[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53066-53070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25980]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA47-7120; FRL-5631-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Puget Sound
(Seattle-Tacoma Area) Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving the attainment demonstration
portion of the Central Puget Sound (also
[[Page 53067]]
referred to as the Seattle-Tacoma Area) carbon monoxide (CO) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to EPA on January 28,
1993, and supplemented on September 30, 1994, by the State of
Washington Department of Ecology (Washington) for the purpose of
documenting attainment of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for CO. The SIP revision was submitted by Washington to satisfy
certain federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment area CO
SIP for the Puget Sound nonattainment area in the State of Washington.
The rationale for the approval of the attainment demonstration portion
of this SIP revision is set forth in this notice. Additional
information is available at the addresses indicated below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rulemaking is effective as of October 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during
normal business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 10, Office
of Air Quality, 1200 6th Avenue (OAQ-107), Seattle, Washington 981010;
and the Washington State Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive,
Lacey, Washington 98504-7600.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William M. Hedgebeth, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air Quality, 1200 6th Avenue (OAQ-107), Seattle, WA 98101,
(206) 553-7369.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The air quality planning requirements for moderate CO nonattainment
areas are set out in sections 186-187 of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (CAAA) which pertain to the classification of CO nonattainment
areas and to the submission requirements of the SIPs for these areas,
respectively. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the CAA, [see generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)]. Because EPA is describing
its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer
to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
interpretations of Title I advanced in today's final rulemaking and the
supporting rationale.
Those States containing CO nonattainment areas with design values
greater than (>) 12.7 parts per million (ppm) were required to submit,
among other things, an attainment demonstration by November 15, 1992,
showing that the plan will provide for attainment by December 31, 1995,
for moderate CO nonattainment areas. The Puget Sound area, which
includes lands within the Puyallup, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot Indian
Reservations, had a design value of 14.8 ppm based on 1987 data, and
was classified as ``moderate > 12.7 ppm,'' under the provisions of
section 186 of the CAA (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991, 40 CFR
Sec. 81.348).
The CO NAAQS are for 1-hour and 8-hour periods and are not to be
exceeded more than once per year. The 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm (40 mg/
m \3\) and the 8-hour NAAQS is 9 ppm (10 mg/m \3\). No demonstration
was required to be carried out for the 1-hour NAAQS, as the Puget Sound
area has not violated this NAAQS since before the 1990 CAAA were
enacted. The same strategies which bring the area into attainment with
the 8-hour NAAQS will also contribute to reduced 1-hour concentrations.
II. Review of State Submittal
Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-66). In this action, EPA is
granting approval of the attainment demonstration portion of the plan
revision submitted to EPA on September 30, 1994, because it meets all
of the applicable requirements of the CAA.
1. Procedural Background
The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
CAA must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete
and therefore warrants further EPA review and action [see section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565]. The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amended
by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The EPA attempts to make completeness
determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a
submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness
determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt of the
submission. In this instance, a completeness determination was made by
operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the portions of the tribal lands which lie within
the CO nonattainment area, EPA contacted the chairpersons of the
Puyallup and Muckleshoot Tribal Councils and the Chairman of the
Tulalip Board of Directors of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington to
provide them with the information EPA has regarding the CO levels in
the ambient air within the entire nonattainment area and to identify
the effects that redesignating the entire area as attainment would have
on those tribal lands. Mobile sources of CO are the primary sources of
concern on the tribal lands within the nonattainment area. No CO ``hot
spot'' problems have been identified on the tribal lands by EPA,
Washington, or Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), nor
have any stationary CO sources of concern been identified. EPA provided
the three tribes the opportunity to discuss any concerns that they had
regarding the pending redesignation; no concerns were identified.
2. Attainment Demonstration
The original CO attainment demonstration for the Central Puget
Sound nonattainment area was submitted by Washington to EPA on January
28, 1993,2 with supplemental information submitted as part of a
SIP revision on September 30, 1994. The rollback approach used in the
1994 SIP supplement incorporated the use of a 90/10 split for emission
sources, specifically attributing 90% of the CO emissions to local
traffic and 10% of the CO emissions to regional CO sources. (The 1993
submittal had used a 75/25 split.) Because of questions about whether
the use of the 90/10 split was adequately justified, Washington
submitted supplemental information on May 10, 1996, documenting that
the PSAPCA had conducted additional rollback calculations using a 75/25
split, specifically attributing 75% of the CO emission sources to local
traffic and
[[Page 53068]]
25% to regional CO sources. This general approach had been approved by
EPA in a letter dated October 16, 1992. Conservative assumptions used
in the 1994 calculations were: (1) All sources included in the regional
emissions inventory contribute to ambient concentrations at monitoring
sites uniformly (i.e., distant point sources contribute just as much as
motor vehicles two blocks away); (2) the attainment demonstration for
Tacoma (the site of the highest design value in the nonattainment area)
uses 1987 data, when the CAA calls for the most recent two years of
data (1988 and 1989) and base year air quality data for all other
monitoring sites are from 1988 and 1989; and (3) the rollback analysis
is based on 1987, 1988, and 1989 air quality and a 1990 base year for
emissions. A fundamental assumption of the rollback approach is that
there is a proportional relationship between emissions and air quality
during a base year and emissions and air quality in a future year. Use
of the same base year for air quality and emissions is the norm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA published a Direct Final Rule on July 25, 1996,
approving the Puget Sound Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration.
