32128 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1The 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 Anchorage area has a design

value above 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR 81.302.

2See 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).

3See memorandum from William G. Laxton,

Director Technical Support Division, entitled

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations,’’ June 18, 1990. See also Shaver

memorandum.

Coke Works, effective August 15, 1997,

specifically:

(1) Revisions to section 2104.02.

limiting particulate matter emission

from Boiler #1, requiring specific

improvements to coal handling at

Secondary Pulverizer #2, and requiring

the operation of a mist eliminator at the

Keystone cooling tower.

(2) Revisions to section 2105.21

requiring the installation of ‘‘big plug’’

doors on most coke ovens by January 1,

2000.

(3) The adoption of section 2106.05

requiring a source-specific ‘‘self audit

emergency action plan.’’

(ii) Additional Material—Remainder

of the October 30, 1997 State submittal.

[FR Doc. 98–15585 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AK 19–1707; FRL–6108–6]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, Alaska, carbon monoxide

(CO) nonattainment area has not

attained the CO national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) under the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA). The CO nonattainment occurred

after Anchorage received a one year

extension to December 31, 1996 from

the mandated attainment date of

December 31, 1995 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

Anchorage 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 practicable

but no later than December 31, 2000, the

CAA attainment date for serious areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Montel Livingston, Office of Air

Quality, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington, 98006, telephone (206)

553–0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions

Concerning Designation and

Classifications

The CAA Amendments 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 Anchorage 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

Anchorage 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

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

Anchorage nonattainment area must be

implemented.

The reclassification to serious does

not mean that CO pollution levels in

Anchorage are getting worse. In

Anchorage, CO levels have dropped by

more than 50% since the early 1980’s.

Reclassification to serious allows

additional planning time to develop

control strategies to meet the CO

NAAQS because Anchorage failed to

attain the CO standard by the end of its

extension date, December 31, 1996.

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.’’

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 Anchorage

nonattainment area, this document

addresses only the air quality status of

the Anchorage 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 twoyear period constitutes a violation of the

CO NAAQS.

D. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain

On December 2, 1997 (62 FR 63687),

EPA proposed to find that the

Anchorage CO nonattainment area had

failed to attain the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1996, the CO attainment

extension date. Anchorage did not have

two consecutive years of CO data

without violations of the CO NAAQS.

This proposed finding was based on air

quality data showing three violations of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32129

the CO NAAQS during 1996. For the

specific data considered by EPA in

making this proposed finding, see 62 FR

63687.

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

Anchorage 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 three CO violations recorded in

1996. 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

Anchorage 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 significant comments

received.

Commenter: A commenter objected to

the serious classification because good

efforts have been made, and continue to

be made, to attain the standards. Given

the cold temperature environmental

conditions which cause the elevated

concentrations and the fact that the

required 90% reduction in emissions

from automobiles has not been

achieved, the commenter believes

additional time to attain the standard is

necessary.

Response: EPA’s actions are following

the schedule and specific requirements

imposed by Congress in the CAA.

Additional time to attain the CO

standard is allowed upon

reclassification to serious. Under the

CAA of 1990, the attainment date for a

serious CO nonattainment area becomes

December 31, 2000. The new attainment

date of December 31, 2000 authorizes

more time for Anchorage, together with

ADEC, to devise an air quality control

plan which will include additional

control measures for attaining the CO

standard.

EPA recognizes the progress

Anchorage has achieved thus far toward

improving air quality and decreasing the

ambient levels of CO. Anchorage

implements two basic air quality control

measures, a decentralized inspection/

maintenance program and an

oxygenated gasoline program. However,

because Anchorage failed to attain the

CO NAAQS within the specified time

frame allowed by the CAA, Congress

mandated reclassification under section

186(b) of the CAA in specific

circumstances once EPA determines the

area has failed to meet the CO NAAQS.

