[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13849-13852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7348]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[KS 019-1019; FRL-5800-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision concerning Kansas Air Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-79, Fuel
Volatility, submitted by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment. This revision would set a summertime gasoline Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) limit of 7.2 pounds per square inch (psi), and 8.2
pounds per square inch for gasoline containing at least 9.0 percent by
volume but not more than 10.0 percent by volume ethanol, for gasoline
distributed in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties as part of the state plan
to maintain its clean air quality.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Stan Walker, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Walker at (913) 551-7494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA, or the Act) requires states which have
areas failing to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone to develop SIPs with sufficient control measures to attain
and maintain the standard. The EPA designated the Kansas City
Metropolitan Area (KCMA) as an area failing to meet the NAAQS on March
3, 1978. The area designated as nonattainment included five counties:
Platte, Clay, and Jackson Counties in Missouri, and Johnson and
Wyandotte Counties in Kansas. In spite of a series of SIP revisions,
the area continued to experience violations of the ozone NAAQS
throughout the 1980s. Each time violations occurred beyond an
attainment date, the EPA notified the Governor and called for a
revision to the Kansas SIP. In response to the last of these SIP calls,
KDHE submitted a SIP revision which demonstrated attainment of the
ozone NAAQS by December 31, 1987. Although the area experienced a
number of violations in 1988, no violations were experienced during the
subsequent three-year period.
In an effort to comply with the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, and to
ensure continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS with an adequate margin
of safety, the state submitted an ozone maintenance SIP for the Kansas
portion of the KCMA on October 23, 1991. Accompanying the maintenance
SIP were several new rules to control volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from certain categories, the state's request to redesignate
the KCMA as an attainment area with respect to the ozone NAAQS, and a
commitment to implement certain contingency measures should the area
exceed certain emission levels or experience additional violations. The
EPA approved the
[[Page 13850]]
maintenance SIP and redesignated the KCMA to attainment on June 23,
1992.
During the three-year period following approval of the maintenance
SIP, a number of exceedances of the ozone standard were recorded in the
KCMA. As a result, the KCMA was once again in violation of the ozone
NAAQS. The EPA notified the state of the violation on January 31, 1996,
and requested that the contingency measures in the approved plan be
implemented. Due to various problems associated with implementation of
contingency measures in the approved contingency plan, the local
community undertook an evaluation of substitute measures which could be
implemented. After an extensive evaluation of available options, the
Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), in conjunction with the Kansas
City Air Quality Forum, recommended a package of measures to Kansas and
Missouri. This recommendation contained a number of measures for
implementation as contingency measures, including lower volatility
gasoline. This notice and the accompanying technical support document
(TSD) provide an analysis of the lower volatility gasoline portion of
the package of substitute measures.
II. Regulatory Objective
RVP is a measure of a fuel's volatility and thereby affects the
rate at which gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs; RVP is directly
proportional to the rate of evaporation. Consequently, the lower the
RVP, the lower the rate of evaporation. Lowering the RVP in the summer
months can offset the effect of summer temperature upon the volatility
of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers emissions of VOCs. VOC is an
important component in the production of ground level ozone in the hot
summer months. Reduction of RVP will help the state's effort to attain
and maintain compliance with the NAAQS for ozone.
III. State Submittal
On December 5, 1996, KDHE submitted to the EPA Region VII a SIP
revision to establish new limits on fuel volatility. These control
measures were submitted as part of several contingency measures
necessary for the KCMA to maintain clean air quality. Included in the
submittal was a letter from Secretary James J. O'Connell, KDHE, to
Dennis Grams, EPA Region VII Administrator, requesting authorization to
implement a lower RVP requirement in the Kansas City area; Kansas
Regulation, K.A.R. 29-19-79; and a Regulatory Impact Statement
including an Environmental Impact Statement and an Economic Impact
Statement. In addition, on December 19, 1996, John C. Irwin, Director,
Bureau of Air and Radiation, KDHE, also sent a letter requesting the
EPA to parallel process the rule to provide adequate time for gasoline
facilities to prepare for the change in fuel volatility. The state held
a public hearing on January 23, 1997.
Pursuant to the December 19, 1996, request from the state, the EPA
is parallel processing this SIP revision concurrently with the state's
proposal and adoption procedures for amending its SIP.
In parallel processing, the EPA proposes rulemaking action
concurrently with the state's procedures for amending its regulations.
