# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 1705 1992

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 11:34:40 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 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 forany 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 planwhich 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 andredesignation 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 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 (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 attainmentby 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 theend 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 alsoconsistent 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 Actprovides 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
mustdemonstrate continued attainment - I 

### 1705

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1705 1992

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

## / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 

## / Proposed Rules

ofthe applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the area is redesignated. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance planwhich demonstrates attainment forthe ten years following theinitial ten-year period. To provide for thepossibility offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures adequate to assureprompt correction ofthe air quality problem.
III. Review ofState Submittal
A. MaintenancePlan
1.Air QualityData

The submittal contains an analysis of

ozone air quality data which is relevant to the maintenance plan and to the redesignation request. (The redesignation request is discussed in Section IUL.C ofthis notice.) Ambient

ozone monitoring data for 1989 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 40CFR 50.9 and appendix H to that section.Although the 1991 data are not yet fully quality assured, EPA willreview the quality of these data in conjunction with its final action on this SIP submittal.EPA will nottake final action approving the redesignation unless itdetermines that attainment is based on three years of quality assured data.

Prior to the 1991 ozone season, the state had plannedto base the redesignation request on the 1987 through 1989 air quality data; however, these data did notindicate attainment in strict accord with EPA's interpretation ofthe ozone standard. Although, under appendix H,attainment cannot be shown by the 1987 through 1989data, the state's demonstrationjustifies the

use of1989emissions levels as being representative ofattainment.
2.Emissions Inventory

KDHE submitted comprehensive inventories ofactual VOC emissions from point,area, and mobile s6urces. Because 1989 emission data were not consistently available for all VOC

sources in the KCMA, 1988 was selected

as the base year and was used to project emissions to1989 and future years. The 1989VOC inventory is considered most representative of attainment conditions because: (1)No ozone exceedances occurred in 1989; and (2)EPA's PhaseI gasoline volatility controls (54FR 11868)

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

Therefore, the attainment emission inventory for purposes ofthis SIPis 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 artificially 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 the manufacturing 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's MOBILE4 model. Forthe 1988 base year (prior to EPA volatility restrictions), a 10.5 psi RVP gasoline volatility was used. In accord with the EPA Phase I volatility restrictions, a 9.5 psi RVP gasoline volatility was input for 1989. For 1990 and 1991, a gasoline volatility of9.0 psi RVP was used in accord with the KCMA's voluntary RVP reduction program (discussedfurther 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 for 1992 and later
years.

Due to the marginal, butpersistent, 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 of Commerce worked cooperatively to implement a voluntary program to control the volatility of gasoline supplied to the area for 1990 and 1991. Despite itsvoluntary nature, the program reduced gasoline volatility from 9.5 to 9.0 psi RVP from June 1 through September 1 in both 1990 and 1991. All petroleum refiners and pipeline companies agreed to participate. Also, the Field Operations Support Division of EPA performed volatility tests of gasoline samples from the KCMA. The
tests confirmed that the program achieved its goal. (As discussed in 

### SectionIII.A.3. below, additional reduction ofgasoline volatility will be accomplished, beginning in 1992, as a result ofEPA'sPhase IIvolatility standards.)

Thevoluntary RVP control program resulted in a 8,189 kg/day areawide reduction in the projected 1990VOC inventory. This equates to a 3.3 percent reduction from the 1989 attainment VOC inventory. Thus,the 8,189 kg/dayVOC reduction serves as the attainment margin of safety.The stateshave committed to maintain future VOC emissions at or below the so-called "action level," i.e., VOC emissions will notbe allowed to encroach upon the margin ofsafety.The action level concept is detailed in the abovementioned EPATSD.

3.Demonstration ofContinued Attainment

a.Statedemonstration. The state's demonstration ofcontinued attainment relies, in part, on EPA'sPhase II gasoline volatility requirements. On June 11, 1990 (55FR 23658), EPApromulgated 

### state-by-state Phase IIRVP gasoline standards inorder to continue reductions in VOC emissions. Accordingly, under thePhase 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 ofKansas.

