Clean Air Act Reclassification; Fairbanks, Alaska Nonattainment Area; Carbon Monoxide

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AK 17-1705; FRL-5971-4]

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Fairbanks, Alaska Nonattainment

Area; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document EPA is making a final finding that the

Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area has not attained the CO national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 1995, the Clean Air Act (CAA)

mandated attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas. This finding

is based on EPA's review of monitored air quality data for compliance

with the CO NAAQS. As a result of this finding, the Fairbanks North

Star Borough CO nonattainment area is reclassified as a serious CO

nonattainment area by operation of law. As a result of the

reclassification, the State is to submit within 18 months from the

effective date of this action a new State Implementation Plan (SIP)

demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practical

but no later than December 31, 2000, the CAA attainment date for

serious areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective March 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Montel Livingston, Office of Air

Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington, (206) 553-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Concerning Designation and

Classifications

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) were enacted on November

15, 1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each CO area

designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments,

such as the Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, was

designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each CO area designated

nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of

law as either ``moderate'' or ``serious'' depending on the severity of

the area's air quality problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1

and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such as the Fairbanks nonattainment

area, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment designations and

classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991).

States containing areas that were classified as moderate

nonattainment by operation of law under section 107(d) were required to

submit SIPs designed to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 1995.1

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

\1\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section

187(a) of the CAA and differ depending on whether the area's design

value is below or above 12.7 ppm. The Fairbanks area has a design

value below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR 81.302.

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

B. Effect of Reclassification

CO nonattainment areas reclassified as serious are required to

submit, within 18 months of the area's reclassification, SIP revisions

providing for attainment of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 2000. In addition, the State

must submit a SIP revision that includes: (1) a forecast of vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year and

provisions for annual updates of these forecasts; (2) adopted

contingency measures; and (3) adopted transportation control measures

and strategies to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT

or number of vehicle trips. See CAA sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),

187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Finally, upon the effective date

of this reclassification, contingency measures in the moderate area

plan for the Fairbanks nonattainment area must be implemented.

C. Attainment Determinations for CO Nonattainment Areas

EPA makes attainment determinations for CO nonattainment areas

based upon whether an area has two years (or eight consecutive

quarters) of clean air quality data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of

the CAA states that the attainment determination must be based upon an

area's ``air quality as of the attainment date.''

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

\2\ See generally memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, Director, Air

Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air

Office Directors, entitled ``Criteria for Granting Attainment Date

Extensions, Making Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of

Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment Areas,''

October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).

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

EPA determines a CO nonattainment area's air quality status in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.8 and EPA policy.3 EPA has

promulgated two NAAQS for CO: an 8-hour average concentration and a 1-

hour average concentration. Because there were no violations of the 1-

hour standard in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, this document

addresses only the air quality status of the Fairbanks nonattainment

area with respect to the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour CO NAAQS requires

that not more than one non-overlapping 8-hour average in any

consecutive two-year period per monitoring site can exceed 9.0 ppm

(values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and they are not considered

exceedances). The second exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS at a given

monitoring site within the same two-year period constitutes a violation

of the CO NAAQS.

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

\3\ See memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director, Technical

Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations'', June 18, 1990. See also Shaver memorandum.

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

D. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain

On August 8, 1997 EPA proposed to find that the Fairbanks North

Star Borough CO nonattainment area had failed to attain the CO NAAQS by

the applicable attainment date. 62 FR 42717. Fairbanks did not have two

[[Page 9946]]

consecutive clean years of CO data. This proposed finding was based on

air quality data showing violations of the CO NAAQS at three monitoring

sites during 1995, with the number of readings exceeding the 8 hour

standard totaling 19. For the specific data considered by EPA in making

this proposed finding, see 62 FR 42719.

E. Reclassification to a Serious Nonattainment Area

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and

186(b)(2) of the CAA, for determining whether the Fairbanks North Star

Borough CO nonattainment area attained the CO NAAQS by December 31,

1995. Under section 186(b)(2)(A), if EPA finds that the area has not

attained the CO NAAQS, the area is reclassified as serious by operation

of law. There were 26 CO exceedances recorded in the years 1994-1995.

Additional control strategies are needed to further reduce CO

concentrations in order to attain the CO standard. Pursuant to section

186(b)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA is publishing this notice to identify the

Fairbanks area as failing to attain the standard and therefore

reclassified as serious by operation of law.

II. Response to Comments on Proposed Finding

During the public comment period on EPA's proposed finding, EPA

received several comments. Below is EPA's response to all substantive

comments received.

Air Quality Monitoring Data

A commenter represented an association which had undertaken a

detailed review of the air quality monitoring data from a variety of

areas around the country using the Aerometric Information Retrieval

System data base. Specifically, the report alleged that the Fairbanks

North Star Borough Air Quality Division does not monitor the ambient

air temperature within their CO monitor instrument enclosures to ensure

that the station temperature remained within the 20-30 degree C range

specified by the EPA reference method designation for the TECO 48 CO

analyzers used at the sites where exceedances were recorded. Thus, the

report concluded, these exceedances were measured by equipment that was

being operated under untested specifications for which the analyzer has

not been certified and are therefore open to question.

