[Federal Register: September 16, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54186-54190]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se03-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 185-1185; FRL-7559-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the EPA, are proposing to approve a revision to the plan
prepared by Missouri to maintain the 1-hour national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Missouri portion of the
Kansas City maintenance area through the year 2012. This plan is
applicable to Clay, Jackson and Platte Counties. This revision is
required by the Clean Air Act. A similar notice pertaining to the
Kansas portion of the Kansas City maintenance area is being done in
conjunction with this document. The effect of this approval is to
ensure Federal enforceability of the state air program plan and to
maintain consistency between the state-adopted plan and the approved
SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically.
Written comments should be submitted to Leland Daniels, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Electronic comments should be sent
either to Leland Daniels at daniels.leland@epa.gov or to http://
www.regulations.gov, which is an alternative method for submitting
electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the
detailed instructions described in ``What action is EPA taking'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Copies of documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the above-listed
Region 7 location. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leland Daniels at (913) 551-7651, or
by e-mail at daniels.leland@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is in the state's plan to maintain the standard?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?
What Is a SIP?
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) at section 110 requires states to
develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that
state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
What Are the Criteria for Approval of a Maintenance Plan?
The requirements for the approval and revision of a maintenance
plan are
[[Page 54187]]
found in section 175A of the CAA. A maintenance plan must provide a
demonstration of continued attainment including the control measures
relied upon, provide contingency measures for the prompt correction of
any violation of the standard, provide for continued operation of the
ambient air quality monitoring network, provide a means of tracking the
progress of the plan, and include the attainment emissions inventory
and new budgets for motor vehicle emissions.
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.
What Is in the State's Plan To Maintain the Standard?
For the past ten years, Missouri has had a plan in place to
maintain the 1-hour ozone standard in the Missouri portion of the
Kansas City maintenance area through 2002. The CAA requires that the
maintenance plan be revised to provide for maintenance for ten years
after the expiration of the initial maintenance period. Missouri's
submittal of December 17, 2002, contained a revised plan that describes
what will be done during the next ten-year period to maintain the ozone
standard in the Missouri portion of the Kansas City maintenance area
through 2012. The following analysis will look at the elements
necessary for approval of a maintenance plan and determine if they have
been fulfilled.
1. Demonstration of Continued Attainment
This revised plan relies on an attainment level of emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
to maintain the ozone standard through a combination of control
measures. These measures include stationary, area and mobile source
controls. The annual emissions from the entire area for 1999, a period
when no excursions or violations of the standard occurred, and 2012,
the last year of the maintenance plan, are shown in the table below.
Emissions in the Kansas City Maintenance Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant emission (tons
per OSD\1\)
Year --------------------------
VOC NOX CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999......................................... 367.35 424.2 1706.0
2012......................................... 335.55 373.4 1337.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``ozone summer day'' is abbreviated as OSD.
As can be seen, total emissions decreased during the ten-year
maintenance period. Thus the plan has demonstrated that the 1-hour
ozone standard will be maintained. The full emissions benefits obtained
from state and Federal control measures are included in the table
above. For the demonstration of maintenance, it is only necessary for
the state to show that there is no increase in the emissions. Clearly
excess emission benefits are included in the demonstration.
Control measures used to reduce emissions and maintain the standard
are shown in the following list. These measures include stationary,
mobile and area source controls.
List of State Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State rules Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CSR 10-2.040................... Maximum Allowable Emission of
Particulate Matter from Fuel
Burning Equipment Used for Indirect
Heating.
10 CSR 10-2.080................... Emission of Visible Air Contaminants
from Internal Combustion Engines
(rescinded 68 FR 12827, March 18,
2003). See 10 CSR 10-6.220.
10 CSR 10-2.090................... Incinerators.
10 CSR 10-2.100................... Open Burning Restrictions.
10 CSR 10-2.150................... Time Schedule for Compliance.
10 CSR 10-2.205................... Control of Emissions from Aerospace
Manufacture and Rework Facilities.
