Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12695

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 8, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Small business assistance

program.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP

for the State of Arkansas was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July 1,

1982.

Dated: January 24, 1995.

William B. Hathaway,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart E—Arkansas

2. Section 52.170 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(31) to read as

follows:

§ 52.170 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(31) The State is required to

implement a Small Business Stationary

Source Technical and Environmental

Compliance Assistance Program

(PROGRAM) as specified in the plan

revision submitted by the Governor on

November 6, 1992. This plan submittal,

as adopted by the Arkansas Commission

on Pollution Control and Ecology on

November 5, 1992, was developed in

accordance with section 507 of the

Clean Air Act. On April 23, 1993, the

Governor submitted Act 251 of 1993

which establishes the Compliance

Advisory Panel (CAP) for the

PROGRAM.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Act 251 of 1993 approved by the

Governor on February 26, 1993.

Included in this Act are provisions

creating a CAP, establishing

membership of the CAP, and addressing

the responsibilities and duties of the

CAP.

(B) Arkansas Department of Pollution

Control and Ecology, Minute Order No.

92–81, adopted November 5, 1992.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Revision entitled, ‘‘Arkansas

Small Business Stationary Source

Technical and Environmental

Compliance Assistance Program SIP

Revision’’, adopted November 5, 1992.

(B) Legal opinion letter dated

November 5, 1992, from Steve Weaver,

Chief Counsel, Arkansas Department of

Pollution Control and Ecology,

regarding legality of Commission

teleconference meeting.

3. Section 52.183 is added to subpart

E to read as follows:

§ 52.183 Small business assistance

program.

The Governor of Arkansas submitted

on November 6, 1992, a plan revision to

develop and implement a Small

Business Stationary Source Technical

and Environmental Compliance

Assistance Program (PROGRAM) to

meet the requirements of section 507 of

the Clean Air Act by November 15,

1994. The plan commits to provide

technical and compliance assistance to

small businesses, hire an Ombudsman

to serve as an independent advocate for

small businesses, and establish a

Compliance Advisory Panel to advise

the program and report to the EPA on

the program’s effectiveness. On April

23, 1993, the Governor submitted Act

251 of 1993 which establishes the

Compliance Advisory Panel for the

PROGRAM.

[FR Doc. 95–5442 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IN39–3–6715; FRL–5158–1]

Approval and Incorporation of

Employee Commute Option Program in

the State Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 18, 1994, the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) approved the

Employee Commute Options (ECO)

regulation for Lake and Porter Counties,

Indiana. On the same day (August 18,

1994), a proposed rule was also

published which established a 30-day

public comment period noting that, if

adverse comments were received

regarding the direct final rule, the

USEPA would withdraw the direct final

rule and publish an additional final rule

to address the public comments.

Adverse comments were received

during the public comment period from

the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the

Northwest Indiana Forum, three affected

employers, three motorcycle

associations, and three individuals. This

final rule summarizes these comments

and USEPA’s responses and finalizes

the approval of the ECO program for

Lake and Porter Counties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision,

public comments and USEPA’s

responses are available for inspection at

the following address: (It is

recommended that you telephone

Jessica Radolf at (312) 886–3198 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.) United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of this SIP revision is

available for inspection at: Office of Air

and Radiation (OAR), Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

room 1500, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Radolf, Regulation Development

Section (AR–18J), Regulation

Development Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone Number (312) 886–

3198.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

The ECO regulations (326 Indiana

Administrative Code Article 19)

discussed in this rule were submitted on

February 25, 1994, by the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) for the severe

ozone nonattainment area that includes

Lake and Porter Counties. These rules

were submitted to satisfy section

182(d)(1)(b) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

which requires that employers in severe

ozone nonattainment areas with 100 or

more employees at a worksite

participate in a trip reduction program.

