[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 144 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38597-38600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18651]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[WA47-7120a; FRL-5538-3]


Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Carbon Monoxide 
Implementation Plan for the State of Washington: Puget Sound Attainment 
Demonstration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the 
Puget Sound carbon monoxide (CO) State implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted 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 implementation plan revision was submitted by the State 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 is set forth in this notice. 
Additional information is available at the address indicated below. 
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA must approve or disapprove SIPs or 
portions of SIPs within time frames specified in the CAA; failure to do 
so would render EPA liable to citizen suits to conduct rulemaking on 
those SIPs and would delay making approvable rules federally 
enforceable.

DATES: This action is effective on September 23, 1996 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by August 26, 1996. 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, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, 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.

[[Page 38598]]

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 Sixth Avenue (OAQ-107), Seattle, Washington 98101; 
Washington Department of Ecology, Attention Tami Dahlgren, Olympia, 
Washington 98504-7600, telephone (360) 407-6830; and the Puget Sound 
Air Pollution Control Authority, 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, 
Washington 98101-2038.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William M. Hedgebeth, EPA Region 10, 
Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S OAQ-107, Seattle, 
Washington 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 CAA 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. The 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 proposal 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/
m3) and the 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm (10 mg/m3). Washington's 
attainment demonstration predicted that the highest 8-hour design 
concentration as of the attainment date would be 9 ppm, thus 
demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. 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. 
The modeled attainment demonstration is discussed in greater detail 
below.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    The State of Washington Department of Ecology held a public hearing 
in Bellevue, Washington on September 8, 1994, to entertain public 
comment on the implementation plan for the Puget Sound CO nonattainment 
area. Following the public hearing the plan was adopted by the State 
and submitted to EPA on September 30, 1994, as a proposed revision to 
the SIP.
    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 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.
    In today's action EPA is approving the attainment demonstration 
portion of Washington's CO SIP submittal for the Puget Sound area and 
invites public comment on the action. EPA also finds that information 
and requirements provided in the attainment demonstration portion of 
the Department of Ecology SIP revision request for the Puget Sound 
nonattainment area demonstrate that the section 187(a)(7) requirements 
have been met for the entire Puget Sound area, including portions of 
the Tulalip, Puyallup, and Muckleshoot Indian Reservations.

2. Attainment Demonstration

    As noted, CO moderate nonattainment areas with design values 
greater than 12.7 parts per million (ppm) were required to submit a 
demonstration by November 15, 1992, showing that the plan will provide 
for attainment by December 31, 1995. Washington conducted an attainment 
demonstration using a ``rollback'' modeling approach for the Puget 
Sound CO nonattainment area to show that emission reductions resulting 
from implementation of control measures were sufficient to ``roll 
back'' the design value to a concentration at or below the NAAQS for CO 
of 9 ppm.
    The CO NAAQS are for 1-hour and 8-hour periods and are not to be 
exceeded more than once per year. The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm (10 mg/
m\3\). As noted, no demonstration was required to be carried out for 
the 1-hour NAAQS, as the Puget Sound nonattainment area has

[[Page 38599]]

not violated the 1-hour NAAQS since before the CAAA were enacted. In 
the attainment demonstration portion of the SIP submittal, Washington 
showed that the 8-hour design value concentration of 9.0, predicted for 
1995, the attainment year, documents attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS 
by the required date, December 31, 1995.
    The rollback modelling used in the 1994 SIP submittal 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. Because of questions about whether the use of this 
split was adequately justified, Washington submitted additional 
information on May 10, 1996, documenting that the Puget Sound Air 
Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) had conducted additional rollback 
modelling using a 75/25 split, specifically attributing 75% of the CO 
emission sources to local traffic and 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 modelling were: (1) all 
sources included in the regional emission 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.
    Changes made by PSAPCA in the additional rollback modelling 
included the following four factors. First, the additional modeling 
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 emission 
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). And fourth, as noted, the 
estimated 1987 mobile source emissions were input into the rollback 
model 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 recalculation of the rollback modelling 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. The 1995 design 
value for the entire nonattainment area was 6.5, significantly below 
the modeled 1995 design value of 9.0 using the 90/10 split or the cold 
and warm weather predicted design values using the 75/25 split in the 
modeling developed by PSAPCA in 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 sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's 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 section 
110(a)(2)(C)]. There are no specific enforceability issues related to 
EPA's approval of the Puget Sound CO attainment demonstration. General 
enforceability issues related to EPA's proposed approval of 
Washington's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Puget 
Sound CO nonattainment area are discussed in the Federal Register, 61 
FR 29515, June 11, 1996.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the Puget 
Sound CO attainment plan because it meets the requirements set forth in 
section 187(a)(7) of the CAA. 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, EPA is proposing to 
approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be 
received. This action will be effective September 23, 1996 unless, by 
August 26, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received. If 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 then be addressed 
in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a proposed 
rule. 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 on September 23, 1996.

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.

[[Page 38600]]

Sec. Sec. 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).
    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 any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

V. 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 
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 today 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.
    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended 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 section 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.
    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
review under Executive Order 12866.

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 Washington was approved by the Director of the Office 
of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: July 2, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows: 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 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 Puget Sound CO nonattainment 
area (adopted on September 30, 1994), and 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.

[FR Doc. 96-18651 Filed 7-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P