10 CSR 10-2.210................... Control of Emissions from Solvent
Metal Cleaning.
10 CSR 10-2.215................... Control of Emissions from Solvent
Cleanup Operations.
10 CSR 10-2.220................... Liquefied Cutback Asphalt Paving
Restricted.
10 CSR 10-2.230................... Control of Emissions from Industrial
Surface Coating Operations.
10 CSR 10-2.260................... Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage,
Loading, and Transfer.
10 CSR 10-2.280................... Control of Emissions from
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Installations (rescinded 68 FR
36470, June 18, 2003). See 10 CSR
10-6.075.
10 CSR 10-2.290................... Control of Emissions from
Rotogravure and Flexographic
Printing Facilities.
10 CSR 10-2.300................... Control of Emissions from the
Manufacturing of Paints, Varnishes,
Lacquers, Enamels and Other Allied
Surface Coating Products.
10 CSR 10-2.310................... Control of Emissions from the
Application of Underbody Deadeners.
10 CSR 10-2.320................... Control of Emissions from the
Production of Pesticides and
Herbicides.
10 CSR 10-2.330................... Control of Gasoline Reid Vapor
Pressure.
10 CSR 10-2.340................... Control of Emissions from
Lithographic Printing Facilities.
10 CSR 10-2.360................... Control of Emissions from Bakery
Ovens.
10 CSR 10-2.390................... Conformity to State Implementation
Plans of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects Developed,
Funded, or Approved Under Title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act.
10 CSR 10-6.075................... Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Regulations.
10 CSR 10-6.220................... Restriction of Emission of Visible
Air Contaminants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the plan relies upon the Federal motor vehicle
emissions control program in effect as of May 22, 2002. That program
includes such rules as the following that limit emissions from vehicles
and set certain fuel parameters:
[sbull] Tier 0 emission limits rule for model year (MY) 1980 and 1981
vehicles,
[sbull] Tier I starting with MY 1994,
[sbull] Tier II starting with MY 2004,
[sbull] National Low Emission Vehicles program (MY-97 for the northeast
area and MY-2001 for the rest of the USA),
[[Page 54188]]
[sbull] On-board refueling vapor recovery starting with MY 1998,
[sbull] Heavy duty (HD) diesel rule starting with MY 1991,
[sbull] HD diesel rule starting with MY 2004, and
[sbull] HD diesel rule starting with MY 2007
2. Contingency Measures
As required by the CAA, contingency provisions are provided in the
plan. During the first two years of the plan, 2003 and 2004, if a
violation occurs anywhere within the maintenance area, the state
committed to using transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least a five percent reduction in area-wide emissions.
For the remaining years of the maintenance plan, 2005 through 2012,
two different triggers would initiate an evaluation and selection of
appropriate control measures to implement. A response would be invoked
whenever a future emissions inventory shows that VOC or NOX
levels are more than five percent above the 1999 emission inventory
levels or there is a pattern of exceedances measured at the ambient air
quality monitors. At that time Missouri would work cooperatively with
Kansas to evaluate and determine what and where controls may be
required and the level of emissions reductions needed. The study would
be completed within nine months and control measures adopted within 18
months of the determination. This time frame is similar to that in
Kansas' revised maintenance plan.
A response would also be invoked whenever the NAAQS was violated.
At that time an analysis would be completed within six months and
control measures adopted within 18 months and implemented expeditiously
taking into consideration the ease of implementation and the technical
and economic feasibility of the selected measures. The state intends to
implement any necessary contingency measures within 24 months after a
violation of the 1-hour ozone standard. For both triggers, a number of
potential point source, mobile source, and area source control measures
are identified. Thus acceptable contingency provisions are provided in
the plan as required by the CAA.
