Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64329

1 In the 1990 base year planning (winter)

inventory for the South Coast, onroad vehicles

accounted for approximately 80 percent of CO

emissions, while nonroad engines and stationary

sources contributed roughly 18 and 2 percent,

respectively. Despite continued growth in vehicle

use, the percent of CO emissions from onroad

vehicles is predicted to decline to about 50 percent

by the year 2010, as a result of the cleaner motor

vehicles mandated by the California low-emission

vehicle program.

2For a description of the boundaries of the Los

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305.

The nonattainment area includes all of Orange

Continued

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 23, 1997.

Richard J. Seibel,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–31810 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–189–0059; FRL–5932–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California;

South Coast Air Quality Management

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

California to provide for attainment of

the carbon monoxide (CO) national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air

Basin Area (South Coast). EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

under provisions of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards, and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas. The demonstration

of attainment in the SIP depends, in

part, upon reductions from an enhanced

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program for motor vehicles. Since EPA

has previously granted interim approval

to the California I/M program, the

Agency is proposing interim approval of

the CO attainment demonstration

portion of the plan.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by January 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the EPA contact below.

The rulemaking docket for this notice,

Docket No. 97–17, may be inspected and

copied at the following location during

normal business hours. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying parts of the

docket. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Air

Planning Office, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson (415) 744–1288, Air

Planning Office (AIR–2), Air Division,

U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California, 94105–

3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Carbon Monoxide Problem

Carbon monoxide is a colorless,

odorless gas emitted in combustion

processes. In the South Coast, like most

urban areas, CO comes primarily from

tailpipe emissions of cars and trucks. 1

Exposure to elevated CO levels is

associated with impairment of visual

perception, work capacity, manual

dexterity, and learning ability, and with

illness and death for those who already

suffer from cardiovascular disease,

particularly angina or peripheral

vascular disease.

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA

has established primary, health-related

NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million

(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period,

and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour.

Attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS is

achieved if not more than one nonoverlapping 8-hour average in any

consecutive 2-year period per

monitoring site exceeds 9 ppm (values

below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and

are not considered exceedances).

The South Coast has continuously

achieved the 1-hour NAAQS for the past

6 years. For this reason, the South Coast

SIP and this action address primarily

the 8-hour NAAQS. In 1995, the South

Central Los Angeles County area

recorded 13 exceedances of the 8-hour

NAAQS, the largest number of CO

exceedances within the SCAB and, in

fact, within the country. Most of the CO

exceedances in the SCAB occur during

the months of January, November, and

December, with peak concentrations

typically around 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

B. Clean Air Act Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially

amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment

deadlines for the NAAQS. Under

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas

designated nonattainment prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments,

including the South Coast, were

designated nonattainment by operation

of law.2 Under section 186(a) of the Act,
64330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

County and the more populated portions of Los

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

3On August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43468), EPA issued

a notice of Congressional action rescinding the

California FIP and also published notices relating

to many of the SIP approvals included with the

final FIP.

4EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

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 at and above 16.5

ppm, such as the South Coast, were

classified as serious.

Section 172 of the Act contains

general requirements applicable to SIPs

for nonattainment areas. Sections 186

and 187 of the Act set out additional air

quality planning requirements for CO

nonattainment areas.

The most fundamental of these

provisions is the requirement that CO

nonattainment areas submit by

November 15, 1992, a SIP demonstrating

attainment of the NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than the deadline applicable to the

area’s classification: December 31, 1995,

for moderate areas, and December 31,

2000, for serious areas like the South

Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7),

and 187(b)(1). Such a demonstration

must provide enforceable measures to

achieve emission reductions each year

leading to emissions at or below the

level predicted to result in attainment of

the NAAQS throughout the

nonattainment area.

EPA has issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing the Agency’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act.

See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

The reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of EPA’s preliminary interpretations of

Title I requirements. In this proposed

rulemaking action, EPA is applying

these policies to the South Coast CO SIP

submittal, taking into consideration the

specific factual issues presented.

