[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11179-11184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4470]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WA-01-003; FRL-7881-9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 
Washington; Spokane Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA invites public comment on its proposal to approve 
Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to EPA 
by the State of Washington on September 20, 2001, September 26, 2001 
and November 22, 2004. The revisions consist of changes to the State of 
Washington Inspection and Maintenance Program and a Plan for attaining 
carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 
the Spokane Serious CO Nonattainment Area.
    The EPA also invites public comment on its proposal to approve 
certain source-specific SIP revisions relating to Kaiser Aluminum and 
Chemical Corporation.

DATES: Written comments must be received by April 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. WA-01-003, 
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (206)-553-0110.
     Mail: Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mail code: OAWT-107, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, 
Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air, Waste, and Toxics, OAWT-107, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, 
Washington 98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours 
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. WA-01-003. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise

[[Page 11180]]

protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The federal 
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to I. General Information in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: Publicly available docket materials are available in hard 
copy at the Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, EPA Region 10, Mail code: 
OAWT-107, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101, open from 8 a.m.-
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number is (206) 553-4273. Copies of the State's request and 
other information relevant to this action are also available at the 
State of Washington Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, 
Washington, 98504-7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Robinson, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (OAWT-107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101, (206) 553-4273.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background Information
    A. What NAAQS Is Considered in Today's Proposal?
    B. What Is the History Behind This Proposal?
    C. What Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Requirements Must be 
Met to Approve This Proposal?
III. EPA's Review of the Spokane CO Plan
    A. Does the Spokane CO Plan Meet All the Procedural Requirements 
as Required by Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act)?
    B. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include a Comprehensive, Accurate, 
Current Base Year Inventory From All Sources as Required in Sections 
172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1)?
    C. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include Periodic Inventories as 
Required in Section 187(a)(5) of the Act?
    D. Does the Spokane CO Plan Meet the Requirement of Section 
187(a)(7) of the Act That Serious CO Areas Submit an Attainment 
Demonstration Which Includes Annual Emissions Reductions Necessary 
for Reaching Attainment by the Deadline?
    E. Has Spokane Adopted Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) 
for the Purpose of Reducing CO Emissions as Required by Sections 
182(d)(1) and 187(b)(2) and Described in Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the 
Act?
    F. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include a Forecast of Vehicle Miles 
Traveled (VMT) for Each Year Before the Attainment Year of 2000 as 
Required by Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act?
    G. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include Contingency Measures as 
Required by Section 187(a)(3) of the Act?
    H. Is the Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Approvable as Required 
by Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act and Outlined in Conformity Rule 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)?
    I. Does Spokane Have an I/M Program in Place That Meets the 
Requirements in Sections 182(a)(2)(B) and 187(a)(6) of the Act?
    J. Are There Controls on Stationary Sources of CO as Required by 
Section 172(c)(5) of the Act?
    K. Has Spokane Implemented an Oxygenated Fuel Program as 
Described in Section 187(b)(3) of the Act?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Washington Inspection and Maintenance 
(I/M) Program Revision
    A. What is Being Revised in the Washington I/M Program?
    B. Have All the Procedural Requirements for Approval of This 
Revision Been Met?
    C. How Does This Revision to the Washington I/M Program Affect 
the Attainment Demonstration for the Spokane CO Serious 
Nonattainment Area?
V. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Administrative Orders
VI. Summary of EPA's Proposals
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. 
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or 
section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background Information

A. What NAAQS Is Considered in Today's Proposal?

    CO is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has 
established a health-based standard and is the pollutant that is the 
subject of this action. CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted in 
combustion processes. CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and 
reduces oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues. Exposure to 
elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, 
work capacity, manual dexterity, and learning ability, and with illness 
and death for those who already suffer from cardiovascular disease, 
particularly angina or peripheral vascular disease.
    Under section 109(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we have established primary, 
health-related NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 
8-hour period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Spokane has never 
exceeded the

[[Page 11181]]

1-hour NAAQS; therefore, the Spokane CO Plan and this proposal address 
only the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved 
if not more than one non-overlapping 8-hour average per monitoring site 
exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and are not 
considered exceedances) in either year of a consecutive 2-year period.
    The area has been monitoring ambient air for CO levels since the 
early 1980's. In 1987, the Spokane area recorded 87 exceedances of the 
8-hour NAAQS; however, the area has recorded no violations of the 
standard since 1995.

