Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan for Air Quality Planning Purposes for the State of Washington: Carbon Monoxide

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA52-7125; FRL-5631-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan for Air Quality

Planning Purposes for the State of Washington: Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the

Central Puget Sound (also referred to as the Seattle-Tacoma area)

nonattainment area to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) air

quality standard and approving a maintenance plan that will insure that

the area remains in attainment. Under the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA), designations can be revised if sufficient data is available

to warrant such revisions. In this action, EPA is approving The

Washington Department of Ecology's request because it meets the

redesignation requirements set forth in the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rulemaking is effective as of October 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's redesignation request and other

information supporting this action are available during normal business

hours at the following locations: EPA, Alaska-Washington Unit (OAQ-

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, and the Washington

State Department of Ecology, Air Quality Program, P.O. Box 47600,

Olympia, Washington 98504-7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, EPA Region 10 Washington

Operation's Office, at (360) 753-9079.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In a March 15, 1991, letter to the EPA Region 10 Administrator, the

Governor of Washington recommended the Central Puget Sound area,

including the western portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties,

be designated as nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) as required by

section 107(d)(1)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) (Public

Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). The

area which includes lands within the Puyallup Reservation, Tulalip

Reservation and Muckleshoot Reservation, was designated nonattainment

and classified as ``moderate'' under the provisions outlined in

sections 186 and 187 of the CAA. (See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991),

codified at 40 CFR part 81, Sec. 81.348.)

The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) requested that

the Central Puget Sound area be redesignated to attainment in a letter

dated February 19, 1996, and received by EPA on March 6, 1996. On June

11, 1996, EPA proposed to approve the WDOE's requested redesignation.

The WDOE has met all of the CAA requirements for redesignation pursuant

to section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA has approved all State Implementation Plan

(SIP) requirements for the Central Puget Sound area that were due under

the 1990 CAA. In addition, on June 11, 1996, EPA proposed redesignation

to attainment those areas in the Central Puget Sound CO nonattainment

area that are located within the Tulalip Reservation, the Puyallup

Reservation and the Muckleshoot Reservation.

The WDOE provided monitoring, modeling and emissions data to

support its redesignation request. The 1993 CO attainment emissions

inventory totals in tons per day are 316, 214, 1497, 61, respectively,

for the area, non-road, mobile and point sources. The emission budget

established through the year 2010 is 1,497 tons per day. The State

relied on the existence of an approved Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

program as part of the maintenance demonstration. The WDOE will

discontinue implementation of the oxygenated fuel program in the

Central Puget Sound Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)

once approval of the CO maintenance plan becomes effective.

The WDOE will retain the oxygenated fuels program as a contingency

measure as required under section 175A(d) of the CAA. The program will

be re-implemented the next full winter season following the date of a

quality assured violation of the CO National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS).

II. Public Comment/EPA Response

The following comments were received during the public comment

period ending July 11, 1996. EPA's response follows each comment.

(1) Comment: The removal of the oxygenated fuels program should not

be considered. It is imperative that the most sensitive segment of the

population be protected, and to do that the carbon monoxide (CO) levels

must be kept significantly below the standard.

Response: Under Title I of the CAA, Congress established a system

of state and federal cooperation. EPA is required to establish the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--i.e., the

[[Page 53324]]

level at which air quality is determined to be protective of human

health. However, the States take the primary lead in determining the

measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. These measures are

incorporated into the state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA requires

EPA to approve a SIP submission that meets the requirements of the CAA.

If the State fulfills its obligations in developing a SIP that meets

the requirements of the CAA, EPA has no authority to supplement or

revise that plan with a federal implementation plan.

Once a State has attained the NAAQS for a particular pollutant,

such as CO, and the State can demonstrate that it has met the other

requirements specified in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the

requirement for a maintenance plan, the state can request redesignation

to attainment for the area. The maintenance plan, which is submitted as

a revision to the State's SIP, must demonstrate maintenance of the

NAAQS for ten years following redesignation. The maintenance plan need

not be based on continued implementation of all the measures in the SIP

prior to redesignation, but must provide that if a violation of the

standard occurs, ``the State will implement all measures * * * which

were contained in the [SIP] for the area before redesignation as an

attainment area.'' CAA Sec. 175(d).

