Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10823

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. Section 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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals 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 SIPs 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). This discussion applies in

the case where EPA finalizes a limited

approval/limited disapproval action as

well.

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the submitted

commitment, it will not affect any

existing state requirements applicable to

small entities. Federal disapproval of

the state submittal does not affect its

state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing state requirements

nor does it impose any new federal

requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

review under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds, Nitrogen

dioxide.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4891 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR PART 52

[IL97–1–6575; FRL–5158–6]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Employee Commute

Options Program; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision request submitted by the

State of Illinois on July 8, 1994, for the

purpose of establishing an Employee

Commute Options Program (ECO

Program) in the Chicago area, including

the counties of Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, Kane and Will and the

townships of Aux Sable and Gooselake

in Grundy County and Oswego in

Kendall County. The rationale for the

proposed approval is set forth below;

additional information is available at

the address indicated below.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before March 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch, (AR–

18J) USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–

3590.

Copies of the ECO Program SIP

revision request and USEPA’s analysis

are available for inspection at the

following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

(It is recommended that you telephone

Jessica Radolf at (312) 886–3198 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Radolf, Regulation Development

Section, Regulation Development

Branch, (AR–18J) USEPA, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604–3590, (312) 886–3198.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Implementation of the section

182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (amended Act),

requires employers with 100 or more

employees in the counties of Cook,

Lake, Dupage, McHenry, Kane, and Will

and the townships of Aux Sable and

Gooselake in Grundy County and

Oswego in Kendall County to

participate in a trip reduction program.

The concerns that lead to the inclusion

of this Employee Commute Options

(ECO) provision in the amended Act are

that more people are driving and they

are driving longer distances. The

increase in the number of drivers and

the increase in the number of vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) currently offset a

large part of the emissions reductions

achieved through the production and

sale of vehicles that operate more

cleanly. It is widely accepted that

shortly after the year 2000, without

limits on increased travel, the increased

emissions caused by more vehicles

being driven more miles under more

congested conditions will outweigh the

fact that each new vehicle pollutes less,

resulting in an overall increase in

emissions from mobile sources. The

ECO provision outlines the

requirements for a program designed to

minimize the use of single occupancy

vehicles in commuting trips in order to

gain emissions reductions beyond what

can be and will be obtained through

stricter tailpipe and fuel standards.

Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the amended

Act requires that employers in severe

and extreme ozone and carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas

submit their compliance plans to the

State two years after the SIP is

submitted to USEPA. These compliance

plans developed by employers must be

designed to convincingly demonstrate

an increase in the average passenger

occupancy (APO) of vehicles used by

their employees who commute to work

during the peak period by no less than

25 percent above the average vehicle

occupancy (AVO) of the nonattainment

area. These compliance plans must

convincingly demonstrate that the

employers will meet the target no later

than 4 years after the SIP is submitted.

Where there are important differences in

terms of commute patterns, land use, or

AVO, the States may establish different

zones within the nonattainment area for

purposes of calculation of the AVO.

Section 110(k) of the amended Act

contains provisions governing USEPA’s

action on SIP submittals. The USEPA

can take one of three actions on ECO

Program SIP submittals. If the submittal

satisfactorily addresses all of the

required ECO Program elements, the

USEPA shall grant full approval. If the

submittal contains approvable

commitments to implement all required

ECO Program elements, but the State

does not yet have all of the necessary
10824 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

regulatory authority to do so, the

USEPA may grant conditional approval.

Finally, if the submittal fails to

adequately address one or more of the

mandatory ECO Program elements, the

USEPA shall issue a disapproval.

On July 8, 1994, the State of Illinois

submitted a SIP revision request

including Title 92 of the Illinois

Administrative Code Part 600:

Employee Commute Options to USEPA

in order to satisfy the requirements of

section 182(d)(1)(B) of the amended Act

in the counties of Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, Kane and Will and the

townships of Aux Sable and Gooselake

in Grundy County and Oswego in

Kendall County, Illinois. The USEPA

issued a finding of completeness on this

submittal on July 14, 1994.

In order to gain approval, the State

submittal must contain each of the

following ECO Program elements: (1)

The AVO for each nonattainment area or

for each zone if the area is divided into

zones; (2) the target APO which is no

less than 25 percent above the AVO(s);

(3) an ECO Program that includes a

process for compliance demonstration;

and, (4) enforcement procedures to

ensure submission and implementation

of compliance plans by subject

employers. The USEPA issued guidance

on December 17, 1992, interpreting

various aspects of the statutory

requirements (Employee Commute

Options Guidance, December, 1992). A

copy of this guidance has been included

in this rulemaking docket.