The same commenter also raised

another issue and stated that cold

temperature certified cars will affect

fleet emissions, without requiring

unnecessary control programs.

Response: While EPA agrees that

technology in new cars is expected to

reduce emissions, the deadlines

mandated by Congress in the CAA do

not provide the flexibility to delay this

action until older model cars are

replaced. Fleet turnover in Anchorage to

newer, cleaner cars is factored into

mobile models for purposes of

projecting and demonstrating

attainment of the CO NAAQS. But

because fleet turnover in Anchorage to

newer, cleaner cars is a phased-in

process over several years, additional

control strategies must be planned for

within the allowable CAA time frame to

ensure clean air and protect the public’s

health from exposure to CO in ambient

air. The CAA requires, under a serious

reclassification, that additional control

measures be adopted and implemented

for inclusion into the SIP within 18

months of reclassification.

Commenter: A commenter stated that

Anchorage has worked hard to achieve

federal clean air standards for CO and

remains committed to improving air

quality. They believe this

reclassification sends a

counterproductive message to a

community that has made a significant

and largely successful effort to solve this

problem. There are conditions that are

unique to our sub-arctic environment

that contribute to the CO problem, such

as extraordinarily strong and persistent

temperature inversions. Another aspect

of our problem that needs further

investigation and review is how cold

climate affects driver behavior and

consequent CO emissions.

Response: EPA’s reclassification of

Anchorage allows additional planning

time to carry out wintertime research

which will result in a better

understanding and characterization of

the CO problem in Anchorage. Projects

will be underway in Anchorage during

the winter of 1998–99 which have a goal

of quantifying impacts that motor

vehicle cold start emissions have on the

overall emissions inventories. These

projects will include enhanced CO air

monitoring as well as observation and

documentation of driver behavior in

Anchorage. EPA supports these projects

and continues to work with Anchorage

and the State in their development of an

air quality plan to meet the CO air

quality standard by December 31, 2000,

the new attainment deadline.

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

almost never accepted as justification

for waiving the NAAQS. 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.

The national CO standard is a healthbased standard and is intended to

provide an adequate margin of safety in

the nonattainment area, recognizing the

wide range of human susceptibility to

CO exposure. Young infants, pregnant

women, the elderly, and people with

cardiovascular disease or emphysema

are likely to be more susceptible to the

health impacts from CO. Carbon

monoxide can also impact mental

function, vision, and alertness in

healthy people, even at relatively low

concentrations.

Commenter: A commenter stated that

while air quality modeling combined

with limited monitoring is the accepted

means for determining the status of

attainment versus nonattainment, he

questions the conclusion that the area is

in serious nonattainment when marginal

exceedances of the 8 hour limit occur at

select monitoring sites on a very

infrequent basis. The commenter

disagrees that the monitoring

information portrays the area as

nonattainment because it is not

indicative of the area’s air quality,

which is the standard to be met.

EPA response. The action today is

based on data measured by a monitoring

network that was established to

demonstrate attainment of the CO

NAAQS. Two monitors in the

immediate vicinity of major signalized

road intersections and several

businesses, the Spenard and Benson site

and the Seward Highway and Benson

site, have each recorded exceedances of

the CO NAAQS three times in 1996. The

8-hour CO readings ranged from 10.1

ppm to 9.5 ppm. The CO national

standard is 9 ppm (35 ppm for 1 hour),
32130 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and these standards have been

developed to protect the public’s health

from exposure to CO in ambient air.

More recently (early 1998), the Garden

neighborhood monitoring site has

shown high CO concentrations. These

three permanent monitoring sites are

part of a four site ‘‘State and Local Air

Monitoring Stations’’ (SLAMS) CO

monitoring network designed by the

State to provide measurements that

represent ambient air quality. The

network provides a profile of high level,

and potentially maximum, CO levels.

Particular monitoring locations in the

network have been established for site

placement to meet the following SLAMS

objectives:

• To measure the highest

concentrations within the area.