The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) submitted air

quality modeling and monitoring data as a part of their redesignation

request. These data show that the Central Puget Sound area is currently

in attainment of the NAAQS for CO and is expected to remain in

attainment for at least the next 10 years despite elimination of the

oxygenated fuels program. Moreover, the maintenance plan includes the

oxygenated fuels program as a contingency measure to be implemented in

the event of a violation of the CO standard. Because the State has

submitted a maintenance plan that complies with the CAA, EPA must

approve the maintenance plan under section 110(k)(3). Furthermore,

since the State has met the redesignation requirement to demonstrate

that the air quality meets the NAAQS, EPA believes the air quality is

sufficient to protect the public health and EPA cannot reject the

redesignation request on this basis.

(2) Comment: The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency's

(PSAPCA) board was informed by their legal counsel that they did not

have the authority to continue oxygenated fuels solely on the basis of

toxic reductions. This legal advice was improper and misleading and

consequently affected their decision to remove the oxygenated fuels

program.

Response: EPA is obligated to act on the maintenance plan and

redesignation request submitted by the State. As described in the

previous response, the State takes the lead in developing a plan to

attain and maintain the NAAQS. If the maintenance plan meets the

requirements of the Act, EPA must approve the plan under section

110(k)(3) of the Act. Since the State has submitted a maintenance plan

that meets the requirements of section 175, EPA must approve that plan.

Furthermore, the State has demonstrated that the Central Puget Sound

area has met the redesignation criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E) and,

therefore, should be redesignated to attainment for CO. Since the State

submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation request that comply with

the Act, and there is no issue whether the State has the authority to

implement the measures included in the submission, EPA has no authority

to examine the State's reasoning for selection of the measures in the

maintenance plan.

(3) Comment: The oxygenate industry was not notified of the

redesignation process nor were they included on the advisory committee

where the recommendation to remove oxygenated fuel was made.

Response: EPA's requirement regarding the public hearing process

that states must follow is stated in CFR Part 51, Appendix V and the

CAA 110(a)(2). In summary, EPA requires that each implementation plan

submitted by the State be adopted by the state after reasonable notice

and public hearing of the proposed change(s). EPA is satisfied that the

public participation process employed by PSAPCA meets this requirement.

Any additional public procedures provided are at the State's

discretion.

(4) Comment: The Proposed Federal Register notes that the region

has maintained the CO standard since 1990/91 prior to implementation of

oxygenated fuels and therefore oxygenated fuels are unnecessary to show

maintenance. The data does not support this assertion. The Bellevue

monitoring site recorded two readings over 9.0 (12/24/94 and 1/5/95);

if the oxygenated fuels program would not have been in place these

readings would be over 11ppm using the PSAPCA methodology of accounting

for 25% decrease in the design value attributed to oxygenated fuels.

Response: The comment suggests that additional analysis beyond

assessment of the monitored values is necessary for a state to show

that the area is attaining the standard. This assumption is not

accurate. The proposed Federal Register correctly states that the

Central Puget Sound area has ambient monitoring data showing attainment

of the CO NAAQS, since 1991. For CO, an area may be considered

attaining the NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.8, based on two complete, consecutive

calendar years of quality assured monitoring data.

(5) Comment: PSAPCA's analysis of non-monitored sites assumed that

the monitored sites were the worst case sites in the region. However,

the recent worst case monitor, the Bellevue site, is not included in

the analysis.

Response: The attainment probability analysis for non-monitored

sites was performed using four intersections which were chosen based on

their congestion and traffic volumes. In addition, PSAPCA's analysis of

non-monitored sites included an analysis of two worst-case monitoring

sites which were considered to be representative of future trends in

the region, based on both historical CO concentrations recorded at the

sites and their urban setting. The recently established Bellevue

monitoring site was not included in the probability analysis for non-

monitored sites since there was a limited data record available (one CO

season worth of data) at the time the analysis was performed.

(6) Comment: A recent bag sampling study by Ecology suggests that

there are at least three new sites that deserve monitoring and have

higher concentrations than the current monitored sites.

Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to: the

November 1, 1994 ``Southeast Puget Sound Carbon Monoxide Study''

(southeast saturation study), and the September 6, 1995 ``East Puget

Sound Carbon Monoxide Study'' (east saturation study) reports, both

prepared by Ashley and Williamson. In the conclusions to both reports

the authors recommended additional monitoring sites be considered as

candidates for prospective permanent network sites. As the commenter

correctly noted, no permanent sites have yet been established at these

locations.