II. Analysis

The State has met the requirements of

section 182(d)(1)(B) of the amended Act

by submitting a SIP revision that

implements all required ECO Program

elements as discussed below.

1. The Average Vehicle Occupancy

Section 182(d)(1)(B) requires that the

State determine the AVO at the time the

SIP revision is submitted. The State has

met this requirement by establishing an

AVO for the entire Chicago severe ozone

nonattainment area. The AVO was

determined to be 1.092 based on the

most recent census data and was

included as part of the Illinois SIP on

July 8, 1994. Illinois has affirmed that

this AVO is representative of the AVO

at the time of submittal as required by

section 182(d)(1)(B).

The Chicago area AVO was calculated

using a methodology that did not

include transit ridership in the

numerator of the AVO calculation,

resulting in a lower AVO than if transit

riders had been included. Transit

ridership is, however, included in the

APO calculation. USEPA staff had

informed Illinois on November 19, 1992,

that USEPA could approve a definition

of AVO that did not include transit.

Final ECO guidance was issued on

December 17, 1992, that would not

allow for this type of AVO calculation.

Illinois’ position is that including

transit ridership in the AVO calculation

would require a 25 percent increase

above the average vehicle occupancy

over existing conditions, which already

relies very heavily on transit ridership,

and this would penalize the Chicago

area for having invested heavily in an

extensive public transit infrastructure.

The State points out that the Illinois

program has the support of affected

employers that feel that the Illinois AVO

target is attainable. It is the State’s

position that adoption of a transit

oriented definition, with a much higher

target, would be perceived by employers

as unattainable and would erode their

support.

In a June 10, 1994, letter from

Administrator Carol M. Browner to

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, USEPA

affirmed that ‘‘our continuing effort here

at EPA is to make the ECO Program

work in ways that make sense at the

local level.’’ USEPA believes that

Illinois’ calculation of the AVO baseline

without transit ridership reflects local

concerns, recognizes the already

significant investment in local and

Federal dollars to develop and operate

an existing major public transit

infrastructure, and is approvable

because it is consistent with Clean Air

Act section 182 (d)(1)(B) language that

allows for average vehicle occupancy

rates, ‘‘* * * reflecting existing

occupancy rates and the availability of

high occupancy modes.’’ Illinois

correctly points out that if transit

ridership is included in the AVO

baseline then cities like Chicago will

have a much higher target AVO than

some other cities simply because there

is an efficient rail system already in

place.

In light of USEPA’s prior indication to

Illinois that it could approve the AVO

calculation, and the agency expressed

desire to allow flexibility in

implementing the ECO program, USEPA

proposes to approve the AVO

calculation.

2. The Target APO

Section 182(d)(1)(B) indicates that the

target APO must be not less than 25

percent above the AVO for the

nonattainment area. An approvable SIP

revision for this program must include

the target APO. Illinois has met this

requirement by setting the target APO at

1.36 which is 25 percent above the AVO

of 1.092.

3. ECO Program

State or local law must establish ECO

Program requirements for employers

with 100 or more employees at a

worksite within severe and extreme

ozone nonattainment areas and serious

carbon monoxide areas. In the ECO

Program Guidance issued December

1992, USEPA states that automatic

coverage of employers of 100 or more

should be included in the law. In

addition, States should develop

procedures for notifying subject

employers regarding the ECO Program

requirements.

State and/or local laws must require

that initial compliance plans

convincingly demonstrate prospective

compliance. Approval of the SIP

revision depends on the ability of the

State/local regulations to ensure that the

Act’s requirement that initial

compliance plans convincingly

demonstrate compliance will be met.

This demonstration can have any of four

forms or any combination of these.

One option is for the State to include

in the SIP evidence that State agency

resources are available for the effective

plan-by-plan review of employerselected measures to ensure the high

quality of compliance plans, and that

plans that are not convincing will be

rejected.

A second option is for the regulations

in the SIP to contain a convincing

minimum set of measures that all

employers must implement. These

measures will be subject to review and

approval by USEPA as adequate when

the SIP is processed.

A third option is for the regulations in

the SIP to provide that failure by the

employer to meet the target APO will

result in implementation of a regulationspecified, multi-measure contingency

plan. This plan will be reviewed by

USEPA for adequacy when the SIP is

processed.

