[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9945-9948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5090]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