Saturation studies are a tool for identifying potential candidate

locations for future permanent monitoring sites. The portable samplers

used to measure CO concentrations during a saturation study are not

reference monitors, however, and cannot be used to

[[Page 53325]]

determine whether the NAAQS has been exceeded. Such data can only be

used to estimate true concentrations and give indications of potential

NAAQS exceedances.

When determining redesignation status for a particular pollutant,

EPA is required to assess whether the integrity of the air quality

monitoring network has been properly established and preserved, and

will provide data that is representative of CO concentrations in the

nonattainment area. Although EPA acknowledges the reports findings that

data gaps apparently exist for maximum CO monitoring information in

particular areas sampled during the saturation studies, we believe that

the current Central Puget Sound area monitoring network is

representative of the areawide CO levels and the integrity of the CO

monitoring system, for the purposes of determining attainment and

maintenance of the CO standard, has been sustained.

Our reasons are three fold: (1) although the saturation studies

noted above concluded that particular un-monitored locations showed

high CO concentrations, the portable samplers used did not indicate

that the levels in these locales were likely to be higher than the

NAAQS; (2) saturation studies are regularly done in the State of

Washington to suggest new locations for permanent monitoring. EPA

endorses the rationale behind these studies. It is not EPA's position,

however, that saturation study results by themselves should be used to

delay or disapprove a redesignation and maintenance plan unless the

studies indicate significant gaps in the permanent network; (3)

although EPA agrees that the WDOE should move forward with its

recommendation for installing permanent monitors at the identified

locales, the lack of permanent monitoring at these sites does not

constitute significant data gaps that would delay the redesignation to

attainment of the Central Puget Sound area. A significant gap would, in

our view, be indicated by a situation where relatively large

unmonitored areas with CO levels anticipated to be at or above the

NAAQS appear to be present within the boundaries of the nonattainment

area.

EPA will continue to work with the state to ensure that the CO

monitoring network is modified, as appropriate, to accommodate

pollutant concentration changes resulting from new traffic patterns,

and shifting population density, etc. If future changes are made to the

state's monitoring network which result in monitored violations of the

CO NAAQS, a contingency measure (reimplementation of the oxygenated

fuel program) will be implemented the following winter season as

provided for in the WDOE maintenance plan.

(7) Comment: The PSAPCA roll forward analysis does not take into

effect future peak spreading and traffic congestion, making the

probability of attainment precarious, especially in the non-monitored

sites.

Response: The maintenance plan uses four methods to demonstrate

continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS. These are maintenance of the

attainment emissions level, roll-forward emissions modeling, multi-year

rollback analysis, and intersection modeling. Under EPA policy on

redesignation requests and maintenance plans, maintenance of attainment

level emissions and a roll-forward emissions modeling are sufficient

demonstrations for approvability. Taken together, the four different

demonstrations reinforce the conclusion of continued maintenance of the

NAAQS.

The comment implies that future peak spreading and traffic

congestion effects are required elements of a roll-forward analysis.

The roll-forward analysis assumes that CO concentrations are directly

related to regional on-road vehicle emissions. While this assumption

ignores the influence of factors such as peak spreading and congestion

that can influence the observed CO value at a specific monitoring site,

the method of partitioning the ambient CO level between regional mobile

source emissions and background probably has a larger influence on the

results than the failure to deal with site-specific factors. It should

be noted that the roll-forward modeling projects CO values that are

well below the standard. EPA believes that the roll-forward analysis

included in the maintenance plan is adequate in the absence of these

elements.

(8) Comment: There are at least 5 major projects (including the

Sea-Tac Airport project) whose intersections do not meet CO standards

without oxygenated fuels. Some of these have already proceeded on the

assumption that oxygenated fuels would be in place. According to EPA

approved modeling, these intersections with major projects will be out

of attainment if the oxygenated fuel program were removed.

Response: EPA does not agree with the comment that projected NAAQS

exceedances that are part of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

within the nonattainment area provide a basis for requiring use of

oxygenated fuels in the Maintenance Plan. EPA expects that before the

activities evaluated in those EISs are approved, the activities will be

modified to conform to the State Implementation Plan, consistent with

the Clean Air Act.