B. What Is the History Behind This Proposal?

    Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (the Act), 
areas meeting the requirements of section 107(d) of the Act were 
designated nonattainment for CO by operation of law. Under section 
186(a) of the Act, each CO nonattainment area was also classified by 
operation of law as either moderate or serious depending on the 
severity of the area's air quality problems. Spokane was classified as 
a moderate CO nonattainment area. Moderate CO nonattainment areas were 
expected to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than December 31, 1995. If a moderate CO nonattainment area was 
unable to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, the area was 
reclassified as a serious CO nonattainment area by operation of law. 
Spokane was unable to meet the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, and was 
reclassified as a serious nonattainment area effective April 13, 1998.
    Spokane monitored 2 years of clean data to attain the standard by 
December 31, 2000, the required attainment date for all serious CO 
areas. Therefore, EPA made a determination that Spokane attained the CO 
NAAQS by the attainment date deadline (66 FR 44060, August 22, 2001).
    On September 20, 2001, the Washington State Department of Ecology 
(Ecology) submitted the Spokane CO Plan as a revision to the Washington 
SIP. On November 22, 2004, Ecology submitted an addendum to the Spokane 
CO Plan to replace a TCM commitment which they had not been able to 
implement.

C. What Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Requirements Must be Met To 
Approve This Proposal?

    Section 172 of the Act contains general requirements applicable to 
SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 and 187 of the Act 
set out additional air quality planning requirements for CO 
nonattainment areas.
    EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the agency's 
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP revisions submitted 
under Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 
and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The reader should refer to the 
General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations 
of Title I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking, we are applying 
these policies to the Spokane CO Plan, taking into consideration the 
specific factual issues presented.

III. EPA's Review of the Spokane CO Plan

A. Does the Spokane CO Plan Meet All the Procedural Requirements as 
Required by Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act)?

    Yes. The Act requires States to observe certain procedural 
requirements in developing implementation plans for submission to EPA. 
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan 
submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public 
hearing. Public noticing for public meetings held on August 28, 2001, 
and October 26, 2004, occurred through advertisements in the Spokesman 
Review and the Washington State Register. The SIP submittal includes a 
hearing summary and notes that during the public meetings no public 
testimony was offered. Written comments were received from the public 
and included in the submittal along with the response developed by 
Ecology staff. Following the required public participation, the State 
adopted the Spokane CO Plan on September 19, 2001, and the addendum on 
November 17, 2004. The Spokane CO Plan demonstrates it has met the 
procedural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Act.

B. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include a Comprehensive, Accurate, Current 
Base Year Inventory From All Sources as Required in Sections 172(c)(3) 
and 187(a)(1)?

    Yes. Spokane submitted a 1996 base year emissions inventory in the 
Spokane CO Plan consistent with our guidance documents. The motor 
vehicle emission factors used in the plan were generated by the 
MOBILE5b program. The base year inventory is an estimate of actual 
emissions representative of a typical peak CO season day. The table 
below contains a detailed listing of average daily, CO season emissions 
by source category.

                                       Table 1.--1996 Base Year Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Non-road       On-road        Total
             Emission category                  Point     Area sources     mobile        mobile       emissions
                                               sources                     sources       sources     (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year 1996............................         79.9          70.4          31.3         167.2         348.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodologies used to prepare the base year emissions 
inventory, as described in the Spokane CO Plan, are acceptable. The 
inventory meets base year emissions inventory requirements of sections 
172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the Act and is approvable. A discussion of 
how the inventory meets the requirements for approval is in the 
technical support document (TSD) for this proposal. Detailed inventory 
data is contained in the docket maintained by EPA.

C. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include Periodic Inventories as Required in 
Section 187(a)(5) of the Act?

    Yes. Section 187(a)(5) of the Act requires the submission of 
periodic emission inventories at 3-year intervals until an area is 
redesignated to attainment. Ecology submitted the Spokane 1999 periodic 
emission inventory in September 2001, and submitted the 2002 periodic 
emission inventory on November 29, 2004, as the base year inventory in 
their Spokane CO Maintenance Plan. Ecology has agreed to submit 
periodic inventories at 3-year intervals until Spokane is redesignated 
to attainment.