C. EPA Actions on Prior South Coast CO

SIP Revisions

The South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD)

adopted a CO plan on November 6,

1992. This plan was forwarded to the

California Air Resources Board (CARB),

which submitted the plan as a proposed

revision to the California SIP on

December 31, 1992. On April 29, 1993,

CARB submitted a letter correcting

certain adoption and implementation

dates for measures under CARB’s

jurisdiction. On May 5, 1994, EPA

proposed to approve in part and

disapprove in part the SIP submittal (59

FR 23264). The proposed disapprovals

derived from the State’s failure, at the

time, to adopt and submit regulations

for an enhanced I/M program, since

progress and attainment under the

South Coast CO plan depended, to a

large extent, on this program.

On December 28, 1994, CARB

amended and submitted the South Coast

Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan

(Revised), adopted by the SCAQMD on

September 9, 1994. The 1994 CO plan

provided technical amendments to the

1992 submittal and wholly superseded

it.

On February 14, 1995, the

Administrator signed final and direct

final partial approval and partial

disapproval of the revised South Coast

CO plan, as part of a notice

promulgating Federal Implementation

Plans (FIPs) for California, including a

CO FIP for the South Coast. Again, the

disapproval actions were the result of

the plan’s dependence upon reductions

from an enhanced I/M program, which

had not yet been adopted.

On April 10, 1995, legislation was

enacted mandating that the California

FIPs ‘‘shall be rescinded and shall have

no further force and effect’’ (Pub. L.

104–6, Defense Supplemental

Appropriation, H.R. 889). At the time of

enactment of this legislation, the FIP

and SIP actions had not yet been

published in the Federal Register.3

Because the State was in the process of

adopting legislation and regulations for

an enhanced I/M program and

developing a revised CO attainment

plan, EPA did not reissue the South

Coast CO SIP partial approval and

partial disapproval actions. For this

reason, the Agency’s direct final

approval and disapproval action did not

become effective. As part of today’s

action, EPA is proposing to rescind the

1995 approval and disapproval actions

taken on the 1994 CO SIP submittal.

On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted

regulations adopted by the California

Bureau of Automotive Repair for the

implementation of an enhanced I/M

program. California’s program mandates

loaded mode testing of all vehicles, with

the majority of vehicles to be tested at

test-and-repair facilities.

On March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920),

EPA proposed to grant interim approval

to the enhanced I/M program and

regulations, as meeting the high

enhanced performance standard

requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart

S, as amended, and section 348(c) of the

National Highway System Designation

Act (‘‘the Highway Act,’’ Public Law

104–59, enacted on November 28, 1995).

The Highway Act provides for approval

of decentralized or test-and-repair

programs for the full credit proposed by

the state if the proposed credits reflect

a good faith estimate and the program

otherwise complies with the CAA. The

approval remains effective for up to 18

months after the date of final

rulemaking. After the 18-month period,

permanent approval of the program is

granted if the data collected on

operation of the program demonstrates

that the credits are appropriate. In order

to ensure that at least 6 months of

operational data can be collected to

evaluate program performance, EPA

requires program start-up no later than

12 months after the effective date of

approval.

On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1160), EPA

finalized the interim approval of

California’s enhanced I/M program,

effective February 7, 1997. This action

set February 9, 1998, as the deadline for

program start-up. The approval expires

on August 7, 1998, or earlier if by such

date the State has submitted as a SIP

revision the required demonstration that

the credits claimed for the program are

appropriate and that the program is

otherwise in compliance with the CAA,

and EPA takes final action approving

the revision.

EPA’s final interim approval of

California’s enhanced I/M program also

granted interim approval to the State’s

submittal as meeting the requirements

of section 187(a)(6) of the Act for

enhanced I/M for the South Coast.

Section 187(a)(6) requires CO

nonattainment areas with a design value

greater than 12.7 ppm to implement

enhanced I/M programs in the

urbanized portion of the nonattainment

area, as defined by the Bureau of

Census, with 1980 populations of

200,000 or more.