If the state substantially changes its proposed regulatory revision in
areas other than those identified in this notice, the EPA will evaluate
those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If
no substantial changes are made other than those areas cited in this
notice, the EPA will publish a final rulemaking notice on the
revisions. The final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after
the SIP revision has been adopted by Kansas and submitted formally to
the EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
IV. Analysis of the SIP
A. Necessity Finding
Under sections 211(c) and 211(h) of the CAA, the EPA has
promulgated nationally applicable Federal standards for RVP levels in
motor vehicle gasoline. Because a Federal control promulgated under
section 211(c)(1) applies to the fuel characteristic RVP, nonidentical
state controls are prohibited under section 211(c)(4). Section
211(c)(4)(A) of the Act prohibits state regulation respecting a fuel
characteristic or component for which the EPA has adopted a control or
prohibition, unless the state control is identical to the Federal
control. Under section 211(c)(4)(C), the EPA may approve a nonidentical
state fuel control as a SIP provision, if the state demonstrates that
the measure is necessary to achieve the national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard that the plan implements. The EPA can
approve a state fuel requirement as necessary only if no other measures
would bring about timely attainment, or if other measures exist but are
unreasonable or impracticable. While the Kansas low RVP requirement is
preempted by the Federal RVP requirements, the state can implement the
low RVP requirement if the EPA finds it necessary and approves it as a
revision to the SIP.
In its submittal, Kansas showed that additional VOC reductions are
needed to address Kansas City's recent history of nonattainment
problems and to assure continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the
KCMA. While the area is designated as attainment for the ozone NAAQS,
the KCMA is currently in danger of violating the standard due to
exceedances occurring in the 1995-1996 period. Kansas estimates that
the area needs to achieve approximately 8.5 tons per day of VOC
reductions to continue to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Because emission trends continue to increase, the state believes it is
important that control measures producing a significant portion of the
needed reductions be implemented in time to reduce emissions beginning
in the 1997 ozone season. Otherwise, there is a significant risk of
exceedances and violations in 1997, and this risk will increase over
time. The EPA agrees that an important criteria in evaluating the
reasonableness of each control measure is whether it will achieve
significant emission reductions in the near term, beginning in the 1997
and 1998 ozone seasons.
Kansas evaluated a broad range of available control measures to
determine whether there are sufficient reasonable and practicable
measures available to produce the needed emissions reductions without
requiring low RVP gasoline. In addition to assessing the quantity of
emission reductions attributable to each control measure, the state
also considered the time needed for implementation and cost-
effectiveness of each measure in evaluating the reasonableness and
practicability of the other control measures in comparison to low RVP
gasoline requirements. The cost-effectiveness ratio is based on the
cost expected to be incurred from 1997 through 2006, resulting from
implementing the control measure, divided by the 10-year sum of the
daily VOC reductions. Kansas found that a 7.2 psi low RVP requirement
could be implemented in time for the 1997 ozone season, would produce
an estimated 4.1 tons per day of VOC emissions reductions, and has an
estimated cost-effectiveness ratio of 1.1. The state also evaluated the
following other measures: Stage II vapor recovery, reformulated
gasoline, vehicle I/M programs, clean fueled fleets (CFF) program,
light rail transit, free transit, and parking surcharge. Based on the
state's evaluation, the EPA finds that there are not sufficient other
reasonable and practicable measures available to produce the quantity
of emissions reductions needed to continue to
[[Page 13851]]
achieve the NAAQS, and thus a low RVP requirement is necessary.
Kansas found that free transit on red sky-cast days can be
implemented in time for the 1997 ozone season and has a very favorable
cost-effectiveness ratio, but would generate only 0.3 tons per day
reductions, which is a very small fraction of the goal of 8.5 tons per
day total reductions. Free transit throughout the ozone season could be
implemented on the same time frame, is less cost-effective, and would
generate an additional 0.3 tons per day reductions. A parking surcharge
could also be implemented promptly, but has a very high cost-
effectiveness ratio and would add only 0.6 tons per day reductions.
Thus, even if the state were to implement all of these measures they
would not produce a significant quantity of emissions reductions in the
next few ozone seasons, and hence would not be sufficient to ensure
that the state will continue to achieve the ozone NAAQS.
While a number of other measures would achieve substantially
greater reductions than free transit and a parking surcharge, the state
found that all of these measures would take considerably longer to
implement than low RVP, and none would produce emission reductions
beginning in the 1997 and 1998 ozone seasons. One option the state
considered is Stage II vapor recovery, which would reduce emissions an
estimated 6.9 tons per day. However, Stage II would take approximately
18 months to implement, which means it would not reduce emissions
before the 1999 ozone season. Moreover, installation of the Stage II
equipment would require additional underground piping as well as new
hose and nozzle sets at each affected station. Stage II would require
substantial compliance efforts by a larger number of entities than
would a low RVP requirement, and it would mainly affect smaller
entities, which may have more difficulty absorbing compliance costs.
