical state fuel control as a SIP

provision, if the state demonstrates that

the measure is necessary to achieve the

national primary or secondary ambient

air quality standard that the plan

implements. The EPA can approve a

state fuel requirement as necessary only

if no other measures would bring about

timely attainment, or if other measures

exist but are unreasonable or

impracticable. While the Missouri low

RVP requirement is preempted by the

Federal RVP requirements, the state can

implement the low RVP requirement if

the EPA finds it necessary and approves

it as a revision to the SIP.

In its submittal, Missouri showed that

additional VOC reductions are needed

to address Kansas City’s recent history

of nonattainment problems and to

ensure continued attainment of the

ozone NAAQS in the KCMA. While the

area is designated as attainment for the

ozone NAAQS, the KCMA is currently

in danger of violating the standard due

to exceedances occurring in the 1995–

1996 period. Missouri estimates that the

area needs to achieve approximately 8.5

tons per day of VOC reductions to

continue to achieve attainment of the

ozone NAAQS. Because emission trends

continue to increase, the state believes

it is important that control measures

producing a significant portion of the

needed reductions be implemented in

time to reduce emissions beginning in

the 1997 ozone season. Otherwise, there

is a significant risk of exceedances and

violations in 1997, and this risk will

increase over time. The EPA agrees that

an important criteria in evaluating the

reasonableness of each control measure

is whether it will achieve significant

emission reductions in the near term,

beginning in the 1997 and 1998 ozone

seasons.

Missouri evaluated a broad range of

available control measures to determine

whether there are sufficient reasonable

and practicable measures available to

produce the needed emissions

reductions without requiring low RVP

gasoline. In addition to assessing the

quantity of emission reductions

attributable to each control measure, the

state also considered the time needed

for implementation and costeffectiveness of each measure in

evaluating the reasonableness and

practicability of the other control

measures in comparison to low RVP

gasoline requirements. The costeffectiveness ratio is based on the cost

expected to be incurred from 1997
13848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

through 2006, resulting from

implementing the control measure,

divided by the 10-year sum of the daily

VOC reductions. Missouri found that a

7.2 psi low RVP requirement could be

implemented in time for the 1997 ozone

season, would produce an estimated 4.1

tons per day of VOC emissions

reductions, and has an estimated costeffectiveness ratio of 1.1. The state also

evaluated the following other measures:

Stage II vapor recovery, reformulated

gasoline, vehicle I/M programs, clean

fueled fleets (CFF) program, light rail

transit, free transit, and parking

surcharge. Based on the state’s

evaluation, the EPA finds that there are

not sufficient other reasonable and

practicable measures available to

produce the quantity of emissions

reductions needed to continue to

achieve the NAAQS, and thus a low

RVP requirement is necessary.

Missouri found that free transit on red

sky-cast days can be implemented in

time for the 1997 ozone season and has

a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio,

but would generate only 0.3 tons per

day reductions, which is a very small

fraction of the goal of 8.5 tons per day

total reductions. Free transit throughout

the ozone season could be implemented

on the same time frame, is less costeffective, and would generate an

additional 0.3 tons per day reductions.

A parking surcharge could also be

implemented promptly, but has a very

high cost-effectiveness ratio and would

add only 0.6 tons per day reductions.

Thus, even if the state were to

implement all of these measures they

would not produce a significant

quantity of emissions reductions in the

next few ozone seasons, and hence

would not be sufficient to ensure that

the state will continue to achieve the

ozone NAAQS.

While a number of other measures

would achieve substantially greater

reductions than free transit and a

parking surcharge, the state found that

all of these measures would take

considerably longer to implement than

low RVP, and none would produce

emission reductions beginning in the

1997 and 1998 ozone seasons. One

option the state considered is Stage II

vapor recovery, which would reduce

emissions an estimated 6.9 tons per day.

However, Stage II would take

approximately 18 months to implement,

which means it would not reduce

emissions before the 1999 ozone season.

Moreover, installation of the Stage II

equipment would require additional

underground piping as well as new hose

and nozzle sets at each affected station.

Stage II would require substantial

compliance efforts by a larger number of

entities than would a low RVP

requirement, and it would mainly affect

smaller entities, which may have more

difficulty absorbing compliance costs.

Another potential option is either a

centralized or decentralized I/M

program, with emissions reductions

estimated ranging between 2.4 tons per

day (basic decentralized I/M) and 25

tons per day (the EPA recommended

centralized enhanced I/M), depending

upon the type of I/M program selected.

Missouri estimated that an I/M program

would take four to six years to fully

implement and three to four years

before producing any emissions

reductions benefits. An I/M program

would require legislative as well as

regulatory action in both Missouri and

Kansas. Additionally, an I/M program

would require development of

substantial infrastructure (e.g., testing

facilities) in the Kansas City area, and

would require participation by every

motor vehicle owner.

Missouri also considered light rail

transit as a potential control measure,

with estimated emissions reductions of

0.1 tons per day. The state considers

light rail transit as an option only for the

long term because it would require

substantial lead time for

implementation. Both Kansas and

Missouri would have to pass

authorizing legislation and secure

funding sources. The states would also

have to acquire land and undertake a

large-scale construction project.

Moreover, the state estimated that this

option has a high cost-effectiveness ratio

(compared to low RVP).

