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

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