On August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42506) the

USEPA approved the ECO regulation as

a revision to the Indiana ozone SIP. (For

further information refer to the August

18, 1994, final rule.) Because adverse

comments were received regarding the

direct final rule, USEPA removed the

direct final rule on November 7, 1994

(59 FR 55368). This final rule addresses

the comments which were received

during the public comment period and

announces USEPA’s final action on the
12696 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ECO regulation for Lake and Porter

Counties.

II. Public Comments and USEPA

Responses

Comment

Several commenters believe that

employees will be forced to change their

commuting habits. Employees note that

driving is a privilege and that the

USEPA is trying to take it away with the

ECO program. There is concern that

employees will face substantial

penalties if they do not meet the ECO

regulations. Employers believe they will

be required to force their employees to

change their commuting habits. The

employers note that ECO will create

opportunities for legal challenges from

angry employees against employers put

in the position of infringing on

employee’s commuting choices and

personal schedules.

USEPA Response

There is nothing in the Act that would

force an employee to change commuting

habits. The Act requires employers to

provide incentives to employees so that

employees may choose alternatives to

driving alone. The Act gives employers

flexibility to use any incentives they

choose to promote compressed work

weeks, mass transit, vanpools, carpools,

telecommuting, bicycling, and walking.

An employee may accept or reject an

employer’s incentives to stop driving

alone to work.

Many employees will benefit from the

ECO program. Coordinated ridesharing

programs will facilitate carpooling and

vanpooling that can reduce employee

stress and save employees money.

Efforts by employers to support

coordinated transportation planning at

the regional level may improve

transportation services, such as added

bus routes, so that employees will have

more choices in how they get to work.

Guaranteed ride home programs have

been found to cost employers very little

and provide assurance to employees

who do not drive to work that their

transportation needs can be met in case

an emergency arises.

Consequently, the privilege of driving

is not being taken away with the ECO

program and employees will not face

penalties for not meeting the ECO

requirements. Employees will

voluntarily decide whether or not to

change their commuting habits.

Conversely, employers will not be

required to force their employees to

change their commuting habits.

Employers will develop a program of

incentives with the goal of influencing

their employees to voluntarily decide to

commute differently.

Comment

One commenter objects to the need

for an ECO program since new cars are

built to be much cleaner. The

commenter notes that if the ECO

program goes into affect, money

developing these cleaner cars will have

been wasted since people can’t drive the

clean cars.

USEPA Response

The Act requires implementation of

an ECO program in those areas that have

been classified as severe or extreme

nonattainment for ozone or serious

nonattainment for carbon monoxide.

Fourteen areas in eleven States,

including Lake and Porter Counties in

Northwest Indiana, must implement an

ECO program.

These severe and extreme ozone

nonattainment areas will have to reduce

emissions by a very large amount to

achieve the health-based ambient air

quality standard for ozone. A study

currently being conducted for the

Chicago, Milwaukee, and Northwest

Indiana areas by the Lake Michigan Air

Directors Consortium and the States of

Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and

Michigan indicates that current levels of

emissions, considering growth, will

need to be reduced by as much as 40 to

60 percent, or more to achieve

attainment of the ozone air quality

standard by the year 2007.

Implementation of numerous control

measures for stationary, area, and

mobile sources of emissions will have to

occur to achieve this percentage

reduction. Mobile sources, which

include automobiles, account for almost

47 percent of the ozone pollution in

Northwest Indiana.

The growth in the use of automobiles

is one of the primary reasons it has been

difficult to achieve better ozone air

quality. Vehicle miles traveled have

experienced a growth rate over the past

25 years which is nearly three times the

rate of the population growth. While

hundreds of millions of dollars have

been invested over the past 25 years to

reduce vehicle emissions by applying

good technology to both the vehicles

and the fuel, it is predicted that the

growth in total emissions due to

continued growth in vehicle miles

traveled may eventually outweigh those

gains.