On February 5, 1997, CARB submitted

as a revision to the California SIP the

1997 Air Quality Management Plan for

the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB),

Antelope Valley, and Coachella Valley,

adopted by the SCAQMD on November

15, 1996. This submittal, which

included the South Coast Carbon

Monoxide Attainment Plan (Revised),

was found to be complete on April 1,

1997, with respect to portions of the

AQMP relating to CO and nitrogen

dioxide SIP requirements.4 This 1997

CO plan supersedes all prior submittals.

This 1997 CO plan provides, among

other things, a revised CO attainment

demonstration based on updated vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64331

5See, for example, Emission Inventory

Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plans, EPA—450/4–91–011;

Procedures for the Preparation of Emission

Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of

Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary

Sources, EPA—450/4–91–016; Procedures for

Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile

Sources, EPA—450/4–91–026d Revised.

miles traveled (VMT) projections

reflecting new forecasts prepared by the

Southern California Association of

Governments (SCAG), an amended

Regional Mobility Element adopted by

SCAG, revised motor vehicle emissions

modeling, new emissions inventories,

amended control measures, and updated

areawide Urban Airshed Modeling

(UAM) and hotspot (CAL3QHC) air

quality modeling analyses using the

updated inventories and improvements

to other modeling inputs.

II. EPA Action

A. Summary of Proposed Action

In this document, EPA is proposing to

approve the 1997 CO plan, with respect

to the CAA requirements for notice and

adoption, baseline and projected

emissions inventory, and VMT

forecasts. EPA proposes to grant interim

approval to the CO attainment

demonstration, quantitative milestones,

and reasonable further progress. Along

with EPA’s prior interim approval of

California’s enhanced I/M program

under section 187(a)(6) of the CAA and

section 348(c) of the Highway Act, these

interim approvals expire on August 7,

1998, or earlier if by such date

California submits the required

demonstration that the CO credits are

appropriate.

As noted above, EPA is also proposing

to rescind the Agency’s partial approval

and partial disapproval of the 1994 CO

SIP submittal, taken on February 14,

1995.

B. Procedural Requirements

Both the SCAQMD and CARB have

satisfied applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements for reasonable

public notice and hearing prior to

adoption of the plan and each of the

plan amendments. The SCAQMD

conducted numerous public workshops

and public hearings prior to the

adoption hearing on November 15,

1996, at which the 1997 AQMP was

adopted by the Governing Board of the

SCAQMD (Resolution No. 96–23). On

January 23, 1997, the Governing Board

of CARB adopted the plan (Resolution

No. 97–1). The plan was submitted to

EPA by Michael P. Kenny, Executive

Officer of CARB, on February 5, 1997.

The SIP submittal includes proof of

publication for notices of SCAQMD and

CARB public hearings, as evidence that

all hearings were properly noticed.

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the

1997 CO plan as meeting the procedural

requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the

CAA.

C. Baseline and Projected Emissions

Inventory

The revised and updated emissions

inventory included in the 1997 CO plan

is consistent with EPA’s guidance

documents.5 This EPA guidance allows

approval of California’s motor vehicle

emissions factors in place of the

corresponding federal emissions factors.

The motor vehicle emissions factors

used in the plan were generated by the

CARB EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G

program. The gridded CO inventory for

motor vehicles was then produced using

an updated Caltrans Direct Travel

Impact Model (DTIM2) (Systems

Applications International, 1994) to

combine EMFAC7G data with

transportation modeling performed by

SCAG.

SCAG provided the baseline

socioeconomic data used in the plan.

These forecasts include the following

predicted growth through the CO

attainment year.

1997 AQMP BASELINE SOCIOECONOMIC FORECASTS

[In millions]

Category 1993 2000 % growth

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 13.8 14.8 7

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................ 293.3 317.9 8

Daily Vehicle Trips ....................................................................................................................... 31.2 33.2 6

EPA notes that these predictions

assume that the key categories of VMT

and daily trip levels will increase at

growth rates considerably below longterm historic trends. This makes it

particularly important for transportation

agencies to track actual VMT and trip

numbers carefully, and to trigger

remedial actions, if necessary, before the

plan fails to meet scheduled reduction

targets.

