+(,121/,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 of the 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 light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies

that this SIP revision and redesignation

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (see 46 FR 8709).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, and Ozone.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

and Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: January 3, 1992.

Morris Kay,

RegionalAdministrator.

IFR Doc. 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 for Air Quality Planning

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

of Kansas has submitted an ozone

maintenance plan which projects

continued attainment of the ozone

standard in the Kansas City area, and

has requested redesignation of the 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 of Kansas. 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

the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources to address the Missouri

portion of the ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 14, 1992.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 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 for public

review at the above address and at the

Kansas Department of Health 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 Air Act as amended in 1977

("the 1977 Act") required areas failing to

meet the ozone NAAQS to develop SIPs

with sufficient control measures to

expeditiously attain and maintain the

standard (section 172(a)). The Kansas

City metropolitan area (KCMA) was

designated under section 107 of the 1977

Act as nonattainment with respect to

the ozone NAAQS on March 3, 1978.

(The designations for Kansas are

codified at 40 CFR 81.317.) The Kansas

Department of Health and Environment

(KDHE) submitted a Part D ozone SIP on

September 17, 1979, which EPA fully

approved as meeting the requirements of

section 110 and Part D of the 1977 Act.

The 1979 SIP projected attainment by

December 31, 1982, making the KCMA

area a "nonextension area" under

section 172 of the 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, EPA notified the

Governor of Kansas, pursuant to section

110(a)(2)(H), that the SIP was

substantially inadequate to attain the

ozone NAAQS (50 FR 26198).

In response to the SIP call, KDHE

submitted a revised SIP on July 2, 1986,

which demonstrated attainment by

December 31, 1987. EPA fully approved

the revised SIP on May 18, 1988 (53 FR

17700). At that time, EPA believed that

the area has achieved the standard as

the 1985 through 1987 air quality data

showed attainment. However, ozone

violations occurred in June of 1988. More

recently, however, the 1989 through 1991

air quality data show attainment of the

ozone NAAQS. In an effort to comply

with the 1990 CAAA (Pub. L. 101-549),

and to ensure continued attainment of

the standard with an adequate margin of

safety, the state submitted an ozone

maintenance SIP for the Kansas City

area on October 23, 1991. Accompanying

the maintenance SIP are new 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 Kansas and Missouri

submittals meet all the applicable

requirements of the 1990 CAA. The EPA

rulemaking docket checklist (included

with EPA's TSD) provides a listing of

applicable approval criteria. However,

some of these criteria merit additional

discussion which is contained below.

With its submittal of two additional

new VOC rules, Kansas meets the CAA

requirement that the SIP include all

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) (section 172(c)(1)). The rules

are also consistent with EPA 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 Kansas submittal also includes a

redesignation request, in which the state

demonstrates that the area has fulfilled

the redesignation requirements of the

amended Act. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

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) of the 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

E. the area has met all relevant

requirements under section 110 and Part

D of the Act (section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)).

Section 175A of the Act sets forth the

maintenance plan requirement for areas

seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The plan

must demonstrate continued attainment

- I

1705

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 1705 1992
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1992 / Proposed Rules

of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten

years after the area is redesignated.

Eight years after the redesignation, the

state must submit a revised

maintenance plan which demonstrates

attainment for the ten years following

the initial ten-year period. To provide

for the possibility of future NAAQS

violations, the maintenance plan must

contain contingency measures adequate

to assure prompt correction of the air

quality problem.

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Maintenance Plan

1. Air Quality Data

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 of this notice.) Ambient

ozone monitoring data for 1989 through

1991 show attainment of the NAAQS in

the Kansas City area, i.e., less than one

expected exceedance per year. For a

complete discussion of the NAAQS, the

reader is referred to 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H to that section. Although the

1991 data are not yet fully quality

assured, EPA will review the quality of

these data in conjunction with its final

action on this SIP submittal. EPA will

not 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 to base the

redesignation request on the 1987

through 1989 air quality data; however,

these data did not indicate attainment in

strict accord with EPA's interpretation

of the ozone standard. Although, under

appendix H, attainment cannot be

shown by the 1987 through 1989 data,

the state's demonstration justifies the

use of 1989 emissions levels as being

representative of attainment.

2. Emissions Inventory

KDHE submitted comprehensive

inventories of actual 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 to 1989 and future years. The

1989 VOC inventory is considered most

representative of attainment 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 for purposes of this 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

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. For the 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 of 9.0 psi

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 of 7.8 psi

RVP was assumed for 1992 and later

years.