A fourth option is for the regulations

in the SIP to include financial penalties

for employers who fail to meet the target

APO, and/or compliance incentives that

are large enough to result in a

significant prospective incentive for the

employer to design and implement an

effective initial compliance plan of its

own.

Illinois has met these requirements by

providing evidence in the SIP that

Illinois Department of Transportation

resources are available to implement the

first option. Illinois has contracted with

several consulting firms to administer

and monitor the program, to develop a

training program for employers, and to

prepare informational and educational

materials.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10825

Illinois will begin to notify the

approximately 5,400 employers in the

Chicago area with 100 or more

employees in three staggered groups.

Beginning in January 1995, registration

packages were to be sent to the largest

250 employers representing

approximately one third of all affected

employees. Registration packages will

be mailed to the second and third

groups of employers in April 1995, and

July 1995, respectively. Registration

packages will include a complete

guidance document, all necessary forms,

information regarding training and

information regarding how to withdraw

from the program if the number of

employees at the worksite falls below

100. Registration, APO surveys, and

compliance or maintenance plans will

be required from employers 30, 90, and

240 days, respectively, following receipt

of the registration packet.

Each affected employer will receive

program guidance that explains the

requirements of the program and

provides guidelines for developing

approvable compliance plans for two

phases of the program. In Phase 1—

Start-Up (1994 to 1996) employers have

the option of developing initial

compliance plans using one of 14 startup packages or the option of utilizing

the value-added system. In Phase 2—

Compliance (1996 to 1998) employers

that have implemented their initial

compliance plan for two years, must

develop a renewal compliance plan

using the value-added approach.

Phase 1—Start-Up (1994 to 1996)

Option A, ECO Start-up packages,

allows employers to choose one of 14

start-up packages, each of which

contains a fixed set of support measures

that must be implemented. The required

measures are minimum requirements

and employers may supplement these

packages by implementing additional

strategies.

The start-up packages include: (1)

Rideshare with Support; (2) Ride-share

with Guaranteed Ride Home; (3)

Rideshare with On-Site Amenities; (4)

Rideshare with Vanpool Support; (5)

Transit with Guaranteed Ride Home; (6)

Transit with On-Site Transit Pass/Token

Sales; (7) Transit with Transit Check

Participation; (8) Transit with Shuttle

Service; (9) Bicycle/Walk Program; (10)

Telecommuting; (11) Compressed Work

Week; (12) Parking Cash Out; (13)

Transportation Allowance; and, (14)

Episodic Program. Each of these

packages requires that a trained

employee transportation coordinator be

hired by the employer to develop and

implement the package. USEPA believes

that initial employer compliance plans

that include any of thes start-up

packages could convincingly

demonstrate compliance during the first

four years of the program.

Option B, the Value-Added System,

would allow employers to develop an

initial compliance plan that is

customized to the worksite. Employers

would work through a series of steps for

building up the value of a compliance

plan to a level that will ensure

compliance by selecting from a menu of

trip reduction strategies that each has a

designated vehicle reduction value.

These steps include: (1) Work hour

programs (telecommuting and

compressed work week); (2) trip

reduction support functions for carpool,

vanpool, transit, bicycle, and walk

programs; and (3) use of financial

incentives and disincentives. Vehicle

reduction estimates were developed for

each support function and financial

incentive and disincentive for three

APO ranges and three transportation

environments. These values are applied

using a series of worksheets to estimate

both the singular and additive effects of

the proposed trip reduction strategies.

Phase 2—Compliance (1996–1998)

After employers have implemented

their initial compliance plan for two

years, they must develop and

implement a renewal compliance plan

based on the value-added approach that

is designed to attain the target APO.

The Illinois Department of

Transportation shall within 90 days of

a plan submittal evaluate the

compliance plan. An employer whose

compliance plan is not approved will be

required to submit a revised plan within

60 days of notification.

USEPA proposes to accept the Illinois

program as a viable ECO Program that

will reduce vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) in the Chicago severe ozone

nonattainment area. The June 10, 1994,

letter from Administrator Carol Browner

to Senator Frank R. Lautenberg stresses

USEPA’s commitment to policies that

demonstrate ongoing flexibility in the

ECO Program. USEPA will allow ‘‘states

to grant employers credit for any

measure that reduces employee

commute vehicle trips in gasolinefueled vehicles.’’ Further, the letter

provides that States may approve

employer plans that include seasonal

components if the plans will achieve the

trip reduction goal as determined by the

State.

