[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28753-28757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13381]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 073-1073; FRL-6350-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is conditionally approving the 1998 revisions to the 
Kansas City ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Missouri State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Full approval is contingent upon Missouri's 
submission of additional, enforceable control measures.
    The Kansas City ozone maintenance area experienced a violation of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in 1995. In 
response to this violation, Missouri submitted revisions to its ozone 
maintenance plan. These revisions pertain to the implementation of 
control strategies to achieve reductions in volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions within the Missouri portion of the Kansas City ozone 
maintenance area. A major purpose of these revisions is to provide a 
more flexible approach to maintenance of acceptable air quality levels 
in Kansas City, while achieving emission reductions equivalent to those 
required by the previously approved plan.
    In a separate Federal Register document published today, EPA is 
also conditionally approving a similar plan submitted by the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment to address the Kansas portions of 
the ozone maintenance area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective June 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the 
following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

[[Page 28754]]

66101; and the Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan W. Teter, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, 
(913) 551-7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Kansas City metropolitan area (KCMA), consisting of Clay, 
Platte, and Jackson Counties in Missouri, and Johnson and Wyandotte 
Counties in Kansas, was designated nonattainment for ozone in 1978. The 
Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for areas with a prescribed amount of air 
quality data showing attainment of the standard to be redesignated from 
nonattainment to attainment, if the requirements of section 
107(d)(3)(E) are met. One of these requirements is for the area to 
adopt a maintenance plan consistent with the requirements of section 
175A. This plan must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS with a margin 
of safety sufficient to remain in attainment for ten years. Also, the 
plan must contain a contingency plan to be implemented if the area once 
again violates the standard.
    Ozone monitoring data from 1987 through 1991 demonstrated that the 
Kansas City nonattainment area had attained the ozone NAAQS. In 
accordance with the CAA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
(MDNR) revised the ozone SIP for the Missouri portion of the Kansas 
City area to recognize the area's attainment status. EPA published 
final approval of the Missouri SIP on June 23, 1992. The SIP became 
effective on July 23, 1992 (57 FR 27939). This action effected the 
redesignation of the area to attainment.
    The contingency plan approved as part of the 1992 SIP identified 
four measures which were to be implemented upon subsequent violation of 
the standard in the Kansas City area. These contingency measures 
required: (1) certain new or expanding sources of ozone precursors to 
acquire emissions offsets; (2) the installation of Stage II vapor 
recovery systems at retail gasoline stations or the implementation of 
an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for motor 
vehicles; (3) the implementation of transportation control measures 
achieving a 0.5 percent reduction in areawide VOC emissions; and (4) 
the completion of a comprehensive emissions inventory.
    In a letter from Dennis Grams, EPA Region VII Administrator, to 
David Shorr, MDNR Director, on January 31, 1996, EPA informed the MDNR 
of a violation of the ozone NAAQS. Quality-assured air quality 
monitoring data indicated measured exceedances of the ozone standard on 
July 11, 12, and 13, 1995, at the Liberty monitoring site in Kansas 
City. The highest recorded value for each day was 0.128 ppm, 0.161 ppm, 
and 0.131 ppm, respectively. These exceedances, in combination with the 
measured exceedance of 0.128 ppm recorded on July 29, 1993, constitute 
a violation of the standard.
    As a result of this violation, Missouri was required to implement 
the contingency measures identified in the approved SIP. In response to 
a request by Roger Randolph (Missouri Air Pollution Control Program 
Director) to William Spratlin (Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division 
Director), EPA stated in an August 17, 1995, letter that Missouri and 
Kansas could substitute other contingency measures for those in the 
approved SIP, provided that the substitute measures were submitted 
through the SIP revision process, were designed to achieve 
substantially equivalent emission reductions, and were implemented 
expeditiously to address the violation. It must be emphasized that this 
flexibility was extended to both Kansas and Missouri.
    To address the short-term need to control emissions, Missouri 
promulgated an emergency rule to limit the summertime Reid Vapor 
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline sold within the KCMA to 7.2 pounds per 
square inch (psi) (10 CSR 10-2.330). The emergency rule was to expire 
on October 27, 1997. Prior to its expiration, the state promulgated a 
permanent regulation. The permanent rule was published in the Code of 
State Regulations (CSR) on September 30, 1997, and became effective 
October 30. On October 9, 1997, EPA published a rule, which 
conditionally approved the state emergency rule. The state fulfilled 
the requirements of the conditional approval by submitting a permanent 
Missouri rule on November 13, 1997. EPA published full approval of 
Missouri's permanent RVP rule on April 24, 1998 ( 63 FR 20318). The 
approval became effective on May 24, 1998.
    To address the longer-term need to reduce VOC and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions, the Mid-America Regional Council's Air 
Quality Forum (AQF), comprised of representatives from local 
governments, business, health, and environmental organizations, agreed 
to examine various alternative control strategies and recommend a suite 
of viable measures to Missouri and Kansas. The AQF recommended: (1) 
expanding public education efforts; (2) low RVP gasoline; (3) motor 
vehicle I/M; (4) seasonal no-fare public transit; (5) a voluntary clean 
fuel fleets program; and (6) additional transportation control 
measures. The AQF also recommended a group of supplemental measures 
aimed at reducing ozone levels. The emissions reductions associated 
with the voluntary measures, specifically clean fuel fleets and 
transportation control, cannot be quantified due to their voluntary 
nature.
    The MDNR presented a maintenance SIP, with the AQF recommendations, 
to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) on June 24, 1997. At 
that time, the MACC recommended inclusion of a more timely and less 
politically sensitive control measure in place of the I/M provision. As 
a result, on October 7, 1997, the AQF recommended the implementation of 
a reformulated gasoline (RFG) program in the KCMA. In response, 
Missouri has committed to pursuing, among other options, petitioning 
EPA to require the sale of RFG in the KCMA under the provisions of the 
Federal RFG program.
    The final state submittal provides for continued monitoring, 
emissions inventory updates, a summertime RVP limit, and several 
programs for which emissions reductions cannot be quantified, including 
completion of a stationary source study, voluntary clean fuel fleets, 
seasonal low-fare transit, air quality conscious land use planning, and 
bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation planning. In addition, 
the revised plan contains commitments to adopt either the Federal RFG 
Program, a state fuel regulation, or a Stage II regulation.
    If violations continue to occur after implementation of the above 
measures, the state will adopt further regulations as necessary, 
selected from a list including, but not limited to, Stage II vapor 
recovery, enhanced I/M, emissions offsets from new or modified sources, 
and mandatory clean fuel fleets.
    According to state estimates, limiting the summertime RVP of 
gasoline to 7.2 psi achieves VOC emissions reductions of only 4.0 tons 
per day. As such, additional reductions are necessary to provide for 
reductions substantially equivalent to those (8.4 tons per day) 
obtainable by implementing the contingency measures approved in the 
1992 maintenance plan SIP. The implementation of an RFG or equivalent 
emission reduction program is therefore critical to meeting Missouri's 
obligation to achieve the reductions called for in the maintenance 
plan.