Under section 176 of the CAA, federal agencies and metropolitan

planning organizations may not approve or otherwise support an activity

which does not conform to an approved implementation plan. The

requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,

programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23

U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), as

well as all other Federal actions (``general conformity''). Congress

provided for the States to establish conformity requirements one year

after the date of promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations. EPA

promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on November 24,

1993 (58 FR 62188) and final general conformity regulations on November

30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that the States

adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in the SIP

for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan

approved under section 175A of the CAA.

Section 176(c) of the CAA establishes the requirements that federal

agencies and metropolitan planning organizations must follow to

evaluate the potential impact of planned activities on NAAQS. Before

they may approve a planned activity, the agencies must ensure that such

activity will not cause or contribute to any new violation of any

standards in the area, increase the frequency or severity of an

existing violation of a standard in the area, or delay timely

attainment of a standard or other required emission reductions. If the

planned action does not initially conform with the applicable SIP, then

a plan for mitigation measures or for finding emission offsets

necessary for a conformity determination should be identified. EPA

general conformity regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 51.860 require that the

agency obtain written commitments to mitigation measures prior to a

positive conformity determination, and that such commitments must be

fulfilled. EPA transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR

Sec. 51.458 also require written commitments for project-level

mitigation or control measures prior to a positive conformity

determination.

The requirement to comply with the conformity provisions of the Act

continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment. While

redesignation of an area to attainment enables the area to avoid

further compliance with most requirements of

[[Page 53326]]

section 110 and part D, since those requirements are linked to the

nonattainment status of an area, the conformity requirements apply to

both nonattainment and maintenance areas. Although the state conformity

requirements have not been approved by EPA, EPA's federal conformity

rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of

state-adopted rules. Therefore, a delay in adopting state rules does

not relieve an area from the obligation to implement conformity

requirements.

The commenter is correct that completed conformity determinations

need not be revisited if changes subsequently occur in baseline

conditions. This same comment was made as part of PSAPCA's public

participation procedures before the Maintenance Plan was adopted. The

PSAPCA Staff Response Summary noted that the Puget Sound Regional

Council's analysis indicates conformity at the regional level through

the year 2010, even without oxygenated fuels, based upon the regional

motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Maintenance Plan. New baseline

conditions without oxygenated fuels must be considered in any new

determinations of conformity at the project level and for determining

conformity of the Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation

Improvement Plan. The PSAPCA Staff Response Summary also noted that the

modeling approaches used in conformity evaluations to compare relative

air quality impacts of various alternatives are not reliable for

predicting actual concentrations of CO likely to result from a specific

project alternative. As a result, there is no direct relationship

between modeled exceedances and the actual measured concentrations of

CO likely to result from a specific project alternative. In order to

better understand the potential for modeling to overpredict emissions,

PSAPCA is conducting a study of modeling with the objectives to (1)

document the potential for overprediction, and (2) develop a

correlation between predicted emissions and measured air quality.

(9) Comment: Discontinuing the oxygenated fuels program is ill-

advised in light of the growth in population and the subsequent

increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion in the Puget

Sound area.

Response: The growth in VMT and population does continue to

increase over the maintenance period in the Central Puget Sound area.

However, these parameters were included in the demonstration of

maintenance and projection of the emission inventory. Despite the

projected growth in population and VMT, the State was able to

demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS through the year 2010 without

an implemented oxygenated fuels program.

(10) Comment: Since the inspection and maintenance program may not

be as effective at reducing emissions as some are suggesting, now is

not the time to dismantle a program (oxygenated fuels) that has proven

effective in providing important air quality and health benefits.

Response: The oxygenated fuels program, which was originally

mandated in 1990 by the Clean Air Act has promoted CO reductions

supportive of attainment. However, at the present time the state has

determined that it is not necessary to keep this control in place

except as a contingency measure. EPA has approved the Washington State

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program and believes the state has

taken the appropriate emission reduction credit for this program. The

State has demonstrated that the I/M program coupled with the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) is an effective control measure

that ensures future maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

(11) Comment: A public hearing was requested to discuss leaving the

Sea-Tac Airport area classified as nonattainment for CO until

additional monitoring information could be acquired.