The ECO program is part of the Act’s

strategy to address the growth in vehicle

miles traveled. The purpose of the ECO

program is to reduce air pollution

caused by vehicle traffic and congestion

through reductions in the number of

work-related drive-alone trips. Although

work-related commute travel is only

about a third of all travel, it is uniquely

suited to promote alternatives to single

occupant vehicle travel. There are

concentrations of people going to the

same place at the same time who can

share rides. The ECO program was

mandated by Congress because Congress

believes there is a need to address how

people travel as a part of the solution to

cleaning the air and reducing travel

congestion.

Therefore, even though new cars are

built to be much cleaner, there is a need

for ECO and the money spent to develop

cleaner cars will not have been wasted.

The ECO is a means to reduce, not

eliminate, automobile usage and, thus,

maintain the emission reduction

benefits derived from cleaner cars.

Comment

One commenter opposes ECO as a

‘‘band-aid’’ solution to the ozone

problem. The commenter notes that the

appropriate approach is for the Federal

Government to mandate that the

automobile manufacturers produce

more natural gas powered vehicles. The

commenter points out that natural gas is

plentiful in this country, inexpensive

and clean burning, and that the

technology exists. The commenter notes

that all that is needed is to make natural

gas available to the consumer. The

commenter suggests that the phase-in of

natural gas vehicles should begin now,

so future generations naturally have that

option.

USEPA Response

A major goal of the Act is to promote

vehicles that pollute less than

conventional gasoline powered vehicles

or not at all. Act initiatives include

promotion of natural gas vehicles which

are recognized as an available and clean

technology.

The Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) (section

246) program explicitly addresses the

phase-in of lower emitting vehicles and

trucks beginning in model year (MY)

1998 for fleets of 10 or more vehicles,

that are either centrally fueled or

determined to be ‘‘capable’’ of being

centrally fueled, and which are located

or primarily operated in an affected

nonattainment area. The CFF program

will require that specified percentages

of a covered fleet operator’s new vehicle

acquisitions in a given model year

consist of low emitting vehicles. The

light-duty clean fuel vehicle (up to

8,500 pounds GVWR) phase-in

requirements are 30 percent in MY

1998, 50 percent in MY 1999, and 70

percent thereafter. The heavy-duty clean

fuel vehicle (8,500 to 26,000 pounds
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12697

GVWR) phase-in requirement is 50

percent each year starting in MY 1998.

Fleet owners will receive emission

credits for purchasing ultra low emitting

vehicles.

USEPA ECO guidance issued on

December 17, 1992, recognizes the

importance of encouraging the use of

vehicles operated by means other than

a gasoline or diesel operated internal

combustion engine. For the purpose of

calculating the average passenger

occupancy (APO), States may develop

factors to be applied to the vehicle

count which would reflect the lower

emission levels from alternatively

fueled vehicles that include natural gas

vehicles.

Comment

Several commenters believe the

program will result in great costs to area

ECO employers, but will not result in

any environmental benefits. The

commenters cite that the results of an

ECO pilot project in Northwest Indiana

show that despite great expense and

sincere effort to make the program

successful, employees simply were not

responding.

USEPA Response

As discussed above, the ECO program

is part of the Act’s strategy for

addressing the growth in vehicle miles

traveled. Congress mandated ECO as a

starting point for changing travel

behavior so air quality problems

associated with single-occupancy

automobiles usage can be solved. The

program should not be thought of as a

short-term effort. It is really the

beginning of a ten- or twenty-year effort

to expand employees’ choices and

opportunities for travel. The funding

provisions of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation and Efficiency Act make

it possible for Federal dollars to be used

for public transportation projects which

can support ECO long-term goals. The

USEPA believes that the ECO program

will play a significant role in making

people aware of how they travel and

this awareness will eventually extend

beyond work-related trips to trips taken

throughout the day. This awareness will

have important implications related to

traffic congestion, air quality, climate

change and energy usage.

The results of the ECO pilot project

cannot be used to substantiate claims

that ECO will not work in Indiana.

Employer plans only began to be

implemented in the late spring of 1994

and there has not been enough time to

evaluate effectiveness or costs. In

addition, participants in the ECO pilot

project were not required to develop the

full scale compliance plans that will be

required when the program is fully

implemented.