[[Page 28755]]

II. Evaluation Criteria

    To evaluate the maintenance plan revision, EPA referred to 
requirements of section 175A of the Act. EPA also reviewed guidance 
issued specifically to address applicable procedures for handling 
redesignation requests, including maintenance plan provisions entitled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
to EPA Regional Division Directors, dated September 4, 1992. In 
addition, EPA reviewed the maintenance plan for evidence that the 
substitute control measures provide for emissions reductions which are 
substantially equivalent to those approved in the 1992 SIP, pursuant to 
guidance given in the August 17, 1995, letter, from William Spratlin to 
Roger Randolph. Finally, EPA evaluated the revised maintenance plan 
with respect to the ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and 
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' from Richard D. Wilson, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional 
Administrators.

III. Review of Submittal

    According to the September 4, 1992, memo from John Calcagni 
regarding ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' a maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the 
ozone NAAQS for at least ten years after redesignation. Section 175A of 
the CAA defines the general framework of a maintenance plan. The 
Calcagni memo identifies the following list of core provisions 
necessary to ensure maintenance of the ozone NAAQS: emission inventory, 
maintenance demonstration (including control measures), air monitoring 
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. 
Missouri's revised maintenance plan adequately addresses each of the 
required core measures as detailed in EPA's January 26, 1999, proposed 
rule (64 FR 3901).

