[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 199 (Friday, October 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53323-53328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