Comment

Several commenters address the

unlikely success of carpooling in

Northwest Indiana. The commenters

note that employees of any one

company are spread out over a wide

geographic area, and many worksites

have multiple shifts beginning during

the peak travel period of 6:00 a.m. to

10:00 a.m. The commenters also discuss

that the nature of their work requires

that employees have use of their car at

all times. The commenters note that

they often do errands on the way to and

from work, such as taking children to

and from daycare, and are concerned

about handling a family emergency that

may occur in the middle of the day.

USEPA Response

Carpooling and vanpooling will be

important elements of many ECO

programs. While there will always be

employees that cannot carpool because

of individual needs, there will be many

employees that will be able to carpool.

Moreover, the needs of commuters will

change over time. For example,

employees that must drop children off

at daycare currently may be able to

carpool in the future when their

children are older. The ECO program

provides an opportunity to establish

commuting options, such as carpooling,

public transit or other alternatives, to

meet future commuting needs.

Employers cannot determine that

their employees are spread out over too

wide a geographic area for carpooling to

succeed until they have conducted their

APO surveys that include employee

locations and attitudes. Even if

employees are spread out over a large

area, there may be small pockets of

employees willing to carpool. In

addition, more employers in close

proximity may operate cooperative

carpooling programs in which their

employees would be given the

opportunity to carpool together.

The potential success of carpooling in

any area will largely be determined by

the amount of effort by employers to

provide educational programs and

measures that support ridesharing.

Guaranteed ride home programs provide

assurance to employees who do not

drive to work that their transportation

needs can be met in case of a midday

emergency. All of the participating

employers in the Northwest Indiana

ECO pilot project have included a

guaranteed ride home program in their

compliance plan. Employers may also

establish on-site amenities that will

make it less necessary for employees to

have their own vehicle, including

automatic teller machines, cafeterias,

and daycare facilities.

Other support measures for

carpooling include: offering preferential

or subsidized parking for carpools and

vanpools; charging drive alones for

parking; cashing out parking with cash

equivalents to free parking; sponsoring

or subsidizing carpools and vanpools;

providing comprehensive rideshare

matching services; subsidizing shuttles

during midday to local shopping areas;

and providing company-owned vehicles

for ridesharing.

Several alternative measures would

address the concern over multiple shifts

during the peak travel period. The ECO

can be looked at as an opportunity for

employers to reevaluate how they do

business. At some worksites, it may be

possible to reschedule shifts by

reducing the number of starting times to

consolidate the number of employees

arriving at worksites at the same times.

Other alternatives include changing

work schedules to accommodate

compressed work weeks in which

employees work longer shifts over fewer

days. This gives employers the

opportunity to offer their employees

more favorable schedules such as four

day work weeks and three-day

weekends. Some employers may want to

allow certain employees to

telecommute, or work at home, one or

two days a week.

Employers can also adopt incentive

programs to encourage employees to use

public transit if it is available. Where

public transit is not available,

employers may want to turn to the

private sector and sponsor subscription

bus services. Employers can also

improve facilities to promote bicycle

use and walking options.

Comment

Several commenters object that the

ECO program is required all year long,

although the ozone season is only April

through October. The commenters note

that high ozone levels typically are

recorded only during exceptionally hot

and dry periods in June, July or August.

USEPA Response

The ozone season in Indiana is April

through September, not October.

However, excessive driving of single

occupied vehicles during the 6 a.m. to

10 a.m. peak commuting period and the

resulting traffic congestion occurs all

year long. Indiana chose to implement

its ECO program on an annual basis

because the State believes it would be

difficult to change commuting habits,

such as reforming carpools, just in the

spring and summer. The State believes
12698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

it makes financial sense, as well as

practical sense, to implement several of

the alternative commuting measures on

a year-round basis, thereby avoiding

continual start-up costs and the initial

resistance of commuters to changing

their commuting habits.

Comment

Several commenters note that high

ozone levels have been recorded only in

one urbanized area of Lake County and

no monitoring data exist to justify

expansion of the ECO program to all of

Lake County or any of Porter County.