However, the federal gasoline volatility requirements were modified bythe 1990 CAAA, and EPA promulgated revised Phase IIgasoline volatility requirements on December 12, 1991 (56FR 64704). This latest rule revises the maximum allowable RVP from7.8 to 9.0psi in those areas which

are currently designated as unclassifiable or in attainment with the NAAQS forozone. However, as applicable to the KCMA, the RVP limit of7.8 willgo into effect as the area is presently designated nonattainment.

The Kansasportion ofthe KCMA was designated as nonattainment for ozone inthe recently published part81 Federal Register notice, November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56788). Therefore, continuation ofthe 7.8 psi RVP limit isfederally enforceable in the KCMA, even after the area is redesignated to attainment,because of its nonattainment designation in the November 6,1991 Federal Register notice. Also, the requirement for 7.8 psi RVP volatility is deemed necessary to

ensure attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard as demonstrated by the mobile source emissions inventory projections (based on use of7.8 psi RVP)i 

### 1706

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1706 1992

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

in Kansas' ozone maintenance plan for the KCMA.

Areawide VOC emission were projected for the ten-year period following maintenance plan development. The projections show that the ozone standard will be maintained, i.e., VOC emissions are not expected to exceed the "action level" during this timeperiod. Areawide VOC emissions

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

The state's projection ofVOC emissions isbased on the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and EPA's Phase II volatility controls. The projections were developed priorto passage ofthe 1990 CAA Amendments: thus, the federal on-board vapor recovery requirement and the new federal tailpipe standards were not considered.

b.AdditionalEPA analysis.At the time Missouri and Kansas developed their maintenance plans, the current version ofEPA's mobile source emissions model was MOBILE4.0. Since that time, MOBILEA.1 has become available. MOBILE4.1 was run to determine what effect, ifany, the new model would have on the demonstration ofcontinued attainment ofthe ozone standard. For anygiven year, MOBILE4.1 predicted lower VOC emissions than MOBILE4.0; however, the relative year-to-year trends were essentially identical. Thus, the net effect ofMOBILE4.1 on the demonstration of continued attainment was not significant.

Using MOBILE4.1, the KCMA attainment level ofVOC emissions changed from 245,060 kg/day to 227,007 kg/day. For this analysis, EPA determined the action level of VOC emissions to be 218,009 kg/day. Using MOBILE4.1 forprojecting the mobile

source component of the emissions inventory, the total KCMA VOC emissions in the year 2000 areprojected
tobe 183,601 kg/day, which is 16 percent below the action level. Given this substantial margin (34,408 kg/day), EPA believes that VOC emissions will remain below the action level through the year 2002 (ten years after the redesignation becomes effective).

EPA also performed an analysis of projected NO. emissions for the KCMA. Given that VOC emissions will remain below the action level (as discussed above in Section III.A.2.] for the next ten years, EPA wished to determine what increases to NO. emissions, ifany, could be anticipated. Even with no growth inVOC emissions, an increase in NO. emissions (and the associated changes in atmospheric chemistry) could result in violations ofthe ozone 

### standard in the KCMA. EPA's analysis showedno increase in KCMA NO. emissions through the year 2005. Therefore, withVOC emissions at, or below,the action level,and with NO, emissions not increasing, violations of the ozone standard are not anticipated. Pursuant to section 175A(a) ofthe Act, 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 ofthe ozone NAAQS in the KCMA depends, in part,

on the state's efforts toward tracking VOC emissions. The statehas committed to completing comprehensive VOC pointsource inventory updates at least twice in each five-year period following the effective date ofthe area's redesignation. Foryears inwhich no comprehensive updateis performed, the state will update the inventory using

sourcepermit 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 EPAmobile source emission models, etc. Foryears in which

no comprehensive area and mobile

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

The statewill submit annual progress reports to EPA which will summarize available VOC emissions data.Thus, on
an annual basis, EPA and the state can ascertain whether actualVOC emissions area 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 the future.Although further reductions ofVOC emissions are projected to occurover the next ten years, the state has provided contingency measures tobe implemented in the event ofa future

ozone air quality problem.

Twopotential scenarios could result inthe implementation ofcontingency

measures.The first scenario would be

an increase in VOC emissions which exceeds the "action line" level (encroaching into theemission margin of safety), but does notresult 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 theintegrity oftheVOC emissions safety margin. Section5.3 of the state submittal gives thedetails of the contingency provisions under both scenarios.Contingency measures include: (1)VOC emission offsets for

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

new sources; and (6) RACT forsources covered by new EPA CTG documents. Contingency controls would require the state's legislative and/or administrative approval before they could be implemented. Thecontingency 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 statehas committed to submit a revised maintenance SIP eightyears after the area isredesignated to attainment.

