[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 125 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33727-33730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15954]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK9-1-6975a; FRL-5223-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for Vehicle 
Miles Traveled Forecasting and Tracking: Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA today approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Alaska for the purpose of 
forecasting and tracking vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Anchorage 
area. On March 24, 1994, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) submitted a SIP revision to EPA to satisfy the 
requirements of sections 187(a)(2)(A) and 187(a)(3) of the Clean Air 
Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA).
    Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires Moderate and Serious carbon monoxide 
(CO) non-attainment areas with a design value above 12.7 to submit a 
SIP revision that contains a forecast of VMT in the non-attainment area 
for each year before the year in which the SIP projects the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO to be attained. The SIP 
revision, which was due by November 15, 1992, also requires annual 
updates of the forecasts and specific contingency measures to be 
implemented if the annual estimate of actual VMT or a subsequent VMT 
forecast exceeds the most recent prior forecast of VMT or if the area 
fails to attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment date.

DATES: This action will be effective on August 28, 1995 unless adverse 
or critical comments are received by July 31, 1995. If the effective 
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston, 
SIP Manager, EPA, Air & Radiation Branch (AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for 
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during 
normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Air & 
Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, Washington 
98101, and ADEC, 410 Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, AK 99801-1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Montel Livingston, Air & Radiation 
Branch (AT-082), EPA, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act required EPA, in 
consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), to 
develop guidance for states to use in complying with the VMT 
forecasting and tracking provisions of section 187. A Notice of 
Availability for the resulting Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking 
Guidance was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1992.
    The Section 187 Guidance identifies the Federal Highway 
Administration's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) as the 
foundation for VMT estimates and forecasts. HPMS was chosen as the best 
method for estimating actual VMT since it is a count-based, 
statistically-based, nationwide program with auditing procedures in 
place, and since travel demand models would require resource intensive, 
annual updates of input data and annual validation against traffic 
counts in order to be useful for estimating annual VMT. EPA believes 
that these time and resource requirements generally make travel demand 
models an unrealistic option for estimating actual annual VMT with 
reasonable accuracy.
    To develop growth factors for forecasting VMT, the Section 187 
Guidance offers as one alternative the use of network-based travel 
demand models. If these models are properly updated and validated, and 
if they use an equilibrium approach to allocating trips, they are 
considered to be the best predictor of growth factors for VMT 
forecasts. Moderate areas without a network model that is validated 
according to the specifications described in the Section 187 Guidance 
are offered the alternative of developing growth factors based on a 
linear regression extrapolation of the past six years' HPMS VMT. In 
both cases, the growth factors are applied to the HPMS VMT reported to 
the Federal Highway Administration.
    As specified in the Act, the contingency measure triggers serve to 
address as early as possible any situation in which a trend towards 
higher than expected VMT has been detected, since such a trend may 
affect the forecasted attainment date.
    When determining that actual annual VMT or a VMT forecast has 
exceeded the most recent prior forecast and, therefore, that 
contingency measures should be implemented, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to take into account the statistical variability in the 
estimates of VMT generated through HPMS. Consequently, EPA has 
identified a margin of error to be applied when making VMT comparisons. 
With the expectation that HPMS sampling procedures will improve over 
the next few years in response to recent Federal Highway Administration 
guidance, the margin of error starts at 5.0 percent for VMT comparisons 
made in 1994, becomes 4.0 percent for VMT comparisons made in 