Finally, Missouri has been working to

develop a CFF program by forming a

workgroup to help developed an

intrastructure for the program. Currently

this program is in the planning stages

and could take approximately two to

three years to implement. Since this

program is in the planning stages, exact

emission reduction credits have not yet

been identified. The expected

reductions from the CFF program would

produce only a portion of the identified

goal of 8.5 tons per day, leaving a need

for additional significant reductions to

continue to achieve attainment.

Given that low RVP is the only option

that would produce substantial

emissions reductions in the near term,

and given its comparative ease of

implementation (as well as superior

cost-effectiveness to some of these

options), the EPA finds that each of the

measures discussed above is

unreasonable in comparison to a low

RVP requirement. This finding does not

imply that these measures would be

unreasonable if additional reductions

were needed beyond those that would

be produced by low RVP, or that these

measures would be unreasonable given

a longer time frame to reduce emissions.

In addition to the measures discussed

above, the state also evaluated opt into

Federal RFG as another option. The EPA

finds that opt-in to RFG is impracticable

at this time because the area is a

designated attainment area, and under

current the EPA regulations, only

designated nonattainment areas can opt

in to RFG.

B. Emission Impact of the Fuel Volatility

Control

The fuel volatility control was

identified by MARC as a control

measure that could be implemented by

the 1997 ozone season and will

contribute significantly toward the

established emission control. Reducing

the fuel volatility limit from 7.8 to 7.2

psi will reduce VOC emissions by an

expected 4.1 tons per day. Most of the

emission reductions will occur from

vehicle emissions (4.0 tons per day),

and 0.1 ton per day will come from

nonroad emissions, including storage

and refueling emission.

C. Economic Impacts of the Fuel

Volatility Control

The fuel volatility control will affect

the cost of producing the gasoline. It is

estimated that it will cost refineries an

additional 1.5 cents per gallon to

produce 7.2 psi RVP gasolines. Some

cost will be passed on to the consumer;

therefore, consumers in the KCMA may

experience a gasoline price increase of

about 1.5 cents per gasoline.

V. Analysis of the Rule

The Missouri rule specifies that no

person shall dispense, supply, exchange

in trade, offer for sale or supply, and sell

or store gasoline used as a fuel for motor

vehicles and that has an RVP greater

than 7.2 psi, or 8.2 psi for gasoline

containing at least 9.0 percent by

volume but not more than 10.0 percent

by volume ethanol. This rule applies

beginning June 1 through September 15

of each year.

In addition, facilities other than a

gasoline dispensing facility shall keep

and maintain at the facility, for two

years following the date of the RVP test,

records of the information regarding the

RVP of gasoline that is to be used as a

fuel for motor vehicles.

Gasoline used exclusively for fueling

implements of agriculture and gasoline

in any tank, reservoir, storage vessel, or

other stationary container with a

nominal capacity of 500 gallons or less

are exempt from this regulation.

The sampling procedures and test

methods are consistent with the EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13849

recommendations as described in 40

CFR Part 80, Appendices D, E, and F.

Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve this

revision to the Missouri SIP concerning

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–2.330. At the

state’s request, the EPA is parallel

processing this action.

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 light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This Federal action authorizes and

approves into the Missouri SIP

requirements previously adopted by the

state, and imposes no new

requirements. Therefore, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Under section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

authorizes and approves into the Kansas

SIP requirements previously adopted by

the state, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7347 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[KS 019–1019; FRL–5800–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision concerning Kansas Air

Regulation (K.A.R.) 28–19–79, Fuel

Volatility, submitted by the Kansas

Department of Health and Environment.

This revision would set a summertime

gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

limit of 7.2 pounds per square inch

(psi), and 8.2 pounds per square inch for

gasoline containing at least 9.0 percent

by volume but not more than 10.0

percent by volume ethanol, for gasoline

distributed in Wyandotte and Johnson

Counties as part of the state plan to

maintain its clean air quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Stan Walker, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Walker at (913) 551–7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA, or the Act)

requires states which have areas failing

to meet the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to

develop SIPs with sufficient control

measures to attain and maintain the

standard. The EPA designated the

Kansas City Metropolitan Area (KCMA)

as an area failing to meet the NAAQS on

March 3, 1978. The area designated as

nonattainment included five counties:

Platte, Clay, and Jackson Counties in

Missouri, and Johnson and Wyandotte

Counties in Kansas. In spite of a series

of SIP revisions, the area continued to

experience violations of the ozone

NAAQS throughout the 1980s. Each

time violations occurred beyond an

attainment date, the EPA notified the

Governor and called for a revision to the

Kansas SIP. In response to the last of

these SIP calls, KDHE submitted a SIP

revision which demonstrated attainment

of the ozone NAAQS by December 31,

1987. Although the area experienced a

number of violations in 1988, no

violations were experienced during the

subsequent three-year period.

In an effort to comply with the 1990

Amendments to the CAA, and to ensure

continued attainment of the ozone

NAAQS with an adequate margin of

safety, the state submitted an ozone

maintenance SIP for the Kansas portion

of the KCMA on October 23, 1991.

Accompanying the maintenance SIP

were several new rules to control

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from certain categories, the

state’s request to redesignate the KCMA

as an attainment area with respect to the

ozone NAAQS, and a commitment to

implement certain contingency

measures should the area exceed certain

emission levels or experience additional

violations. The EPA approved the