[[Page 11182]]

D. Does the Spokane CO Plan Meet the Requirement of Section 187(a)(7) 
of the Act That Serious CO Areas Submit an Attainment Demonstration 
Which Includes Annual Emissions Reductions Necessary for Reaching 
Attainment by the Deadline?

    Yes. The Spokane CO Plan contains an attainment demonstration that 
includes both an area-wide and a hot-spot modeling analysis at heavily-
traveled intersections. The area-wide modeling is used to assess the 
cumulative impact of all sources of CO in an urban area. The modeled 
concentrations define the background CO concentration. The intersection 
modeling assesses the direct impact of traffic on CO concentrations at 
intersections.
    The area-wide modeling resulted in two key findings. First, the 
modeling results indicated that elevated CO concentrations generally 
occur in the grids covering Spokane's central business district (CBD) 
where major traffic intersections with significant congestion exist. CO 
levels appear to rise and fall with traffic activity in the CBD. 
Secondly, the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Mead Works 
aluminum smelter appeared at times to contribute significantly to 
widespread elevated CO concentrations. Since the modeled concentration 
was close to the CO standard of 9 ppm, Kaiser was required to verify 
that CO exceedances were not occurring on the hilltop to the southeast 
of the plant during smelter operations. See section V. Kaiser Aluminum 
and Chemical Corporation Administrative Orders.
    Microscale intersection modeling was conducted for seven 
intersections within the CBD. These seven intersections were selected 
based on their level of service, congestion volume, and potentials for 
elevated levels of CO buildup. Only one intersection failed to 
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. However, with 
inclusion of the TCM implementation at Third Avenue & Washington 
Street, the modeled results demonstrate attainment. See Table 2.

                         Table 2.--Intersection Maximum Predicted 8-Hour CO Levels (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            CAL3QHCR+UAM maximum 8-hour average (ppm)
                  Intersection                  ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Uncontrolled                      Controlled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Avenue & Washington......................            9.38  8.93 with TCM.
Hamilton St. & Sharp...........................            8.71  Not affected by TCM.
Second Avenue & Browne.........................            8.08  Not affected by TCM.
Third Avenue & Browne..........................            8.68  Not affected by TCM.
Second Avenue & Division.......................            8.59  Not affected by TCM.
Third Avenue & Division........................            7.59  Not affected by TCM.
Northwest Blvd. & Indiana......................            8.76  Not affected by TCM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attainment of the standard in 2000 is demonstrated for all analyzed 
intersections. A detailed description of all the control measures used 
to demonstrate attainment, including those previously approved, is 
contained in the TSD for this proposal.

E. Has Spokane Adopted Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the 
Purpose of Reducing CO Emissions as Required by Sections 182(d)(1) and 
187(b)(2) and Described in Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Act?

    Yes. Sections 182(d)(1) and 187(b)(2) of the Act require states 
with serious CO nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that 
includes transportation control strategies and measures to offset any 
growth in emissions due to growth in VMT or vehicle trips. In 
developing such strategies, a state must consider measures specified in 
section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Act and choose and implement such measures 
as are necessary to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. TCMs are 
designed to reduce mobile pollutant emissions by either improving 
transportation efficiency or reducing single-occupant vehicle trips.
    The TCM that is used in the Spokane CO attainment demonstration 
adds a new left turn channel on eastbound Third Avenue at Washington 
Street. The TCM focuses on geometric improvements at the intersection 
designed to accommodate left turns and prevent an exceedance during 
worse case wintertime conditions. The EPA has reviewed the TCM in the 
Spokane CO Plan and is proposing to approve it.

F. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include a Forecast of Vehicle Miles 
Traveled (VMT) for Each Year Before the Attainment Year of 2000 as 
Required by Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act?

    Yes. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) developed 
the daily VMT forecasts for the period 1993 to 2000 using a network-
based travel demand model. The Transportation Data Office of the 
Washington State Department of Transportation developed the estimates 
of actual VMT from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 
data. Tracking results presented in the Spokane CO Plan demonstrate 
that actual VMT is consistently less than forecasted.
    SRTC has committed to prepare annual VMT estimates and forecasts 
and to submit these reports (``VMT tracking reports'') to Ecology for 
submittal to EPA until Spokane is redesignated to attainment. Under 
section 187(a)(3) of the Act, annual VMT tracking reports provide a 
potential basis for triggering implementation of contingency measures 
in the event that estimates of actual VMT exceed the forecasts 
contained in the prior annual VMT tracking report.