[[Page 33728]]
1995, and is reduced to 3.0 percent for VMT comparisons made in 1996 
and thereafter. However, since each revised VMT forecast becomes the 
VMT baseline for triggering contingency measures, the application of a 
margin of error every year could allow the forecasts to increase 
without bound, without ever triggering contingencies. To prevent this 
occurrence, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow the application of 
the margin of error only as long as, cumulatively, neither an estimate 
of actual VMT nor a VMT forecast ever exceed by more than 5.0 percent 
the VMT forecast relied upon in the area's attainment demonstration.
    In practice, then, there are two ways in which an estimate of 
actual VMT or an updated forecast can be found to exceed a prior 
forecast. Individual yearly comparisons can result in an exceedance of 
the forecast made 12 months earlier by more than the prescribed 
percentage for that year, and exceedances can accumulate so that, 
cumulatively, they exceed the 5.0 percent cap above the attainment 
demonstration forecast.
    EPA interprets the requirement for contingency measures to ``take 
effect without further action by the State or the Administrator'' to 
mean that no further rulemaking activities by the State or EPA would be 
needed to implement the measures. The General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1992, offers guidance on 
the type and size of contingencies to be included in the SIP revision. 
This guidance is advisory in nature and is non-binding. (See 57 FR at 
13532-33, April 16, 1992.)
    The State of Alaska has submitted a SIP revision to EPA in order to 
satisfy the requirements of sections 187(a)(2)(A) and 187(a)(3). The 
State submittal provides for each of the following mandatory elements: 
(1) a forecast of VMT in the non-attainment area for each year prior to 
the attainment year; (2) a provision for annual updates of the 
forecasts along with a provision for annual reports describing the 
extent to which the forecasts proved to be accurate; these reports 
shall provide estimates of actual VMT in each year for which a forecast 
was required; (3) adopted and enforceable contingency measures to be 
implemented without further action by the State or the Administrator if 
actual annual VMT or an updated forecast exceeds the most recent prior 
forecast or if the area fails to attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment 
date.

II. Analysis

    The following items are the basis for approval of the SIP revision. 
The State has met the requirements of sections 187(a)(2)(A) and 
187(a)(3) by submitting a SIP revision that implements all required 
elements.

1. VMT Forecasts

    Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires that the State include in its SIP 
submittal a forecast of VMT in the non-attainment area for each year 
before the year in which the SIP projects the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for CO to be attained. The forecasts are to be based 
on guidance developed by EPA in consultation with DOT, i.e., the 
Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance. To accurately 
forecast VMT in the Anchorage area, The Municipality of Anchorage and 
the State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Transportation 
and Public Facilities used the HPMS. The Central Region portion of the 
Alaska HPMS database was expanded to contain most of the eligible roads 
in the Anchorage area, and the HPMS sampling methodology was applied to 
increase the accuracy of traffic estimates. This procedure resulted in 
an increase in the number of roads included in the database, and an 
increase in the number of sample sections on the roads. HPMS provides 
VMT estimates based on actual traffic counts collected from a 
representative set of sampling locations. The network-based travel 
demand modelling process described in Section 187 VMT Tracking and 
Forecasting Guidance was used to project future VMT for calendar years 
1993, 1994 and 1995. The MinUPT travel demand model estimated growth in 
vehicle travel during the forecast period. This model is maintained by 
the Municipality of Anchorage Department of Economic Development and 
Planning. Demographic data (population, land use, and employment data) 
was used as inputs to the model. MinUTP model runs were performed for 
the base year 1990 and for future year 1995. Runs incorporated a 
population growth rate of roughly 1.2 percent per year. As a result of 
the modeling runs, VMT were projected to increase by 13.3 percent over 
the five-year period, or roughly 2.5 percent per year. VMT during 
intervening years was estimated from straight-line interpolation. 
Documentation on the model is contained in the 1985 Anchorage 
Metropolitan Area Transportation Model Report. This annual VMT growth 
rate is more than double the projected increase in population for the 
same period. The use of a high ratio will provide a conservative 
estimate of future reductions in emissions and resulting air quality 
concentrations. A safety margin of 5.5 percent was added to the VMT 
forecasts. Best estimates of future-year VMT were increased by 5.5 
percent. Attainment projections were prepared with this VMT included. 
For the 1990 base year, model estimates reflect the existing 1990 
roadway network and the best available demographic data as inputs, and 
no safety margin is required.
    Below is a table showing the forecasted VMT for Anchorage:

               Average Annualized Daily VMT for Anchorage               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Safety                
              Year                 Projected      Margin      Forecasted
                                      VMT        (percent)       VMT    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................    2,854,000     -0-          2,854,000
1993............................    3,081,530      +5.5        3,249,800
1994............................    3,157,373      +5.5        3,329,800
1995............................    3,233,216      +5.5        3,409,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annual VMT Updates/Reports

    Section 187(a)(2)(A) specifies that the SIP revision provide for 
annual updates of the VMT forecasts and annual reports that describe 
the accuracy of the forecasts and that provide estimates of actual VMT 
in each year for which a forecast was required. The Section 187 VMT 
Forecasting and Tracking Guidance specifies that annual reports should 
be submitted to EPA by September 30 of the year following the year for 
which the VMT estimate is made.
    Annual VMT tracking is done by the Alaska Department of 
Transportation and Public Facilities using the federally mandated and 
annually audited HPMS. 