USEPA Response

Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana are

part of the Chicago consolidated

metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) as

determined by the census bureau.

Section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv)of the Act

requires that the boundaries of any

ozone nonattainment area classified as

serious, severe, or extreme by operation

of law include the entire CMSA.

Congress thus ensured that the entire

area contributing ozone forming

pollutants would be included in the

nonattainment area. The inherent nature

of ozone formation is that volatile

organic compounds and oxides of

nitrogen are emitted in one area and

carried downwind while reacting in the

presence of sunlight to form ozone.

Thus, the highest concentrations of

ozone are not necessarily experienced in

the area producing the greatest amount

of pollutants but instead the highest

ozone readings may be recorded many

miles downwind.

Section 181(a) of the Act also requires

that the years to consider when

determining the classification of an area

were to be the years 1987 to 1989. In the

case of Lake and Porter Counties, the

monitoring site at Ogden Dunes in

Porter County recorded 4 days during

1987, 10 days during 1988, and 0 days

during 1989, with ozone exceeding the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). The highest 1-hour ozone

level at the Ogden Dunes site was

during 1988 and was 0.192 parts per

million (ppm). The monitoring site in

Lake County with the most ozone

exceedances during this time period

was in Hammond, Indiana which

recorded 1 exceedance day during 1987,

5 days during 1988, and 0 days during

1989. The highest 1-hour ozone

concentration was 0.186 ppm. However,

the sites in Lake and Porter Counties

were not the highest sites in the CMSA.

The monitoring site with the highest

recorded ozone levels in the CMSA is

located in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

This site recorded 18 days during 1988

that exceeded the ozone NAAQS with

the highest concentrations being 0.222,

0.193, 0.190 and 0.187 ppm. Thus, this

site was used as the ‘‘design value’’ site

and determined the classification of the

entire CMSA, as required by the Act.

Therefore, the entire Chicago CMSA

is, by operation of law, classified as a

severe ozone nonattainment area and

the Act requires that all counties in the

area must be included in the ECO

program.

Comment

Several commenters are concerned

that employer monitoring of the success

of ECO plans cannot be determined with

any degree of accuracy. The commenters

note that employer monitoring is

unreasonable and requires resources

unavailable to most employers.

USEPA Response

Employers in Northwest Indiana will

be required to evaluate the success of

their ECO program 1 year after the

initial plan submittal and annually

thereafter. Employers will be required to

resurvey their employees to calculate

the APO attained. The survey and

survey methods will be the same as the

initial survey conducted, insuring

consistency between surveys.

Employers will receive computer

software developed by Purdue

University—Calumet to electronically

calculate the APO and do crosstabulations.

During the year, employers can

monitor participation in their programs

to determine participation levels and

whether there is a need to make

program modifications. A variety of

methods that are not beyond the means

of Northwest Indiana employers can be

used to monitor employee participation,

including but not limited too:

registering program participants;

monitoring preferential parking; having

supervisors complete weekly reporting

forms; having employees complete

weekly self-reporting forms; and

conducting periodic surveys. The degree

of accuracy in monitoring will be

determined by the honesty of employees

reporting how they are commuting.

Since employees are not facing any

penalties for not participating in an

employer’s program, there should be

little incentive to be untruthful.

Comment

Several commenters are concerned

that Northwest Indiana does not have a

regional public transportation system in

place. As such, most area employers do

not have the option of encouraging or

providing financial incentives to their

employees to use transit. In addition,

commenters note their concern over

potential safety problems from their

employees using transit in high crime

areas or walking several blocks along

dark roads from bus stops.

USEPA Response

ECO provides an opportunity for

employers to get involved in regional

transportation planning issues. The

Northwest Indiana Regional Planning

Commission has proposed extensive

improvements in the transportation

network in Lake and Porter Counties.