Emission control measures relied upon to maintain the NAAQS cannot
be used as a contingency measure. Alternatively, emission control
measures can be used as contingency measures to the extent that
emissions reductions achieved by these rules are not necessary for
maintaining the NAAQS. Clearly, the excess emissions reductions
obtained from the Tier-II rule, heavy duty diesel standards and the
Federal off-road engine standards not needed for maintenance of the
NAAQS can be used as contingency measures.
The CAA requires the inclusion of contingency measures in a
maintenance plan to promptly correct any violation of the standard. We
believe that Missouri is committing to and will take action quickly to
maintain the standard in the event of a violation. Missouri has listed
measures to be considered, intends to implement any necessary
contingency measures within 24 months after a violation, and
established a process to develop contingency measures if needed.
Therefore, we believe the SIP has fulfilled the requirement for
including contingency measures in the plan as required by the CAA. Any
failure by the state to implement contingency measures to address a
violation of the 1-hour standard, within the 24-month time frame in the
plan, would be a failure to implement the SIP.
3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
The current ambient air quality monitoring network consisting of
six monitors operating in the Kansas City area is described. Two
monitors are located in Liberty and Watkins Mill Park and are
considered to be downwind monitors; two are placed in populated areas
at Rocky Creek, previously located at Worlds of Fun and the Kansas City
International Airport; one is placed upwind at Richards Gebaur Airport;
and one is located downtown in Kansas City, Kansas. The state did
commit to continue monitoring the air quality for the next ten years.
The ambient air quality is also described. During the initial ten-
year period, the data indicates that a number of exceedances of the
standard did occur from time to time. However, only two violations of
the standard occurred during the time periods of 1993 through 1995 and
again in 1995 through 1997. The state implemented continency measures
to address these violations. Note that no excursion nor violation
occurred during 1999, and no 1-hour violations have occurred since
1997.
A review of the design values also shows a decrease from the early
nonattainment designation through the end of the first ten-year
maintenance period from 0.14 parts per million (ppm) to 0.12 ppm.
Although there was some fluctuation in the design value during the
first ten-year maintenance period (1992--2002), the value was fairly
stable ranging from 0.11 ppm to 0.13 ppm. From 1996 through September
30, 2001, the design values were below the value established in the Act
for classifying the area as a marginal nonattainment area under section
181 of the Act.
As required, air quality in the metropolitan area has been
monitored during the past ten-year period and the state has committed
to continuing monitoring the air quality for the next ten-year
maintenance period.
4. Tracking the Progress of the Plan
Continued maintenance of the ozone standard depends, in part, upon
the state's efforts toward tracking air quality and VOC and
NOX emissions. As noted above, the state has committed to
measuring air quality for the next ten-year period. In addition, the
state has committed to updating the emissions inventory for the
Missouri portion of the Kansas City maintenance area every three years.
This inventory will include point, area, mobile and biogenic emissions
sources. Under the discussion of the contingency measures, the state
will compare future emission inventory levels to the 1999 emission
inventory level. Lastly, the state will use the conformity analysis of
transportation plans as a means of tracking mobile source VOC and
NOX precursor emissions in the future. Thus the state and
EPA will utilize several methods for tracking the progress of the
maintenance plan.
5. Emission Inventory and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
An emissions inventory was prepared for the Kansas City area for
the base year of 1999 following EPA's procedures as provided in the
Emissions Inventory Improvement Program. The year 1999 year was
selected for the inventory as no excursion nor violations of the
standard occurred. Emissions were then projected for 2012. The MOBILE6
emissions model was used for on-road mobile sources. The draft NONROAD
model released in June 2001 in support of the 2007 heavy-duty vehicle
rule was used to generate the 1999 and 2012 emissions for off-road
mobile sources. Area source emissions, on-road mobile source emissions
and vehicle miles traveled for 2012 were based upon the new population
and employment forecast approved by the Mid-American Regional Council
(MARC) Technical Forecast Committee on July 11, 2002, and the MARC
Board in August 2002. The emission inventory amounts are shown in the
table below.