[[Page 33729]]
The 1990 base year VMT estimate was used as a ``starting point'' for 
future year VMT projections. The 1990 base year estimate of VMT and the 
VMT forecasts for future years are summarized in the Anchorage Air 
Quality Plan for Carbon Monoxide. Two additional reports provide 
primary support to the estimates contained in the Plan. The first 
report, 1990 Vehicle Miles of Travel in the Anchorage Bowl, Alaska 
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Municipality 
of Anchorage, February 1992, describes the methods used to generate 
HPMS estimates of base year VMT. The second report, Anchorage 
Metropolitan Area 1990-1995 VMT Forecast Procedures, July 1992, 
describes the methods and assumptions used in developing VMT forecasts. 
Both of these reports are contained in the Appendix to the Air Quality 
Plan.
    In addition, Alaska has committed to meet the annual reporting 
procedures requirements. The reports will contain annual updates of the 
VMT forecasts, describe the accuracy of the forecasts, and provide 
estimates of actual VMT in each year for which a forecast was required. 
The reports will contain estimates of actual vehicle miles traveled in 
each year for which the forecast was required. The annual reports will 
show the comparison of the estimate of actual VMT and the previously 
forecasted VMT. The reports will show that Anchorage area's actual VMT 
is well within the forecasted VMT.

3. Contingency Measure

    Section 187(a)(3) specifies that the State, in its SIP revision, 
adopt specific, enforceable contingency measures to be implemented if 
the annual estimate of actual VMT or a subsequent VMT forecast exceeds 
the most recent prior forecast of VMT or if the area fails to attain 
the CO NAAQS by the attainment date. Implementation of the identified 
contingency measures must not require further rulemaking activities by 
the State or EPA. Alaska meets this requirement. The contingency 
measure that will be used by Alaska to satisfy the VMT requirement is 
the expansion of the oxygenated fuel control area, and the State has 
amended its regulation 18 AAC 53.015, ``Expansion of Control Area,'' to 
provide for its implementation, if necessary. This amendment expands 
the oxygenated fuels' control area for Anchorage to include geographic 
areas outside of the municipality's boundaries, but within reasonable 
driving distances of the municipality. At this time, EPA is approving 
this contingency measure for the purpose of VMT exceedance.

III. Today's Action

    In today's action, EPA is approving the SIP revision pertaining to 
VMT forecast which was submitted by the State of Alaska for the 
Anchorage area.
    The State of Alaska has submitted a SIP revision implementing each 
of the required elements required by sections 187(a)(2)(A) and 
187(a)(3) of the CAA for the Municipality of Anchorage: VMT forecasts, 
VMT updates/reports, and an enforceable contingency measure. If VMT 
projections are exceeded by actual VMT in future years, the 
implementation of the contingency measure will be triggered, together 
with a revision of the air quality plan, as required by the CAA. EPA is 
therefore approving this SIP revision.

IV. Administrative Review

    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 CAA 
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, I certify 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 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).
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective August 28, 1995 unless, by July 31, 1995, adverse or critical 
comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective August 28, 1995.
    The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined 
that this action conforms with those requirements.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    Under 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 
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 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.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 

[[Page 33730]]
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from 
E.O. 12866 review.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 1995. 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), 42 U.S.C. 
7607(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.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for 
the State of Alaska was approved by the Director of the Office of 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: June 6, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
    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 C--Alaska

    2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(23) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (23) On March 24, 1994, ADEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA to 
satisfy the requirements of sections 187(a)(2)(A) and 187(a)(3) of the 
CAA, forecasting and tracking VMT in the Anchorage area.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) March 24, 1994 letter from the Alaska Governor to the EPA 
Regional Administrator including as a revision to the SIP the VMT 
requirement in the Anchorage area, contained in ADEC's State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Volume III: Appendices, Modifications to Section 
III.B.6, III.B.8, III.B.10 and III.B.11, adopted January 10, 1994; and 
further description on pages 10-14, 57-60 and 69-75 contained in ADEC's 
State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume III: Appendices, Modifications 
to Section III.B, III.B.1, and III.B.3, adopted January 10, 1994.
[FR Doc. 95-15954 Filed 6-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P