The planning emissions inventory

from the 1997 CO plan is summarized

in the table below, ‘‘Carbon Monoxide

Emissions by Major Source Category,’’

from Table 5–3 in Appendix V of the

1997 AQMP.

CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS BY MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORY

[In tons per day]

Source category 1993 1995 2000

Stationary Sources ....................................................................................................................... 127 170 297

Onroad Vehicles ........................................................................................................................... 5908 5381 3298

Other Mobile ................................................................................................................................. 1538 1637 1550

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 7573 7188 5145

The sharp decline in baseline

emissions from onroad vehicles and,

consequently, the decrease in total CO

emissions, from 1993–2000 is attributed

to the adopted California motor vehicle

and clean fuels regulations, and benefits

from vehicle fleet turnover.
64332 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

6EPA approved M1 on January 8, 1997 (62 FR

1150). M2 was approved on August 21, 1995 (60 FR

43379) under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of

the CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to

approve as part of an extreme ozone area SIP

conceptual measures dependent upon new control

technologies or new control techniques. EPA notes

that the M2 reductions may help ensure

maintenance of the CO NAAQS, but any reductions

from this measure would not be creditable for

purposes of the CO attainment SIP, because the

State has committed to begin implementation of the

measure in 2004–2005, several years beyond the

year 2000 attainment deadline for CO.

The methodologies used to prepare

the base year and projected emissions

inventory, as described in Chapter 3 and

Appendix 3 of the AQMP, are

acceptable. Accordingly, EPA proposes

to approve the 1997 CO plan with

respect to the emissions inventory

requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and

187(a)(1) the CAA.

D. Attainment Demonstration

The attainment demonstration

includes both an areawide and a hotspot modeling analysis at four heavily

traveled intersections.

The areawide analysis was conducted

using the Urban Airshed Model,

according to EPA’s ‘‘Guidance for

Application of Urban Areawide Models

for CO Attainment Demonstration’’

(1992). The UAM analysis uses a

December 6–7, 1989 episode. This

episode recorded a 1-hour CO

concentration of 31 ppm and an 8-hour

concentration of 21.8 ppm. These were

the highest monitored values in recent

years. The UAM analysis performed for

the 1997 CO plan makes one significant

change in the meteorological inputs: the

mixing height was raised from 15 meters

to 50 meters, to reflect the results of

studies in the Lynwood area. The

adjusted mixing height is also within

the uncertainties of estimating night

time mixing height.

Emissions used in the UAM analysis

are shown in the table below, titled

‘‘Peak CO Emissions and South Coast

UAM Results.’’ These emissions,

representing day-specific emissions,

were disaggregated into 5 kilometer grid

cells throughout the modeling domain.

PEAK CO EMISSIONS AND SOUTH COAST UAM RESULTS

[In ppm]

Scenario Emissions

(tpd)

Regional

maximum

(8-hour)

Maximum

Lynwood

(8-hour)

Regional

maximum

(1-hour)

1989 Base ........................................................................................................ 9140 22.1 16.4 26.1

2000 Base ........................................................................................................ 4511 7.7 6.6 10.7

2000 Control ..................................................................................................... 4349 7.4 6.4 10.3

Source: 1997 AQMP, Appendix V, Tables 5–12 and 5–13.

The table shows the results of the

UAM analysis for both the 8-hour and

1-hour average (the corresponding

NAAQS are 9 ppm and 35 ppm).

Concentrations for the 8-hour average

are shown for the Lynwood receptor,

since the monitor at this site typically

records peak concentrations.

Model performance for the UAM

simulation is within EPA’s acceptable

range of accuracy: +1 percent for the

unpaired peak prediction, ¥25 percent

for the paired peak prediction, and 22

percent for the paired absolute error.

See 1997 AQMP, Appendix V, pages V–

5–6 and V–5–7.