Because of an adverse comment received from the State of New York,
EPA withdrew the Direct Final Rule on September 6, 1996. In the July
25, 1996, Federal Register, the SIP submittal date for the
Attainment Demonstration was identified as September 30, 1994. The
State of Washington Department of Ecology submitted the original
Puget Sound CO Attainment Demonstration on January 28, 1993.
Supplemental information which included rollback recalculations for
the attainment demonstration was submitted in a SIP revision dated
September 30, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes made by PSAPCA in the additional rollback calculations
submitted as supplemental information by Washington in May 1996
included the following four factors. First, the additional calculations
used the same base year for emissions and air quality in Tacoma.
Second, it conservatively assumed that all emissions other than local
traffic emissions were the same in 1987 as in 1990, when in all
likelihood, these emissions were higher in 1987. Third, the MOBILE5a
model was run for 1987 and 1990 and, using the fleet average emissions
factors for CO from these runs, developed a factor by which to multiply
the 1990 mobile source emissions to produce a reasonable approximation
of 1987 mobile source emissions. (No adjustment was made for traffic
volumes, which may have been lower in 1987. See Public Comment/EPA
Response below.) And fourth, as noted, the estimated 1987 mobile source
emissions were input into the rollback using a 75/25 split. Separate
design values were calculated for cold and warm weather since both cold
and warm weather exceedances had been recorded. The rollback
recalculation predicted attainment for both cold and warm weather in
1995, with a predicted cold weather design value of 8.6 ppm and a
predicted warm weather design value of 8.4 ppm, both in Tacoma, the
site of the monitor with the highest recorded CO measurements.
A review of 1995 air quality data entered into the Aerometric
Information Retrieval System (AIRS) data base indicated that the actual
1995 design value for the Tacoma CO monitor was 6.3 ppm. The actual
1995 design value for the entire nonattainment area was 6.5 ppm,
significantly below the rollback calculated 1995 design value of 9.0
ppm using the 90/10 split or the 1995 cold and warm weather predicted
design values using the 75/25 split in the recalculations submitted in
May 1996.
Major control measures used by Washington during the winter season
to effect annual emission reductions were the State's Emission Check
Program, the expansion of the program into new areas, and oxygenated
fuel. During the ``warm season,'' there was no oxygenated fuel. The
following summarizes the 1990 to 1995 emission inventory reductions.
1990 to 1995 Emission Inventory Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reduction
-------------------------
Category Cold Warm
weather weather
------------------------------------------------------------------------
King County:
On-Road Mobile Sources.................... 36.5 25.6
Total Emission Inventory.................. 27.8 15.9
Pierce County:
On-Road Mobile Sources.................... 40.0 30.2
Total Emission Inventory.................. 29.7 19.2
Snohomish County:
On-Road Mobile Sources.................... 37.5 27.0
Total Emission Inventory.................. 28.5 16.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are maximum estimates. MOBILE5a was used to develop these
figures and assumed a basic inspection and maintenance program rather
than Washington's specific program.
3. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (See CAA Secs. 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP [see Sec. 110(a)(2)(C)].
There are no specific enforceability issues related to EPA's approval
of the Central Puget Sound CO attainment demonstration. General
enforceability issues related to EPA's proposed approval of
Washington's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Central
Puget Sound CO nonattainment area are discussed in the Federal
Register, 61 FR 29515, June 11, 1996.
III. Public Comment/EPA Response
During the public comment period on EPA's proposed finding, the
Agency received comments from one commenter, the State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation. No other comments were
received. A discussion of those comments are as follows.
1. Commenter states that ``the exclusive use of rollback modeling
does not simulate the `hot spot' scenario and, therefore, is not
adequate to address urban CO nonattainment.''