The Indiana Transportation Association,

the statewide organization of public and

private transit providers, is working

with local transit agencies and state

representatives to develop a legislative

initiative for funding transit

improvements statewide, including

Lake and Porter Counties.

There are full-scale public transit

systems in place in the cities of

Hammond and Gary and a small transit

system in the city of East Chicago that

can provide alternatives for employees.

Hammond Transit has recently

extended its bus service on Calumet

Avenue into the town of Munster. There

are also a number of private transit

companies willing to work with

employers subject to ECO to provide

subscription bus services.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) provision of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation and

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is providing

money that is enabling the transit

agencies in Northwest Indiana to

provide expanded service. These funds

have enabled the region to launch a tricity link-up pilot project which involves

the interconnection of bus services

between the central business districts of

Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond. This

pilot project has proven extremely

successful and will most likely be

continued. The city of Gary has been

doing a study of expanding transit

service into the cities of Griffin,

Highland, and Munster and linking up

with the Hammond transit service in

Munster. Gary Transit has recently

submitted a proposal for CMAQ funds

to run a pilot of the actual service. In

addition, several new park-and-ride

facilities, which will be staging areas for

mass transit, vanpools, carpools, and

subscription bus services, are being

designed and will be paid for with

CMAQ funds.

Concern over the lack of safety due to

poor walking or safety conditions can be

addressed by working with the

appropriate entities to have lighting and

walking facilities improved; relocating

transit stops so they are closer to the

worksite; or providing shuttle service

from transit stops to the worksite.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12699

Where transit is not an option, there are

several measures discussed above that

can be used to encourage employees to

drive to work in a means other than a

single occupied vehicle.

The funding available through ISTEA

as well as the requirements of the ECO

program should be seen as an

opportunity to improve the provision of

public transportation in Lake and Porter

Counties and other similar areas.

Comment

One commenter opposes the mandate

that public schools participate in the

ECO program. The commenter noted

that several characteristics of public

schools will make them unable to

comply successfully with the ECO

program and will divert needed

resources from the primary goal of

educating students. The commenter

explained that public school work

schedules are inflexible prohibiting

adjustment of work hours to

accommodate flexible hours or

compressed work weeks; and providing

monetary incentives to staff is

prohibited since funds can only be

dispersed for educational expenses. The

commenter noted the ECO program

discriminates against employees of

larger schools and favors employees of

smaller schools; students account for

the majority of drivers and are not

included in the program; and the school

district does not get credit in the average

passenger occupancy calculation for the

6000 students that are transported by

school bus.

USEPA Response

The USEPA is committed to finding

ways for States to implement the ECO

program so that the burden on affected

employers is minimized. However,

USEPA cannot categorically exempt any

employers from any of the requirements

of the ECO program. It is clear that

public schools must be subject to the

program and so long as they

demonstrate a good faith effort to meet

the target average passenger occupancy,

they will not be penalized.

There are ways for public schools to

encourage employees to commute

differently that do not involve large

expenditures or manipulation of work

schedules. Because the school work

schedule is fixed, there are a large

number of employees arriving at the

worksite at the same time making it

possible to encourage ridesharing.

Several of the measures listed above

which would support ridesharing are

inexpensive such as preferential parking

for vehicles with more than one

passenger; guaranteed ride home

programs; comprehensive rideshare

matching services; and educational

programs that promote ridesharing.

The ECO program does not

discriminate against employees of larger

schools in favor of employees of smaller

schools. Congress selected a threshold

of 100 employees because it is Congress’

intent to target employers who have

enough employees arriving in the peak

period to establish a viable ECO

program. The USEPA recognizes there

are situations in which the majority of

an employer’s workforce follows a nonstandard schedule, and the number of

employees arriving in the peak period is

small enough to make ridesharing and

special employer-provided services

difficult. Therefore, under the December

17, 1994, USEPA ECO Guidance, a de

minimis exemption may be made at the

State’s option whereby employers with

worksites at which fewer than 33

employees report to work during the

peak travel period are not subject to the

requirements. The Indiana ECO rule has

adopted this de minimis exemption.