G. Does the Spokane CO Plan Include Contingency Measures as Required by 
Section 187(a)(3) of the Act?

    Section 187(a)(3) of the Act requires serious CO nonattainment 
areas, such as Spokane, to submit a plan that provides for contingency 
measures. The Act specifies that such measures are to be implemented if 
any estimate of actual VMT submitted in an annual VMT tracking report 
exceeds the VMT predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the 
area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. As a general 
rule, contingency measures must be structured to take effect without 
further action by the State or EPA upon the occurrence of certain 
triggering events.
    The Spokane CO Plan includes contingency measures that meet the 
requirements of section 187(a)(3) of the Act. If Spokane exceeds the 
ambient CO standard, two contingency measures have been established to 
provide additional emission reduction. The two

[[Page 11183]]

contingency measures are channelization on Browne Street, and signage 
improvements on Division Street. Both measures have been modeled to 
show a reduction in CO concentrations by improving traffic flow.
    In addition, in the event that Spokane's actual VMT exceeds the 
forecasted VMT, a contingency measure has been established to provide 
emission reductions. The measure is a voluntary no-drive day program 
called Air Watch. The measure focuses on notifying the public of poor 
air quality days and encourages alternatives to single occupancy 
vehicles. Public education along with daily CO forecasts for the 
following day and drive times and funds for free bus rides are used to 
encourage motorists to reduce their use of motor vehicles on bad air 
quality days. Air Watch reduces actual VMT and resulting emissions on 
the worst air quality days. This contingency measure is structured to 
take effect without any further action by the State or EPA. In fact, 
Spokane is currently implementing this measure on bad air quality days.
    States may implement contingency measures early to obtain 
additional emission reductions without being required to adopt 
replacement contingency measures to put in place should one of the 
triggering events for implementation of contingency measures occur. 
This policy is described in a memorandum from Tom Helms, Chief of the 
OAQPS Ozone Policy and Strategies Group entitled ``Early Implementation 
of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment 
Areas,'' August 13, 1993.

H. Is the Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Approvable as Required by 
Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act and Outlined in Conformity Rule 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4)?

    EPA found the Spokane 2001 motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) 
adequate for conformity purposes in 67 FR 69740, November 19, 2002. 
Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires regional transportation plans 
to be consistent with the MVEB contained in the applicable air quality 
plan for the area. The MVEB for 2001 is as follows:

               Spokane 2001 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          CO emissions
                   Source category                       (pounds/winter
                                                            weekday)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Sources--Total Rural.........................                633
On-Road Sources--Total Urban.........................            268,238
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget.......................            268,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TSD summarizes how the 2001 MVEB meets the criteria contained 
in the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). EPA is proposing approval 
of the 2001 MVEB.

I. Does Spokane Have an I/M Program in Place That Meets the 
Requirements in Sections 182(a)(2)(B) and 187(a)(6) of the Act?

    Yes. EPA previously approved the Washington I/M program (61 FR 
50235, September 25, 1996). Ecology submitted a SIP revision on 
September, 26, 2001, to two sections of 173-422 WAC, Motor Vehicle 
Emission Inspection, to provide an inspection schedule for motor 
vehicles between five and 25 years old. Vehicles less than five years 
old and more than twenty-five years are exempt beginning January 1, 
2000. See section IV below.

J. Are There Controls on Stationary Sources of CO as Required by 
Section 172(c)(5) of the Act?

    Yes. Section 172(c)(5) of the Act requires states with 
nonattainment areas to include in their SIPs a permit program for the 
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources 
in nonattainment areas. In a separate, prior action, we approved the 
new source review permit program for Washington. (See 60 FR 28726, June 
2, 1995.)