Response: EPA accepts the analyses used by PSAPCA for this area to
demonstrate attainment of the CO standard. (See Response to Comment 2
below.) The ``rollback'' approach used by PSAPCA was acceptable under
EPA guidance in effect at the time the CO attainment demonstration was
originally submitted by the State of Washington in 1993. Therefore, the
rollback approach meets criteria identified in a memorandum, ``
`Grandfathering' of Requirements for Pending SIP
[[Page 53069]]
Revisions,'' from Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (June 27, 1988), under which, in certain
circumstances, SIPs may be approved under guidance documents that are
revised after the SIPs are submitted. EPA also recognizes that air
monitoring in the nonattainment area has shown the area to be in
attainment of the CO standard since 1991. The Maintenance Plan that EPA
proposed to approve on June 11, 1996, utilizes ``hot spot'' modeling to
project continued maintenance of the CO standard for 10 years. EPA
believes that actual monitoring data which shows attainment of the
standard confirms the results of the rollback analysis used in the
attainment demonstration. This has been further supported by annual CO
saturation studies conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology at
potential hotspots; virtually all of the highly congested intersections
in the region have been included in these studies and no exceedances
have been recorded.
2. Commenter states that ``the Puget Sound SIP rollback calculation
does not consider growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) relying solely
on Mobile5a emission factors to demonstrate the proportional
relationship between the base year emissions and air quality in the
future. In the Federal Register supplementary information section it
states that `(n)o adjustment was made for traffic volumes, which may
have been lower in 1987.' New York recognizes that growth in VMT can
negate or reduce the benefits from mobile source control measures and
should be accounted for in any attainment demonstration.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that VMT growth should have
been factored into the rollback calculation. As a result of the
commenter's concern, PSAPCA recalculated the rollback analysis,
incorporating VMT growth factors derived from Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT data for the Puget Sound area. This
supplemental information was formally submitted to EPA by Washington on
September 12, 1996. EPA has reviewed the recalculations, along with the
methodology for deriving the VMT growth factors, and is satisfied that
the methodology used was appropriate and that attainment is
satisfactorily predicted, with a predicted 1995 design value of 8.98
ppm. It should be noted again that the actual 1995 design values for
the Tacoma CO monitor and for the Puget Sound CO nonattainment area as
a whole are significantly lower than this predicted design value and
that there have been no violations of the CO NAAQS for five years.
IV. Rulemaking Action
EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of
Washington's Central Puget Sound CO SIP revision submitted to EPA on
September 30, 1994, because Washington's submittal meets the
requirements set forth in section 187(a)(7) of the CAA.
Pursuant to Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), this final notice is effective upon the date of publication in
the Federal Register. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows EPA to waive
the requirement that a rule be published 30 days before the effective
date if EPA determines there is ``good cause'' and publishes the
grounds for such a finding with the rule. Under section 553(d)(3), EPA
must balance the necessity for immediate Federal enforceability of
these SIP revisions against principles of fundamental fairness which
require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable time to
prepare for the effective date of a new rule. United States v.
Gavrilovic, 551 F 2d 1099, 1105 (8th Cir., 1977). The purpose of the
requirement for a rule to be published 30 days before the effective
date of the rule is to give all affected persons a reasonable time to
prepare for the effective date of a new rule.
EPA is making this rule effective upon October 10, 1996 to provide
sufficient time for necessary rulemaking for the forthcoming Central
Puget Sound Carbon Monoxide Redesignation. Washington will discontinue
implementation of the oxygenated fuel program in the Seattle-Tacoma-
Everett Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) once approval
of the carbon monoxide maintenance plan becomes effective. As much time
as possible needs to be provided for State and local air authorities to
notify fuel distributors so that distribution plans can be modified in
response to these changes.
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.
V. 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., EPA
must 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, 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, 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 flexibility
analysis 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).
Approval of the attainment demonstration does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. The Regional Administrator certifies
that the approval of the attainment demonstration will not affect a
substantial number of small entities.
C. 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
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
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
[[Page 53070]]
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 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 pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 804(2).
E. 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 December 9, 1996. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 26, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Washington was approved by the Director of the Office
of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Part 52, 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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart WW--Washington
2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(62) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(62) On September 30, 1994, the Director of WDOE submitted to the
Regional Administrator of EPA a revision to the Carbon Monoxide State
Implementation Plan for, among other things, the CO attainment
demonstration for the Central Puget Sound carbon monoxide nonattainment
area. This was submitted to satisfy federal requirements under section
187(a)(7) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, as a revision to
the carbon monoxide State Implementation Plan.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) September 30, 1994, letter from WDOE to EPA submitting an
attainment demonstration revision for the Central Puget Sound CO
nonattainment area (adopted on September 30, 1994); a supplement letter
and document from WDOE, ``Reexamination of Carbon Monoxide Attainment
Demonstration for the Tacoma Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site for the
Supplement to the State Implementation Plan for Washington State, A
Plan for Attaining and Maintaining National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Carbon Monoxide in the Puget Sound Nonattainment Area,''
dated May 10, 1996; and a supplement letter and document from WDOE,
``Revisions to the May 1996 Reexamination of Carbon Monoxide Attainment
Demonstration for the Tacoma Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site'', dated
September 12, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-25980 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P