Due to the marginal, but persistent,

history of ozone nonattainment in the

KCMA, EPA and the states of Missouri

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 of safety. 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 its voluntary 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

Section III.A.3. below, additional

reduction of gasoline volatility will be

accomplished, beginning in 1992, as a

result of EPA's Phase II volatility

standards.)

The voluntary RVP control program

resulted in a 8,189 kg/day areawide

reduction in the projected 1990 VOC

inventory. This equates to a 3.3 percent

reduction from the 1989 attainment VOC

inventory. Thus, the 8,189 kg/day VOC

reduction serves as the attainment

margin of safety. The states have

committed to maintain future VOC

emissions at or below the so-called "action level," i.e., VOC emissions will

not be allowed to encroach upon the

margin of safety. The action level

concept is detailed in the abovementioned EPA TSD.

3. Demonstration of Continued

Attainment

a. State demonstration. The state's

demonstration of continued 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 II RVP gasoline

standards in order to continue

reductions in VOC emissions.

Accordingly, under the Phase II

program, a fuel volatility limit of 7.8 psi

RVP was scheduled to become effective

in 1992 and each year thereafter during

the ozone season (May through

September) in the state of Kansas.

However, the federal gasoline

volatility requirements were modified

by the 1990 CAAA, and EPA

promulgated revised Phase II gasoline

volatility requirements on December 12,

1991 (56 FR 64704). This latest rule

revises the maximum allowable RVP

from 7.8 to 9.0 psi in those areas which

are currently designated as

unclassifiable or in attainment with the

NAAQS for ozone. However, as

applicable to the KCMA, the RVP limit

of 7.8 will go into effect as the area is

presently designated nonattainment.

The Kansas portion of the KCMA was

designated as nonattainment for ozone

in the recently published part 81 Federal

Register notice, November 6, 1991 (56 FR

56788). Therefore, continuation of the 7.8

psi RVP limit is federally 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 of 7.8 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

time period. Areawide VOC emissions are expected to decrease by over 20

percent during the next ten years.

The state's projection of VOC

emissions is based on the Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program and EPA's

Phase II volatility controls. The

projections were developed prior to

passage of the 1990 CAA Amendments:

thus, the federal on-board vapor

recovery requirement and the new federal tailpipe standards were not

considered.

b. Additional EPA analysis. At the

time Missouri and Kansas developed

their maintenance plans, the current

version of EPA's mobile source emissions model was MOBILE4.0. Since

that time, MOBILEA.1 has become

available. MOBILE4.1 was run to

determine what effect, if any, the new model would have on the demonstration

of continued attainment of the ozone standard. For any given year,

MOBILE4.1 predicted lower VOC

emissions than MOBILE4.0; however,

the relative year-to-year trends were essentially identical. Thus, the net effect

of MOBILE4.1 on the demonstration of

continued attainment was not

significant.

Using MOBILE4.1, the KCMA

attainment level of VOC 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 for projecting the mobile

source component of the emissions

inventory, the total KCMA VOC

emissions in the year 2000 are projected

to be 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, if any,

could be anticipated. Even with no growth in VOC emissions, an increase in

NO. emissions (and the associated

changes in atmospheric chemistry) could

result in violations of the ozone

standard in the KCMA. EPA's analysis

showed no increase in KCMA NO.

emissions through the year 2005.

Therefore, with VOC 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) of the Act,

EPA finds that the maintenance plan

demonstrates continued attainment of

the ozone standard for the ten-year

period following the effective date of the

redesignation.

4. Annual Tracking and Inventory

Updates

Continued attainment of the ozone

NAAQS in the KCMA depends, in part,

on the 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 of the area's

redesignation. For years in which no

comprehensive update is performed, the

state will update the inventory using

source permit and shutdown data.

Area and mobile source inventories

will be updated at least once every five

years to take advantage of new 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 using the most

recently available projections from

existing area and mobile source

inventories.

The state will 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 actual VOC

emissions area within the attainment

inventory.

5. Contingency Plan

The level of VOC emissions in the

KCMA will largely determine its ability

to stay in compliance with the ozone

NAAQS in the future. Although further

reductions of VOC emissions are

projected to occur over the 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 of contingency

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 of the actual VOC emissions,

would be violations of the NAAQS. As

mentioned above, the state will provide

annual progress reports which will

evaluate the integrity of the VOC

emissions safety margin. Section 5.3 of

the state submittal gives the details 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 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 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 of Section 175A(d) of the

Act.

6. Commitment to Submit Subsequent

Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accord with section 175A of the

Act, the state has committed to submit a

revised maintenance SIP eight years

after the area is redesignated to

attainment.