K. Has Spokane Implemented an Oxygenated Fuel Program as Described in 
Section 187(b)(3) of the Act?

    Yes. In a separate, prior action, we approved the oxygenated 
gasoline program for Spokane (59 FR 2994, January 20, 1994). However, 
in the 1995 attainment year, the 8-hour CO standard was exceeded four 
times at the monitor located at the intersection of Third & Washington. 
An April 24, 1996, letter from EPA Region 10 informed Ecology that 
Spokane had not met the CO standard. As a result of EPA's letter, 
SCAPCA implemented the contingency measure specified in the moderate 
attainment plan. The measure requires the maximum allowable oxygenate 
in wintertime gasoline beginning with the 1996-1997 CO season. This 
requirement raised the amount of ethanol, the oxygenate normally used 
in Spokane, to 3.5 percent by weight.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Washington Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 
Program Revision

A. What Is Being Revised in the Washington I/M Program?

    On September 26, 2001, Washington Department of Ecology submitted a 
revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of 
Washington. The revision is to two sections of 173-422 WAC, Motor 
Vehicle Emission Inspection, to provide an inspection schedule for 
motor vehicles between five and 25 years old. Vehicles less than five 
years old and more than twenty-five years old are exempt. The testing 
schedule and exemption provisions are changed accordingly. This rule 
revision addresses when different model-year vehicles are required to 
have an emission inspection.

B. Have All the Procedural Requirements for Approval of This Revision 
Been Met?

    The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing revisions for submission to EPA. Public noticing for a 
public meeting held on August 28, 2001, occurred through advertisements 
in the Spokesman Review and the Washington State Register. The SIP 
submittal notes that during the public meeting no public testimony was 
offered. Following the required public participation, the State adopted 
the I/M revision on September 26, 2001. The State submittal has met the 
public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 
CFR 51.102.

C. How Does This Revision to the Washington I/M Program Affect the 
Attainment Demonstration for the Spokane CO Serious Nonattainment Area?

    Ecology and SRTC evaluated the impact of the modified new car 
exemption on the attainment demonstration. The result was an

[[Page 11184]]

estimated CO concentration of 8.93 ppm at the intersection with the 
highest modeled concentration (Third & Washington). Since the estimated 
CO concentration remained below the CO standard, the dispersion 
modeling continues to demonstrate attainment. We are proposing approval 
of the revision in this Federal Register.

V. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Administrative Orders

    In order to analyze Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Mead 
Works' contribution to the elevated CO level described in Section III 
D, Ecology used screening and refined modeling techniques for point 
source analysis (40 CFR 51 Appendix W, 6.2.d.). Results of this 
analysis indicated a maximum total 8-hour modeled concentration of 8.6 
ppm on the hilltop to the southeast of the Kaiser smelter (CO standard 
is 9 ppm). Therefore, Kaiser, through enforceable Administrative Order 
No. DE 01AQIS-3285 dated October 24, 2001, was only required to verify 
that CO exceedances were not occurring on the hilltop. In December 
2000, Kaiser fully curtailed its primary aluminum production operations 
at Mead Works. Due to the full curtailment of the facility, Ecology 
approved a nearby existing ambient air monitoring location as being 
satisfactory for gathering background ambient CO concentration levels. 
On April 9, 2003, Ecology approved Administrative Order No. DE 01AQIS-
3285, Amendment 1 allowing Kaiser the option to terminate the 
collection of data during curtailment once 2 years of background data 
was collected. The Order requires Kaiser Mead Works to resume 
monitoring and reporting of ambient CO concentrations at a site 
approved by Ecology if and when primary aluminum production is resumed 
at the site. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of Kaiser Mead 
Works Administrative Order No. DE 01AQIS-3285 and Administrative Order 
No. DE 01AQIS-3285, Amendment 1.

VI. Summary of EPA's Proposal

    We are proposing to approve the following elements of the Spokane 
CO Attainment Plan, submitted on September 20, 2001 and November 22, 
2004:
    A. Procedural requirements, under section 110(a)(2) of the Act;
    B. Base year emission inventory, under sections 172(c)(3) and 
187(a)(1) and periodic inventories under 187(a)(5) of the Act;
    C. Attainment demonstration, under section 187(a)(7) of the Act;
    D. The TCM program under 187(b)(2), 182(d)(1) and 108(f)(1)(A) of 
the Act;
    E. VMT forecasts under section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act;
    F. Contingency measures under section 187(a)(3) of the Act;
    G. The conformity budget under section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act and 
Sec.  93.118 of the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A).
    H. Administrative Order No. DE 01AQIS-3285 and Order No. DE 01AQIS-
3285, Amendment 1 relating to Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 
Corporation, Mead Works.
    We are also proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted on 
September 26, 2001, to two sections of 173-422 WAC Motor Vehicle 
Emission Inspection, to provide an inspection schedule for motor 
vehicles between 5 and 25 years old.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: March 1, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-4470 Filed 3-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P