Response: EPA acts on SIP submissions and redesignation requests in

accordance with the procedures set forth in the Administrative

Procedure Act. 42 U.S.C. 553(c). Section 553(c) provides that an agency

``shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments

with or without opportunity for oral presentation.'' EPA believes

several opportunities for the public to participate by oral

presentation were provided during the state and local process. PSAPCA

held public workshops to discuss the redesignation proposal and both

the Department of Ecology and PSAPCA held public hearings prior to the

maintenance plan and redesignation request being submitted to EPA for

approval. In light of the several opportunities that existed for the

oral presentation of information, EPA will not exercise its discretion

to provide for a hearing.

The Region received two public comments which were in support of

the redesignation and, therefore, will not be addressed here.

Since none of the comments provided information that contradicts

EPA's finding that the area has met the criteria for redesignation to

attainment, delay in redesignation of the Central Puget Sound area to

attainment is unwarranted and would deny redesignation to an area that

meets Clean Air Act requirements. Therefore, EPA is redesignating the

Central Puget Sound area to attainment of the CO NAAQS.

III. Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the WDOE's request to redesignate the Central

Puget Sound area to attainment of the CO standard because the State's

submittal meets the requirements of the Federal law for redesignation

to attainment. These requirements are in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

CAA. This approval will put into place a revision to the SIP for the

Central Puget Sound area that will assure that the CO standard

continues to be maintained through the year 2010. Because EPA is

approving the maintenance plan and because the area meets CAA

requirements for redesignation to attainment, the Central Puget Sound

area will be designated as attaining the CO NAAQS.

In addition, EPA, after notification of and consultation with the

affected tribal governments, is approving redesignation to attainment

those areas in the Central Puget Sound CO nonattainment area that are

located within the Tulalip Reservation, the Puyallup Reservation and

the Muckleshoot Reservation. The Agency believes that the redesignation

requirements are effectively satisfied, based on information provided

by WDOE and requirements contained in the WDOE SIP and maintenance

plan.

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 11, 1996 to provide

as much

[[Page 53327]]

time as possible for State and local air authorities to notify fuel

distributors that distribution plans can be modified in response to

these changes. In addition, this approval imposes no new requirements

on sources since the measures in the maintenance plan were previously

approved as part of the SIP and the maintenance plan contains no new

requirement for the area.

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.

IV. 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 Clean Air Act 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).

Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)

of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical

area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The

Regional Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation

request 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 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. 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.

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control.

Dated: September 30, 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.

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) (67) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(67) On February 29, 1996 the Director of WDOE submitted to the

Regional Administrator of EPA a revision to the Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plan for the Central Puget Sound area containing a

maintenance plan that demonstrated continued attainment of the NAAQS

for carbon monoxide through the year 2010 and also containing an

oxygenated fuels program as a contingency measure to be implemented if

the area violates the CO NAAQS.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) The February 29, 1996 letter from WDOE to EPA requesting the

redesignation of the Puget Sound carbon monoxide nonattainment area to

attainment and submitting the

[[Page 53328]]

maintenance plan; the Central Puget Sound Region Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan for the National Ambient Carbon Monoxide Standard

dated January 1996.

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) Letter dated May 2, 1996, to EPA from the Puget Sound Air

Pollution Control Agency, subject ``Carbon Monoxide SIP Applicability

on Indian Lands;'' and Appendices to the Puget Sound Region

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the National Ambient

Carbon Monoxide Standard dated January 1996: Appendix A, Technical

Analysis Protocol; Appendix B, Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Data

Monitoring Network; Appendix C, Ambient Carbon Monoxide Monitoring

Data; Appendix D, Historical and Projected Puget Sound Region VMT and

Employment; Appendix E, Emission Inventory Projection; Appendix F,

Analysis of the Probability of Continued CO Attainment in Puget Sound;

and Appendix G, Transportation Conformity Process.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. In Sec. 81.348, the table for ``Washington-Carbon Monoxide,'' is

amended by revising the entry for Seattle-Tacoma Area to read as

follows:

Sec. 81.348 Washington.

* * * * *

Washington-Carbon Monoxide

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

Designation Classification

Designated Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type

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

* * * * * * *

Seattle-Tacoma Area:

Seattle-Tacoma Urban Area

(as defined by the

Washington Department of

Transportation urban area

maps).

King County (part)......... ................... Attainment

Pierce County (part)....... ................... Attainment

Snohomish County (part).... ................... Attainment

* * * * * * *

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

\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 96-25979 Filed 10-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P