B.Additional ReasonablyAvailable ControlTechnology(RACT)Regulations

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

At the time EPA approved the SIP (53 FR 17700), EPA and the statebelieved that allthe RACM requirements had been met; rules were in place for all applicable CTG and non-CTG source categories. Moreover, the rules had been revised forconsistency with EPA's "Blue Book." However, during the maintenance plan development process, EPA learned that the state needed additional RACT regulations to address two unregulated non-CTG major source categories-lithographic printing

sources and chemical processing facilities that operate alcohol plants or liquid detergent plants.After proper notice and public hearingby the state, these rules were adopted and became effective on October 7, 1991. All ofthe state's existing and new VOCRACT rules will remain in effect after the KCMA is redesignated to attainment for the ozone NAAQS. These rule actions

are discussed below. 1707

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1707 1992

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

K.A.R. 28-19-76 Lithography Printing Facilities

This non-CTG RACT rule applies to
two existing facilities and new facilities thathave the potential to emit more than 100 tons peryear (TPY) ofVOCs from lithographic printing operations. VOCs from heat-set inks and the associated dryers are required to be reduced by 77 percent overpre-RACT levels through the installation of add-on control equipment. Evaporative emissions from cleanup solvents will be reducedby 50 percent, with VOCs from fountain solutions decreasing by 43 percent.The rule was adopted by the KDHE after proper notice and public hearing and became effective on October 7, 1991.

Appendix M of the state submittal contains a demonstration that the rule constitutes RACT. In itsRACT determination, the state generally relied
upon research conducted by other states that have proposed or adopted similar rules, feedback from local lithographic printers, information provided by printing trade associations and trade publications, and research conducted for EPA's pending publication ofa CTG document forlithographic printing (scheduled for release some time in 1992-93).

K.A.R. 28-19-77 Chemical Processing Facilities That Operate Alcohol Plants

or Liquid Detergent Plants

This rule applies to chemical processing facilities that operate alcohol

orliquid detergent plants which use, produce, or store ethanol ormethanol, and have the potential to emit more than 100 TPY VOCs. This rule currently applies to one existing facility. Therule will require installation ofcontrol equipment on point sources, the reduction ofVOC concentration in
process wastewater streams, and the reduction offugitive emissions. The
state estimates that VOCs from the one existing facility will be reduced by 69 percent, for a total reduction of455 TPY. This rule was adopted by the KDHE after proper notice and public hearing and became effective on October 7, 1991.

Appendix M ofthe state submittal contains a demonstration that the rule constitutes RACT. In its RACT demonstration the state relied on research and information developed by EPA, other state and local agencies, and

a RACT analysis conducted by the existing facility.

The state also revised two existing rules related to the RACT rules. In rule K.A.R. 28-19-61, Definitions, the definitions ofseveral terms were updated. In rule K.A.R. 28-19-66, Testing Procedures, test methods for the RACT rules were updated to be consistent with EPAreference methods. EPAbelieves the aforementioned rules constitute RACT forall affected sources. Therefore, EPAproposes approval of these rules.

C.Redesignation Request
The Kansas redesignation request for the KCMA meets the five requirements ofsection 107(d)(3)(E). Following is a briefdescription ofhow the state has fulfilled each of these requirements. EPA's TSD contains a more in-depth analysis ofthe submittal with respect to certain of these criteria.

1.Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS

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

ozone air quality data is discussed above in Section III.A.1. EPAwill 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 Kansas SIP for the KCMA satisfied that the rules, and therefore the emission reductions achieved as a result of those 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 forthe KCMA. As discussed above in Section III.A., EPA finds that the Kansas submittal meets the requirements of section 175A. IfEPA determines after notice and comment that itshould give final approval to the maintenance plan, the KCMA will have afully approved maintenance plan in accordance with section 175A. EPA will not redesignate the area to attainment before itgives final approval to the maintenance plan.