[[Page 54189]]
Emissions Inventory of the Kansas City Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 emissions (tons per OSD) 2012 emission (tons per OSD)
Emissions category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX CO VOC NOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Mobile.................. 92.3 152.9 1092.4 45.5 74.2 579.0
Off-road Mobile................. 43.0 108.9 574.4 24.7 86.0 711.8
Biogenic........................ 113.85 ........... ........... 113.85 ........... ...........
Area............................ 89.9 23.3 24.9 112.1 26.0 27.7
Point........................... 28.3 139.1 14.3 39.4 187.2 19.3
---------------
Total....................... 367.35 424.2 1,706.0 335.55 373.4 1,337.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri has submitted a complete and accurate emissions inventory
of VOC and NOX for the Kansas City area and we are proposing
to approve the emissions inventory.
Based upon the updated emissions inventory, the revised maintenance
plan contains new budgets (or limits) for motor vehicle emissions
resulting from transportation plans for the Kansas City area. Because
emissions are less in 2012 than in 1999, our transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR 93.124) allows for the allocation of amounts from one
emissions category to another if it is provided for in the SIP. The SIP
submission did quantify the amount by which the motor vehicle emissions
could be higher while still providing for maintenance of the standard.
The new budgets must be found to meet the adequacy criteria in the
transportation conformity rule before they are used for transportation
conformity purposes. They were posted to our Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm
) for public comment. These
emission budgets have been under adequacy review since their submittal
to us. We have reviewed the budgets and have found that the budgets
meet all of the adequacy criteria in section 93.118 of the
transportation conformity rule. These criteria include: (1) The SIP was
endorsed by the Governor (or his designee) and was subject to a state
public hearing; (2) consultation among Federal, state, and local
agencies occurred; (3) the emissions budget is clearly identified and
precisely quantified; (4) the motor vehicle emissions budget, when
considered together with all other emissions, is consistent with
attainment; and (5) the motor vehicle emissions budget is consistent
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and control
strategy in the SIP. We are also required to consider comments
submitted to the state at the public hearing. No comments were received
by the state on the transportation conformity budgets. The new area-
wide budgets are shown in the table below:
Area-wide Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount (tons
Pollutant per OSD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC................................................... 64.7
NOX................................................... 97.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These budgets support maintenance of air quality in the Kansas City
area and, thus, were found adequate by us on March 17, 2003 (see 68 FR
33690, June 5, 2003). These new budgets are to be used in all
subsequent conformity determinations concerning transportation plans in
the Kansas City area.
We believe that the motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent
with the control measures identified in this maintenance plan and that
this plan demonstrates maintenance with the 1-hour ozone standard.
Separate from the adequacy process discussed above and for SIP
purposes, in this document we are proposing to approve the
transportation conformity budgets.
6. Legal Authority
The Missouri Air Conservation Commission was granted legal
authority to develop and implement regulations regarding air pollution
under section 643.050 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. This
includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent
emission control contingency measures determined to be necessary to
correct future ozone problems.
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
Our review of the material submitted also indicates that the state
has revised the maintenance plan in accordance with requirements for a
maintenance plan in section 175A of the CAA.
What Action Is EPA Taking?
We are proposing to approve:
[sbull] Missouri's revision of the maintenance plan for the
Missouri portion of the Kansas City maintenance area,
[sbull] The emissions inventory, and
[sbull] The transportation conformity budgets.
We are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments. You may
submit comments either electronically or by mail. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification
number, MO 185-1185, in the subject line on the first page of your
comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due
[[Page 54190]]
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
a. Electronic mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to Leland
Daniels at daniels.leland@epa.gov. Please include identification
number, MO 185-1185, in the subject line. EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail system
automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of
the comment that is placed in the official public docket.
b. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to http://www.regulations.gov
, click on ``To Search for Regulations,'' then
select Environmental Protection Agency and use the ``go'' button. The
list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed.
Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The
system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
2. By Mail. Written comments should be sent to the name and address
listed above.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 4, 2003.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 03-23591 Filed 9-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P