Response: EPA Region 10 prepared a report dated August 27, 1997

(located in our docket), regarding the quality of CO monitoring data

collected in Fairbanks for the time period 1994 through 1996. The study

focused on time periods when CO exceedances occurred (27 times at three

sites in Fairbanks during the time period 1994 through 1996). The

evaluation relied upon EPA monitoring guidelines in 40 CFR Part 58, the

Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems--

Volume II: Ambient Air Specific Methods (Red book), and manufacturer

recommended operations guidelines for CO analyzers. CO monitoring data,

precision, and accuracy data used in EPA's analysis were extracted from

the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System. Zero, span checks,

audit results, site logs, and strip charts were obtained from ADEC and

the local air pollution control agencies in Fairbanks. Specifications

for the operation of individual CO analyzers were obtained from the

instrument manufacturers and from the EPA list of air monitoring

reference and equivalent methods.

The analysis revealed that ADEC and the Fairbanks North Star

Borough have closely followed EPA regulations and guidelines in the

collection and quality assurance of CO monitoring data. While the

building environment where the monitors were located was not monitored

24 hours a day for every day of the year to show the area was always

controlled to 20 deg. -30 deg. C, the analysis showed that:

(a) all monitors were operated indoors.

(b) all buildings containing monitors controlled their indoor

temperatures to values within the specified 20 deg.-30 deg. during the

workday.

(c) ADEC's quality assurance program verified that monitors were

operating properly during periods of standard exceedances. The strip

chart data used to identify any suspect behavior of the analyzers was

investigated. No ``drift'' or ``cycling'' of readings were found on the

strip charts. The strip charts showed that the instruments were

operating properly at all times during periods of standard exceedances.

(d) ADEC configured their CO monitors to show that both precision

and accuracy checks exceeded required frequencies for all sites in

Fairbanks for the entire time period of 1994-1996.

(e) At least eight exceedances were recorded in Fairbanks during 8

hour periods when the buildings in which the monitors were located were

being heated to employee ``comfort'' temperatures (usually at the low

end of the 20 deg.-30 deg. range).

(f) No exceedances of the 8 hour NAAQS occurred on weekends during

this time period.

For these reasons, EPA has concluded that it is very unlikely that

enclosure temperature has caused CO levels in Fairbanks to be ``over

measured'' to the extent that a violation of the 8 hour NAAQS could not

be confidently demonstrated. EPA's view is that ADEC's data is of high

quality and clearly shows repeated exceedances of the CO NAAQS. EPA has

no reason to question any of the CO exceedances measured during the

1994 through 1996 time period. Questions have arisen that monitor

readings could have been influenced by temperature fluctuations in the

buildings where the instruments were operated. Although no daily

temperatures were measured in the rooms where monitors were housed,

information from the building managers shows that temperatures were

maintained at a comfort level for workers in all of the buildings where

monitors were housed. The indoor temperatures were well within the

range of temperatures that the instrument manufacturers recommend for

operation of CO monitors. Also, outside temperatures in Fairbanks were

considerably above normal during times of standard exceedances which

would minimize a lowering of temperatures indoors even if thermostats

were lowered. In addition, no CO exceedances occurred on weekends when

thermostats in some buildings could be lowered slightly. For these

reasons it is unlikely that CO exceedances were influenced by

fluctuations in building temperatures.

Unique Weather Conditions

Several commenters felt that Fairbanks should be given an allowance

or exemption from the serious status because of the severity and

consistency of its cold weather, as well as the intensity and

regularity of its temperature inversions.

Response: EPA prepared a report, dated August 27, 1997, and which

is part of the docket, showing CO violations and outside temperature

data by monitor location for all the dates exceedances were recorded

during 1995. Fairbanks outside temperatures in 1995 were considerably

above normal during times of CO air quality standard exceedances (i.e.,

highs recorded at +44, +34, +32, +30, +29, etc.). Thus, CO exceedances

occur in Fairbanks at varying degrees of winter temperatures, not just

very low winter temperatures.

Stagnation and inversions are frequent climatological occurrences

that must be considered in evaluating whether a control program is

adequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Meteorological events such

as these are

[[Page 9947]]

almost never accepted as justification for waiving the NAAQS.

Inversions occur very frequently, are usually short-lived, and disperse

shortly after sunrise. Because inversions are expected to occur

frequently and are part of normal weather patterns, they are not

considered special events warranting exemptions from reclassification.

In some parts of the United States, stagnation episodes usually

persist for an extended period of time, and they can affect an entire

air basin. While stagnations may not occur frequently, they are not

uncommon; therefore, they are not considered sufficiently exceptional

to waive application of the NAAQS.

Number of Violations Declining--Why Reclassify?

Commenters asked why Fairbanks is being reclassified when air

quality has improved over the last 10-15 years; is reclassification

necessary?