4. Fully Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements ofSection 110 and Part D

a.Section 110requirements. On May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17700), EPA fully approved the state's SIPfor the KCMA

as meeting the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) ofthe 1977 Act. The amended 

### Act, however, modifies several of these requirements. Moreover, the amended Act requires that forredesignation a nonattainment area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k)-a

new provision. EPA addresses the modified portions ofsection 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 of the SIP, EPAproposes approval ofthe Kansas SIPfor the 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 SIPfor the KCMA.

Although section 110 was amended by the CAAA, the KCMA SIP meets 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); (H); 

### (); (L) and (M)-and,therefore, EPA has determined that the presence ofa fully approved SIPindicates 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 of the 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. Second, 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 it is 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 SIPelements. Since the state adopted and submitted the rules, it has retained direct responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation. Fourth, new section 110(a)(2)(1) reinforces the requirement that the statc comply with all Part D requirements (discussed further below ). Finally, section 110(a)(2)(K) reinforces EPA's authority to require states to do
necessary air quality modeling to support SIP demonstrations. Since EPA is approving the demonstration of continued attainment in the maintenance plan, the KCMA has met thisrequirement for purposes of redesignation to attainment. 

### 1708

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1708 1992

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

b. Part Drequirements.Before the KCMA may be redesignated to attainment, it also musthave 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 2 ofPart D establishes requirements for areas classified as marginal or above. For

ozone nonattainment areas, classification is based on the design value ofthe 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 1990 Amendments to the Act.On November 6, 1991, the KCMA was classified as submarginal (56FR 56694). Therefore, in order tobe redesignated, the state need only meet .the requirements of subpart 1 ofPart D. Specifically, the state must meet the requirements setforth in section 172(c) and section 176.

1. Section 172(c) PlanProvisions

Since EPA did not issue a SIPcall after the state's 1988 approved submittal, the section 172(c)(1) RACM requirement (which is the same as the requirement in preamended section 172(b) (2) and (3)) was met by EPA's full approval ofthe SIPunder the preamended Act.The SIP provided for attainment by 1987, and 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 ofthe 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.

Several section 172(c) requirements lose their continued force once an area has demonstrated attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The requirement forreasonable further
progress (RFP) only has relevance during the time it takes an area to attain the NAAQS-each year the area must make RFP toward attainment. EPA originally approved the KCMA RFP demonstration under preamended section 172(c)(2) for the period preceding 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 RFP requirement, the section 172(c) contingency measures are not applicable. Such contingency

measures must take effect ifthe area fails to meet an RFP milestone or fails 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 to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements instead ofthe NSR program. EPAdoes notbelieve it appropriate to require the State to adopt

a revised NSR program (meeting the requirements ofthe amended Act) just
to qualify for redesignation, since that program will be replaced by the existing Kansas PSD program upon redesignation.

Finally, as discussed in section III.A.2. above, the state submittal includes an emissions inventory. The emissions inventory fulfills the section 172(c) requirement.

2. Conformity

Section 176 of the Act requires states to develop transportation/air quality conformity procedures which are consistent with federal conformity regulations and to submit these procedures as a SIP revision 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 SIP revision. Pages 95 and 96 ofthe state submittal discuss the general principles towhich to 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. TheMid-American Regional Council (the metropolitan planning organization for the Kansas City area) completed a conformity determination for Kansas City regional 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. EPAbelieves that the section 176 conformity requirement is sufficiently met because thepromulgation date for conformity procedures has notpassed and the state has committed to adopt appropriate procedures.
IV. Conclusion

EPA is soliciting public comments on thisnotice 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 

### Intoday's notice, EPAproposes to approve the Kansas City ozone maintenance plan, and the RACT rule submittals, because it meets the requirements ofsection 175A.In addition, the Agency is proposing approval ofthe redesignation request for the Kansas City area, subject to final approval ofthe maintenance plan, because the state has demonstrated compliance with therequirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) forredesignation.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request forrevision 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 SIP revision and redesignation will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number ofsmall entities (see 46FR 8709).

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

40 CFRPart52



### Airpollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, and Ozone.

40 CFRPart81



### Airpollution control, National parks, and Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

### Dated: January 3,1992. Morris Kay, RegionalAdministrator. [FR Doc. 92-1069 Filed 1-14-92; 8:45 

### am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50- 

### 1709

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1709 1992