• To measure representative

concentrations within areas where

population density is high.

• To measure the impact on ambient

pollution levels of significant sources.

If any monitor within the network

violates the CO NAAQS, an appropriate

area, which includes the site, is defined

as a ‘‘nonattainment area.’’ So although

we agree with the commenter that the

national standard was violated at

specific locations on a small number of

days, this situation does in fact describe

a nonattainment condition.

The CO NAAQS is defined to protect

human health and welfare. The goal of

achieving the CO NAAQS standard

applies to all locales, regardless of

population density. Data from

monitoring sites are the only available

measure of air quality and it is

maintained by use of an adequate

quality assurance program. Thus,

careful attention is given to the data

within the monitoring network with

respect to possibly harmful pollutant

concentrations.

III. Today’s Action

EPA is today taking final action to

find that the Anchorage nonattainment

area did not attain the CO NAAQS after

it received a one year extension to

December 31, 1996 from the mandated

attainment date of December 31, 1995,

the CAA attainment date for moderate

CO nonattainment areas. As a result of

this finding, the Anchorage

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

1996. As a result of the reclassification,

the State is to submit within 18 months

from the effective date of this action a

new 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.

IV. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’

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 is making final the

proposed determinations found in

EPA’s action published on December 2,

1997 (62 FR 63687) that the finding of

failure to attain results in none of the

effects identified in section 3(f) and

finalize the proposed determinations

found in EPA’s.

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.

This final action is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health risks and

Safety Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

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-ofthemselves 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 costeffective 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, for reasons discussed

above and as part of EPA’s proposed

determinations published on December

2, 1997 (62 FR 63687), that the finding

of failure to attain and reclassification of

the Anchorage 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).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32131

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: May 29, 1998.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 81 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 § 81.302, the table for ‘‘AlaskaCarbon Monoxide’’ is amended for the

Anchorage area by revising the entry for

the Anchorage area to read as follows:

§ 81.302 Alaska.

* * * * *

Alaska-Carbon Monoxide

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Anchorage Area:

Anchorage Election District (part) Anchorage nonattainment area

boundary.

.................... Nonattainment .. July 13, 1998 ... Serious.

* * * * * * *

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

[FR Doc. 98–15447 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300672; FRL–5795–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Phospholipid: Lyso-PE

(lysophosphatidylethanolamine); TimeLimited Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a timelimited tolerance for residues of the

biochemical phospholipid: Lyso-PE

(lysophosphatidylethanolamine) on

apples, citrus, cranberries, grapes,

nectarines, peaches, pears, strawberries,

and tomatoes when used to promote

pre-harvest and post-harvest ripening

and extend the storage shelf life. J P

BioRegulators, Inc. submitted a petition

to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended

by the Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170)

requesting the time-limited tolerance.

This regulation eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level

for residues of phospholipid. The

tolerance will expire on June 1, 2001.

DATES: This regulation is effective June

12, 1998. Objections and requests for

hearings must be received by EPA on or

before August 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300672],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP ‘‘Tolerance Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk identified by the

docket control number, [OPP-300672],

must also be submitted to: Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch, Information Resources and

Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be submitted as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket number [OPP-300672]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Sheila A. Moats, Regulatory

Action Leader, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7511C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: 9th fl., CM #2 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA

22202, (703) 308–1259; e-mail:

moats.sheila@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: J P

BioRegulators Inc., 1611 Maple Street,

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562, has

requested in pesticide petition (PP

7G4892) the establishment of a

temporary exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of the biochemical phospholipid. A

notice of filing was published in the

Federal Register on December 10, 1997

(62 FR 65077)(FRL-5749-3), and the

notice announced that the comment

period would end on January 11, 1998;

no comments were received. This

temporary exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance will permit

the marketing of apples, citrus,

cranberries, grapes, nectarines, peaches,

pears, strawberries, and tomatoes when

treated in accordance with the

provisions of the experimental use