B. Additional Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) Regulations

In accord with section 172(b)(2) of the

1977 Act, the KCMA was required to

have SIP rules representing RACT for all

VOC source categories covered by

Group I, II, and III Control Techniques

Guideline (CTG) Documents. RACT

rules were also required for all major

non-CTG sources.

At the time EPA approved the SIP (53

FR 17700), EPA and the state believed

that all the RACM requirements had

been met; rules were in place 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,

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 hearing by the state,

these rules were adopted and became

effective on October 7, 1991. All of the

state's existing and new VOC RACT

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

that have the potential to emit more

than 100 tons per year (TPY) of VOCs

from lithographic printing operations.

VOCs from heat-set inks and the

associated dryers are required to be

reduced by 77 percent over pre-RACT

levels through the installation of add-on

control equipment. Evaporative

emissions from cleanup solvents will be

reduced by 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 its RACT

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 of a CTG

document for lithographic 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

or liquid detergent plants which use,

produce, or store ethanol or methanol,

and have the potential to emit more than

100 TPY VOCs. This rule currently

applies to one existing facility. The rule

will require installation of control

equipment on point sources, the

reduction of VOC concentration in

process wastewater streams, and the

reduction of fugitive emissions. The

state estimates that VOCs from the one

existing facility will be reduced by 69

percent, for a total reduction of 455 TPY.

This 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 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 of several 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

EPA reference methods. EPA believes

the aforementioned rules constitute

RACT for all affected sources.

Therefore, EPA proposes approval of

these rules.

C. Redesignation Request

The Kansas redesignation request for

the KCMA meets the five requirements

of section 107(d)(3)(E). Following is a

brief description of how the state has

fulfilled each of these requirements.

EPA's TSD contains a more in-depth

analysis of the submittal with respect to

certain of these criteria.

1. Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS

The KCMA has provisionally met the

first statutory criterion of attainment of

the ozone NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the

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 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 SIP call 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

are permanent 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 Kansas

submittal meets the requirements of

section 175A. If EPA 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. EPA will not redesignate

the area to attainment before it gives

final approval to the maintenance plan.

4. Fully Approved SIP Meeting the

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D

a. Section 110 requirements. On May

18, 1988 (53 FR 17700), EPA fully

approved the state's SIP for the KCMA

as meeting the requirements of section

110(a)(2) of the 1977 Act. The amended

Act, however, modifies several of these

requirements. Moreover, the amended

Act requires that for redesignation a

nonattainment area must have a fully

approved SIP under 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 of these two

rules, and the maintenance plan.

Contingent upon final approval of the

SIP, EPA proposes approval of the

Kansas SIP for 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 of the entire SIP for the

KCMA.

Although section 110 was amended by

the CAAA, the KCMA SIP meets the

requirements of amended section

110(a)(2). A number of the 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 of a

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 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 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)(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

this requirement 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 D requirements. Before the

KCMA may be redesignated to

attainment, it also must have fulfilled

the applicable requirements of Part D.

Under Part D, an area's classification

indicates the requirements to which it

will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets

forth requirements applicable to all

nonattainment areas regardless of

classification. Subpart 2 of 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 of less than 0.121 ppm, fell

below the classification cutpoint of

section 181 and were, therefore, deemed "submarginal" as of the date of

enactment of the 1990 Amendments to

the Act. On November 6, 1991, the

KCMA was classified as submarginal

(56 FR 56694). Therefore, in order to be

redesignated, the state need only meet

.the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.

Specifically, the state must meet the

requirements set forth in section 172(c)

and section 176.

1. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions

Since EPA did not 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 in preamended section

172(b) (2) and (3)) was met by EPA's full

approval of the SIP under the

preamended Act. The SIP provided for

attainment by 1987, and the state has

actually attained the standard based on

the three years of data 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 of the 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 of the Act.

Several section 172(c) requirements

lose their continued force once an area

has demonstrated attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. The

requirement for reasonable 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 if the 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 of the NSR

program. EPA does not believe it

appropriate to require 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

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 of the state submittal discuss the

general principles to which to state will

adhere in developing conformity

procedures for the Kansas City area.

On June 7,1991, EPA and the

Department of Transportation issued

Interim Conformity Guidance for

completing conformity determinations

until the final conformity regulations are promulgated. The Mid-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 L to 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, EPA proposes to

approve the Kansas City ozone

maintenance plan, and the RACT rule

submittals, because it meets the

requirements of section 175A. In

addition, the Agency is proposing

approval of the redesignation request for

the Kansas City area, subject to final

approval of the 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 light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies

that this SIP revision and redesignation

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

(see 46 FR 8709).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, and Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution 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