The predicted regional maximum 8-

hour average CO concentration is 7.7

ppm in the year 2000, assuming no new

control measures. The UAM analysis

thus shows attainment with a margin of

safety based solely on fully adopted

regulations.

The SCAQMD also modeled a

‘‘control’’ scenario, which assumes a

combined reduction of 173 tpd in the

year 2000 from two CARB measures

which are currently under development,

M1 (Accelerated Retirement of LightDuty Vehicles) and M2 (Improved

Control Technology for Light-Duty

Vehicles). These State measures have

already been approved as part of the

1994 ozone SIP. Reductions from M1

and M2 are not needed for purposes of

the attainment demonstration, but the

control scenario illustrates additional

ambient air quality improvements

possible with a greater level of control.6

The hot-spot analysis was performed

for four intersections (Lynwood,

Hollywood, Westwood and Inglewood),

using CAL3QHC (a roadway intersection

model) and base case as well as worst

case meteorological data. Projected peak

8-hour average hot-spot concentrations

under base case meteorology were 2.1

ppm at Lynwood, 2.2 ppm at Inglewood,

and 3.2 ppm at Westwood and

Hollywood. Under worst case

meteorology, concentrations are

predicted to range from 3.5 ppm at

Lynwood to 5.3 ppm at Hollywood.

The areawide analysis and hot-spot

analysis concentrations were not

aggregated, because CARB’s 1991 study

of CO in the Lynwood area indicated

that the projected maximum hot-spot

concentrations were at different times of

day from the maximum areawide peak

concentrations.

The hot-spot modeling follows

applicable EPA guidelines and

demonstrates attainment of the 8-hour

CO standard for the year 2000 with the

proposed control measures.

Because the enhanced I/M regulations

have now been adopted, the 1997 CO

plan demonstrates attainment with

adopted measures, which reduce

areawide emissions to 4511 tpd,

substantially below the estimated

carrying capacity of 4968 tpd. However,

attainment depends, in part, upon

specific reductions from the enhanced I/

M program, which was granted interim

approval in prior rulemaking. Therefore,

under section 348(c) of the Highway

Act, EPA proposes to grant interim

approval to the 1997 CO plan with

respect to the attainment demonstration

requirement of section 187(a)(7) of the

CAA.

E. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

EPA disapproved the 1994 South

Coast CO SIP submittal with respect to

the milestone and RFP requirement

because the plan depended heavily

upon reductions from the as yet

unadopted enhanced I/M program to

achieve scheduled progress and

eventual attainment by the year 2000

deadline in the Act. EPA’s interim

approval of California’s enhanced I/M

regulations cures this defect and allows

for interim approval of the milestone

and RFP provision.

The 1997 CO plan shows steady

annual reductions in CO emissions from

1993 through 2000, despite annual

growth in VMT and stationary source

emissions (see 1997 AQMP, Appendix
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64333

V, Tables 5–1, 5–2, and 5–3). The CO

emissions decline is displayed below in

the summary table entitled ‘‘South Coast

CO Emissions,’’ taken from Table 5–3 in

Appendix V of the 1997 AQMP.

SOUTH COAST CO EMISSIONS

[Planning Inventory—tpd]

Source category 1993 1995 2000

On-Road Vehicles ........................................................................................................................ 5908 5381 3298

Other Mobile ................................................................................................................................. 1538 1637 1550

Stationary Sources ....................................................................................................................... 127 170 297

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 7573 7188 5145

In this action, therefore, EPA proposes

to grant interim approval, under section

348(c) of the Highway Act, to the 1997

CO plan with respect to the RFP

requirements in sections 171(1),

172(c)(2), and 187(a)(7) of the CAA.

F. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Forecast

Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA

requires the 1997 CO plan to contain a

forecast of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

for each year until attainment of the CO

NAAQS. Also, as required by section

187(a)(2)(A), the 1997 CO plan must

provide for annual updates of the

forecasts along with annual reports to be

submitted regarding the extent to which

the preceding annual forecasts proved to

be accurate. These annual reports must

contain estimates of actual VMT in each

previous year for which the forecast was

required, including the year prior to the

report.