Another potential option is either a centralized or decentralized
I/M program, with emissions reductions estimated ranging between 2.4
tons per day (basic decentralized I/M) and 25 tons per day (the EPA
recommended centralized enhanced I/M), depending upon the type of I/M
program selected. Kansas estimated that an I/M program would take four
to six years to fully implement and three to four years before
producing any emissions reductions benefits. An I/M program would
require legislative as well as regulatory action in both Missouri and
Kansas. Additionally, an I/M program would require development of
substantial infrastructure (e.g., testing facilities) in the Kansas
City area, and would require participation by every motor vehicle
owner.
Kansas also considered light rail transit as a potential control
measure, with estimated emissions reductions of 0.1 tons per day. The
state considers light rail transit as an option only for the long term
because it would require substantial lead time for implementation. Both
Kansas and Missouri would have to pass authorizing legislation and
secure funding sources. The states would also have to acquire land and
undertake a large-scale construction project. Moreover, the state
estimated that this option has a high cost-effectiveness ratio
(compared to low RVP).
Finally, Kansas has been working to develop a CFF program by
forming a workgroup to help develop an intrastructure for the program.
Currently this program is in the planning stages and could take
approximately two to three years to implement. Since this program is in
the planning stages, exact emission reduction credits have not yet been
identified. The expected reductions from the CFF program would produce
only a portion of the identified goal of 8.5 tons per day leaving a
need for additional significant reductions to continue to achieve
attainment.
Given that low RVP is the only option that would produce
substantial emissions reductions in the near term, and given its
comparative ease of implementation (as well as superior cost-
effectiveness to some of these options), the EPA finds that each of the
measures discussed above is unreasonable in comparison to a low RVP
requirement. This finding does not imply that these measures would be
unreasonable if additional reductions were needed beyond those that
would be produced by low RVP, or that these measures would be
unreasonable given a longer time frame to reduce emissions. In addition
to the measures discussed above, the state also evaluated opt-in to
Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) as another option. The EPA finds
that opt-in to RFG is impracticable at this time because the area is a
designated attainment area and, under current EPA regulations, only
designated nonattainment areas can opt in to RFG.
B. Emission Impact of the Fuel Volatility Control
The fuel volatility control was identified by MARC as a control
measure that could be implemented by the 1997 ozone season and will
contribute significantly toward the established emission control.
Reducing the fuel volatility limit from 7.8 to 7.2 psi will reduce VOC
emissions by an expected 4.1 tons per day. Most of the emission
reductions will occur from vehicle emissions (4.0 tons per day), and
0.1 tons per day will come from nonroad emissions, including storage
and refueling emission.
C. Economic Impacts of the Fuel Volatility Control
The fuel volatility control will affect the cost of producing the
gasoline. It is estimated that it will cost refineries an additional
1.5 cents per gallon to produce 7.2 psi RVP gasolines. Some cost will
be passed on to the consumer; therefore, consumers in the KCMA may
experience a gasoline price increase of about 1.5 cents per gallon.
V. Analysis of the Rule
The Kansas rule specifies that no person shall dispense, supply,
exchange in trade, offer for sale or supply, and sell or store gasoline
used as a fuel for motor vehicles and that has an RVP greater than 7.2
psi, or 8.2 psi for gasoline containing at least 9.0 percent by volume
but not more than 10.0 percent by volume ethanol. This rule applies
beginning June 1 through September 15 of each year.
In addition, facilities other than a gasoline dispensing facility
shall keep and maintain at the facility, for two years following the
date of the RVP test, records of the information regarding the RVP of
gasoline that is to be used as a fuel for motor vehicles.
Gasoline used exclusively for fueling implements of agriculture and
gasoline in any tank, reservoir, storage vessel, or other stationary
container with a nominal capacity of 500 gallons or less are exempt
from this regulation.
The sampling procedures and test methods are consistent with the
EPA recommendations as described in 40 CFR part 80, appendices D, E,
and F.
Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the Kansas SIP
concerning K.A.R. 28-19-79. At the state's request, the EPA is parallel
processing this action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
[[Page 13852]]
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the
EPAmust prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This Federal action authorizes and approves into the Kansas SIP
requirements previously adopted by the state, and imposes no new
requirements. Therefore, the Administrator certifies that it does not
have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA must prepare a budgetary
impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local,
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Under section 205, the EPA must select
the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action authorizes and approves into
the Kansas SIP requirements previously adopted by the state, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 14, 1997.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-7348 Filed 3-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
