[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