The 1997 CO plan revises VMT

forecasts in the prior South Coast CO

plans. The VMT forecasts have been

updated by using new transportation

modeling and incorporating more recent

socioeconomic data compared with the

VMT forecasts contained in the earlier

plans. The required VMT forecasts for

each year from 1993 through 2000 are

displayed in Table 5–1 in Appendix V

to the 1997 AQMP. The forecasts are

broken down by 7 motor vehicle

categories. Table 5–2 shows the CO

emissions from each category for each

year.

EPA proposes to approve these new

VMT forecasts as meeting the section

187(a)(2)(A) requirement. Also, EPA

proposes to approve the responsible

agencies’ commitments to revise and

replace the VMT projections as needed

and monitor actual VMT levels in the

future.

G. Summary of Proposed EPA Actions

EPA proposes the following actions

on elements of the South Coast CO

Attainment Plan (Revised), as submitted

on February 5, 1997:

(1) Approval of procedural

requirements, under section 110(a)(1) of

the CAA;

(2) Approval of baseline and projected

emission inventories, under sections

172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the CAA;

(3) Interim approval of attainment

demonstration, under section 187(a)(7)

of the CAA and section 348(c) of the

Highway Act;

(4) Interim approval of quantitative

milestones and reasonable further

progress, under sections 171(1),

172(c)(2), and 187(a)(7) of the CAA and

section 348(c) of the Highway Act; and

(5) Approval of VMT forecasts and the

responsible agencies’ commitments to

revise and replace the VMT projections

as needed and monitor actual VMT

levels in the future, under section

187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.

EPA also proposes to rescind EPA’s

prior partial approval and partial

disapproval of the 1994 South Coast CO

SIP submittal, taken on February 14,

1995. As discussed above, these actions

have not been in effect, since the final

rulemaking was never published in the

Federal Register.

III. Regulatory Process

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

business, small not-for-profit enterprises

and government entities with

jurisdiction over populations of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA,

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIP’s on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’)

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

section 110 and 182(b) of the CAA.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved or

disapproved by this action will impose

any mandate upon the State, local, or

tribal governments either as the owner

or operator of a source or as a regulator,

or would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these requirements

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does

not include a mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.
64334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 26, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31915 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 194

RIN 2060–AE30

[FRL–5932–9]

Opportunity To Present Oral

Testimony on EPA’s Proposed Rule:

‘‘40 CFR Part 194, Criteria for the

Certification and Recertification of the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s (WIPP)

Compliance With the 40 CFR Part 191

Disposal Regulations: Certification

Decision;’’ Notice of Public Hearings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings.

SUMMARY: EPA will conduct public

hearings to receive comments on the

proposed certification decision,

published October 30, 1997, for the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in

Carlsbad, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe,

New Mexico.

DATES: The schedule for these hearings

is as follows: Carlsbad, January 5, 1998,

from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and January

6, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.;

Albuquerque, January 7, 1998, from

12:00 Noon to 9:00 p.m. and January 8,

1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon; and

Santa Fe, January 8, 1998, from 3:00

p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and January 9, 1998,

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Procedures

for these public hearings are detailed in

the section entitled ‘‘Hearing

Procedures’’ in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Specific locations for each

city is detailed in the section entitled

ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: EPA’s public hearings to

accept comments on EPA’s Proposed

Compliance Certification Decision for

the WIPP will be held on January 5–6,

1998, at the Pecos River Village

Conference Center, Room #3, 711

Muscatel, Carlsbad, NM; on January 7–

8 at the Albuquerque Convention

Center, Aztec/Galisteo Room, 401

Second Street, NW, Albuquerque, NM;

on January 8–9, 1998, at the Harold

Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis

Drive, Santa Fe, NM.