Response: Reclassification does not mean that the air quality in

Fairbanks has deteriorated. Congress established the attainment dates

of reclassification requirements to allow additional planning time to

meet the CO NAAQS. The attainment date under the CAA of 1990 for a

serious CO nonattainment area is December 31, 2000, and authorizes more

time for Fairbanks North Star Borough, together with ADEC, to devise an

air pollution control plan to meet the CO air quality standard. EPA

recognizes the progress Fairbanks has achieved thus far toward

improving air quality and decreasing the ambient levels of CO. However,

Congress mandated reclassification under section 186(b) of the CAA in

specific circumstances, and the Administrator does not have flexibility

to decide otherwise once EPA determines the area has failed to meet the

CO NAAQS. Fairbanks currently has an inspection and maintenance program

as its base control measure. The general public will have the

opportunity to comment on additional control measures that would be

most effective towards improving air quality in Fairbanks.

Timeliness of Reclassification Notice

A commenter stated concern that it is unrealistic to expect a

community like Fairbanks to complete the planning and implementation of

control measures necessary to achieve the NAAQS by a December 31, 2000

deadline. If this determination and notice requirement were published

by June 30, 1996 as envisioned in the Clean Air Act, Fairbanks would

have had four years to plan and implement a revised CO strategy and

achieve attainment.

Response: Language in the 1996 budget legislation, section 308,

H.R. 1099, restricted EPA from taking reclassification action for

Fairbanks within six months after the applicable attainment date of

December 31, 1995: ``Sec. 308. None of the funds appropriated under

this Act may be used to implement the requirements of section

186(b)(2), section 187(b) or section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act * * *

with respect to any moderate nonattainment area in which the average

daily temperature is below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The preceding sentence

shall not be interpreted to preclude assistance from the EPA to the

State of Alaska to make progress toward meeting the CO standard in such

areas and to resolve remaining issues regarding the use of oxygenated

fuels in such areas.'' In the meantime, Fairbanks had no violations of

the CO standard in 1996. However, in 1997, while EPA began the

reclassification process, CO violations were once again repeated.

When a nonattainment CO area such as Fairbanks is reclassified, the

timetable given for planning requirements allows the state 18 months

from the date of final reclassification to submit its new SIP revisions

to EPA. In the meantime, the adopted CO contingency measure is

implemented immediately to strengthen the air quality control measures

already in place. The CAA defines specific timetables by which

nonattainment areas must meet the requirements for moderate and serious

CO classified areas. These requirements include attainment deadlines,

area classifications, and the required provisions of the SIP's for

these nonattainment areas. The revised general requirements for all

SIPs appear early in Title I of the CAA. It is unlikely that

significant regulatory changes would occur affecting stationary sources

in that section 187(c)(1) of the Act only requires redefining ``major

stationary source'' if stationary sources ``contribute significantly''

to CO levels, i.e., if a facility by itself would cause a violation of

the national CO standard. No existing facility in the nonattainment

area meets this criterion and it seems unlikely that a new facility,

which would emit a large amount of CO, would meet such a standard

unless it were sited in an area already identified as prone to CO

buildup in the nonattainment area.

EPA feels that by working closely with the Borough and ADEC, an

approvable plan meeting reclassification requirements can be developed

and taken through the public hearing process in a timely way.

III. Today's Action

EPA is today taking final action to find that the Fairbanks North

Star Borough CO nonattainment area did not attain the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1995, the CAA attainment date for moderate CO

nonattainment areas. As a result of this finding, the Fairbanks North

Star Borough CO nonattainment area is reclassified by operation of law

as a serious CO nonattainment area as of the effective date of this

document. This finding is based upon air quality data showing

exceedances of the CO NAAQS during 1995. The Fairbanks North Star

Borough CO nonattainment area was not eligible for an extension from

the mandated attainment date of December 31, 1995.

IV. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to

determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore

should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the

requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria identified in

section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may ``have

an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely

affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities''.

The Agency has determined that the finding of failure to attain

finalized today would result in none of the effects identified in

section 3(f). Under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure

to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon

air quality considerations and must occur by operation of law in light

of certain air quality conditions. They do not, in and of themselves,

impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition,

because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to

the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are

automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered

by air quality values, findings of failure to attain and

reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact

on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

[[Page 9948]]

V. 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. As discussed in section IV of this document, findings of

failure to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas under

section 186(b)(2) of the CAA do not in-and-of-themselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's action does not have a

significant impact on small entities.

VI. Unfunded Mandates Act

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 believes, as discussed above, that the finding of failure to

attain and reclassification of the Fairbanks nonattainment area are

factual determinations based upon air quality considerations and must

occur by operation of law and, hence, do not impose any Federal

intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

VII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations.

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

Dated: February 20, 1998.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapter I of Title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. In section 81.302, the table for ``Alaska-Carbon Monoxide'' is

amended for the Fairbanks area by replacing ``moderate'' with

``serious'' under the classification column to read as follows:

Sec. 81.302 Alaska.

* * * * *

Alaska--Carbon Monoxide

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

Designation Classification

Designated area ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type

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

* * * * * * *

Fairbanks Area, Fairbanks ............................... Nonattainment.................. Mar. 30, 1998.................. Serious.

Election District (part),

Fairbanks nonattainment area

boundary.

* * * * * * *

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

[FR Doc. 98-5090 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P