USEPA believes approval of the

Illinois’ episodic Start-up package

provides full flexibility in establishing a

viable, longterm ECO Program in

Illinois. The Illinois Episodic Start-up

package is a temporary, seasonal option

in a program that phases-in increasingly

stringent requirements in which

employers must achieve the State’s trip

reduction goals four years after the SIP

submittal. Employer’s may implement

the episodic start-up package only

during the first two years of the ECO

Program. After which, all employers

must switch to the value-added

approach and be in compliance by July

8, 1998. For these reasons the episodic

start-up package is being proposed for

approval as part of Phase 1 of the

Illinois ECO Program. During the Phase

1 period USEPA expects the episodic

start-up package to serve as a

demonstration project and for the

purpose of collecting information on its

effectiveness. The episodic strategy is

not being proposed for approval for the

period after the first two years of the

ECO Program and all employers must

meet the requirements associated with

the value-added approach.

4. Enforcement Procedures

States and local jurisdictions need to

include in their ECO regulations

penalties and/or compliance incentives

for an employer who fails to submit a

compliance plan or an employer who

fails to implement an approved

compliance plan according to the

compliance plan’s implementation

schedule. Penalties should be sufficient

to provide an adequate incentive for

employers to comply and no less than

the expected cost of compliance.

Illinois’ ECO SIP has met this

requirement by including in its ECO

legislation substantial penalties for

failure to comply with any provision of

the regulation. A violator may be subject

to a fine of up to $10,000 and up to

$1000 per day for each violation.

Violations include: (1) Knowingly

failing to register or to submit a survey,

or a compliance plan for an affected

worksite; (2) knowingly falsifying or

misrepresenting information provided

in an employer survey or compliance

plan; (3) failing to make a good faith

effort to implement a compliance plan.

Affected employers who make a good

faith effort to implement their approved

compliance plans, but fail to achieve the

target APO will not be subject to

penalties.

III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and

Solicitation of Comments

The USEPA proposes to approve the

ECO SIP revision submitted by the State

of Illinois. The State of Illinois has

submitted a SIP revision that includes

each of the ECO Program elements

required by section 182(d)(1)(B) of the

amended Act. The SIP includes a

verifiable estimate of the areawide AVO
10826 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

at the time that the SIP was submitted

and a target APO that is at least 25

percent above the areawide AVO.

Employers with more than 100

employees are required to submit

compliance plans to the State that

convincingly demonstrate that the plan

will increase the APO per vehicle in

commuting trips between home and the

worksite during peak travel periods to a

level not less than 25 percent above the

areawide AVO for all such trips.

Employer notification was scheduled to

begin in January 1995. Registration

forms, APO surveys, and compliance or

maintenance plans will be required

from employers 30, 90, and 240 days,

respectively, following receipt of the

registration packet. Mailing of renewal

notices will begin in January 1997.

Substantial penalties that will provide

an adequate incentive for employers to

comply and are no less than the

expected cost of compliance are

included in the regulation. USEPA is,

therefore, proposing to approve this

submittal. Public comments are

solicited on the requested SIP revision

and on USEPA’s proposed rulemaking

action. Comments received by March

30, 1995 will be considered in the

development of USEPA’s final rule.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993, memoran

dum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan. Each request for

revision to any State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4789 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–27, RM–8582]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Yazoo

City, Mississippi

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Mississippi College, licensee of Station

WHJT(FM), Channel 228A, Clinton,

Mississippi, proposing the deletion of

vacant Channel 229A at Yazoo City,

Mississippi. Any party wishing to

express an interest in Channel 229A

Yazoo City, Mississippi, should file

their expression of interest by the initial

comment deadline specified herein.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 17, 1995, and reply

comments on or before May 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Shaun A. Maher, Smithwick

& Belediuk, P.C., 1990 M Street, NW,

Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036

(Counsel for petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–27, adopted February 9, 1995, and

released February 23, 1995. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–4846 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

48 CFR Part 5416

DLA Acquisition Regulation; Type of

Contracts

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency

proposes to add coverage by adding a

new part to 48 CFR Chapter 54, the

Defense Logistics Acquisition

Regulation (DLAR) Part 5416. The

proposed coverage affects regulations on

the use of solicitation provisions and

contract clauses for Economic Price

Adjustments (EPA). Comments are

hereby requested on the proposed rule.

The proposed DLAR coverage expands