EPA’s official docket for all

rulemaking activities under the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal

Act, as amended, is located in

Washington, DC, in the Air Docket,

Room M1500, Mailcode 6102, U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. Information on EPA’s radioactive

waste disposal standards (40 CFR Part

191), the compliance criteria (40 CFR

Part 194), and DOE’s compliance

certification application is filed in the

official EPA Air Docket, Dockets No. R–

89–01, A–92–56, and A–93–02,

respectively, and is available for review

at the following three EPA WIPP docket

locations in New Mexico: in Carlsbad at

the Municipal Library, Hours: Mon–

Thu, 10–9, Fri–Sat, 10–6, and Sun 1–5;

in Albuquerque at the Government

Publications Department, Zimmerman

Library, University of New Mexico,

Hours: Mon–Thu, 8–9, Fri, 8–5, Sat–

Sun, 1–5; and in Santa Fe at the

Fogelson Library, College of Santa Fe,

Hours: Mon–Thu, 8–12 Midnight, Fri,

8–5, Sat, 9–5, and Sun, 1–9.

Note: The dockets in New Mexico only

contain major items from the official Air

docket in Washington, DC, plus all those

docu-ments added to the official docket since

the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP

LWA.

As provided in EPA’s regulations at

40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance with

normal Air docket procedures, if copies

of any docket materials are requested, a

reasonable fee may be charged for

photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rafaela Ferguson, Office of Radiation

and Indoor Air, (202) 564–9362 or call

EPA’s 24-hour toll-free WIPP

Information Line, 1–800–331–WIPP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 23, 1997, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

announced its proposed decision to

issue to the Secretary of the Department

of Energy (DOE) a ‘‘certification of

compliance’’ for the Department of

Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP), subject to several conditions

related to: (1) waste characterization (to

determine the radionuclides and other

contents of waste disposal containers);

(2) quality assurance programs at DOE

waste generator sites; (3)

implementation of passive institutional

controls (PICs) (intended to warn future

generations about the hazards of the

radioactive waste buried in the WIPP);

and (4) panel seals (used to contain the

waste within compartments in the

facility). In addition, DOE is required to

report to EPA any change in the

activities or conditions at the WIPP that

differ from those described in the

Compliance Certification Application

(CCA), and to immediately inform EPA

of any activities or conditions at the

WIPP that might cause the WIPP to

exceed the containment requirements of

the disposal regulations. This proposal,

entitled ‘‘Criteria for the Certification

and Recertification of the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with

the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal

Regulations: Certification Decision;

Proposed Rule,’’ was published in the

Federal Register at 62 FR 58791–58838

on October 30, 1997, which marked the

start of a 120-day public comment

period.

The WIPP is being constructed by

DOE near Carlsbad, New Mexico, as a

potential repository for the safe disposal

of transuranic radioactive waste.

Pursuant to the WIPP Land Withdrawal

Act (WIPP LWA) of 1992, Pub. L. No.

102–579, as amended, EPA is required

to perform several activities including

certifying whether the WIPP will

comply with EPA’s radioactive waste

disposal standards before DOE may

commence disposal of radioactive waste

at the WIPP. On October 29, 1996, DOE

submitted a CCA containing information

intended to demonstrate that WIPP will

comply with the EPA’s disposal

regulations. EPA published an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANPRM) on November 15, 1996,

announcing receipt of the CCA and

requesting comments on all aspects of

DOE’s application for 120 days until

March 17, 1997. EPA conducted a

preliminary review of the CCA and

requested DOE to submit supplemental

information. DOE submitted the

additional information EPA requested

and on May 22, 1997, the Agency

announced that DOE’s application was

deemed to be ‘‘complete’’ (62 FR 27996–

27998). EPA’s finding that the CCA was

complete commenced a statutory oneyear period to determine, by

rulemaking, whether WIPP will comply

with the disposal regulations (WIPP

LWA, section 8(d)(2); 40 CFR 194.11).

EPA has conducted an extensive

independent technical review and

evaluation (including confirmatory

audits and inspections) of the DOE’s

CCA and supplemental materials based

on the requirements specified in the

WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR

Part 194. In response to public

comments, EPA subsequently extended

the ANPRM public comment period

until publication of the proposed rule,

thus resulting in an approximately 264-