IV. Response to Comments

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) submitted written comments 
regarding the Agency's January 26, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking 
(64 FR 3901). API's comments and EPA's responses are discussed below.
    API stated that despite EPA's September 29, 1998, rule which allows 
former nonattainment areas to opt in to the Federal RFG program, EPA 
does not have the authority to allow Missouri to opt in for the Kansas 
City area. API contends that section 211(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes 
opt-ins for currently classified nonattainment areas, and does not 
allow attainment areas to opt in. API also attached its comments on the 
proposal for the September 1998 rule. API stated that the rule is 
contrary to the plain language of the Act, and is currently being 
challenged in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 
Finally, API stated that Missouri and EPA ``should wait until the court 
rules on EPA's rule before moving forward with an effort to opt the 
Kansas City area into the RFG program.'' Response: EPA's authority to 
promulgate the underlying opt-in rule is not at issue in this action. 
EPA fully responded to comments regarding the agency's authority to 
promulgate the revisions to the opt-in rule in the September 29, 1998, 
rulemaking, and the issues raised in that rulemaking are not raised in 
today's action on the KCMA maintenance plan revisions. The rule is in 
effect, notwithstanding the pending petition for review. In addition, 
this conditional approval of the revised maintenance plan will not 
necessarily result in Missouri opting into the RFG program. As 
described above, Missouri could fulfill the condition by adopting and 
submitting appropriate alternative regulations which ensure that VOC 
emissions are reduced by an amount that is substantially equivalent to 
that required under the 1992 SIP.
    When Missouri submits a SIP revision to comply with the condition 
of this approval, EPA will act on that submission through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. At that time, EPA will consider comments on what 
action it should take on the specific alternative selected by Missouri.

V. Conclusion

    In today's document, EPA conditionally approves Missouri's 1998 
revisions to the Kansas City SIP for control of ozone. This includes 
the VOC control measures described above, the emission reduction 
credits identified by the state, and the commitment to implement the 
additional reductions as expeditiously as practicable.
    Full approval of the SIP is conditioned upon receipt of one of the 
following: (1) a letter from the Governor of Missouri requesting that 
EPA require the sale of Federal RFG within the Missouri portion of the 
KCMA; (2) an alternative state fuel regulation; or (3) a regulation 
requiring Stage II vapor recovery systems at retail gasoline stations. 
If the state fails to submit one of the above, the conditional approval 
converts to a disapproval one year from the effective date of the final 
rule conditionally approving the state's 1998 submittal.
    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 (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA 
may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that 
creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the 
Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with 
those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires 
EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments; a summary of the nature of their concerns; copies of any 
written communications from the governments; and a statement supporting 
the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA 
to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments. This rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. The rule merely approves submissions made by the state, and 
establishes a schedule for submitting additional measures. However, the 
schedule is not judicially enforceable. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. E.O. 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an

[[Page 28756]]

environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, 
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that 
would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. E.O. 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of 
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct 
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal Government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the 
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue 
the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the state is already imposing. Also, EPA will evaluate the RFA 
implications of any requirements which may be established by subsequent 
state submissions in response to the conditional approval when EPA 
takes rulemaking action on those submissions. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of 
the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of 
flexibility analyses would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
the applicability of state requirements. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of 
the submittal would not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, I 
certify that this conditional approval will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new 
Federal requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, 
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 EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. The schedule established by the conditional approval is 
not judicially enforceable, and any subsequent state submissions to 
meet the conditions will be analyzed at that time to determine 
applicability of the Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action. In addition, Section 203 does not apply to 
this action because it affects only the state of Kansas, which is not a 
small government.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the United States Senate, the United States 
House of Representatives, and the United States Comptroller General 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 26, 1999. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

[[Page 28757]]

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 20, 1999.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

    2. Section 52.1319 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1319  Identification of plan--Conditional approval.

    (a) Elements of the maintenance plan revision to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor's designee on March 
23, 1998, which address contingency measures for the Kansas City Ozone 
Maintenance Area are conditionally approved. This includes a commitment 
to implement the additional reductions as expeditiously as practicable.
    (b) Full approval of the SIP is conditioned upon receipt of one of 
the following by June 28, 1999: a letter from the Governor of Missouri 
requesting that EPA require the sale of Federal reformulated gasoline 
within the Missouri portion of the KCMA beginning April 15, 2000; an 
equivalent alternative state fuel regulation; or a regulation requiring 
Stage II vapor recovery systems at retail gasoline stations in the 
Missouri portion of the KCMA. If the state fails to submit one of the 
above requirements within the time specified, the conditional approval 
automatically converts to a disapproval without further regulatory 
action.

[FR Doc. 99-13381 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P