While the Indiana ECO rule applies to

those employers which employ 100 or

more employees at a single worksite, the

worksite must have 33 or more

employees reporting between 6 a. m.

and 10 a.m. on any single day, Monday

through Friday.

The Act does not require the

inclusion of students in the State ECO

program even though students may

account for the majority of drivers in

some schools. However, the Act does

not preclude the State from developing

a separate trip reduction regulation that

would specifically address the

commuting habits of students. In

addition, students riding school buses

are not included in the APO

calculations because they are not

employees commuting to the worksite.

Other types of businesses and worksites,

such as hospitals and shopping centers

for example, have large numbers of

nonemployees coming to the worksite as

well.

Comment

Several commenters claim that ECO

precludes the use of motorcycles as a

commuting option without

consideration of convenience,

contributions to reduced congestion,

economic hardship imposed by such

prohibitions, or environmental benefits

such as fuel efficiency and less

manufacturing pollution. Commenters

believe the Indiana ECO rule does not

address the rights of those Indiana

citizens who choose to commute to

work using a motorcycle and

recommend that motorcycles be

exempted from the program. The

commenters fear that ECO could lead to

a ban of motorcycle operation between

the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.

Commenters believe that the

methodologies used to calculate the

average vehicle occupancy (AVO) and

APO diminish the value of motorcycles.

USEPA Response

The ECO program requires employers

with 100 or more employees to

implement programs that will encourage

their employees that arrive at their

worksite between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. to

commute to work by a means other than

a single occupied vehicle. Affected

employers will conduct surveys to

determine the APO of the vehicles

arriving at their worksites between 6

a.m. and 10 a.m. and then develop a

program to encourage their employees

that arrive in single occupied vehicles to

use an alternative means of commuting.

Motorcycles used to commute to an

affected worksite will be counted as

vehicles since they have internal

combustion engines. While USEPA

recognizes the need for additional

information on motorcycle emissions

and commute patterns, current data

show that motorcycles emit significantly

more pollutants that help to form ozone

than do light-duty vehicles (e.g.,

passenger cars) on a grams/mile basis.

Individuals who ride a motorcycle to

an affected worksite between 6 a.m. and

10 a.m. will be encouraged to find an

alternative means of commuting to that

worksite. However, as discussed above,

there is nothing in the Act that would

force motorcyclists to change

commuting habits. Motorcyclists, like

all employees, may accept or reject an

employer’s incentives to stop driving.

Many motorcyclists could benefit by

participating in carpools and vanpools,

or using public transit programs that

reduce stress and save money.

Consequently, it is not necessary to

exempt motorcycles from the ECO

program since motorcycles have the

same rights under the program as all

other vehicles. ECO does not preclude

the use of motorcycles as a commuting

option; and does not eliminate the rights

of Indiana citizens who choose to

commute by motorcycle. In addition,

the methodologies used to determine

the AVO and APO do not need to be

modified since they appropriately

identify the number of vehicles with

internal combustion engines on the road

during the 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. peak period

and the number of people traveling in

those vehicles.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

The State of Indiana has met the

requirements of the Act by revising the

Indiana ozone SIP to include an ECO
12700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

program. Therefore, USEPA approves

the ECO program for Lake and Porter

Counties.

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,

memorandum 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 SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP 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 economic 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.

The 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 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. USEPA, 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 8, 1995. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purposes of

judicial review nor does it extend the

time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(92) On February 25, 1994, Indiana

submitted an employee commute option

rule intended to satisfy the requirements

of section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A)

Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative

Code, Article 19 MOBILE SOURCE

RULES, Rule 1, Employee Commute

Options. Filed with the Secretary of

State, October 28, 1993, effective

November 29, 1993. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 17, Number 3,

December 1, 1993.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5446 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SC19–1–5031a; FRL–5166–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans State:

Disapproval of Revisions to the South

Carolina State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving South

Carolina’s generic bubble regulation

submitted for approval into the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) by the State

of South Carolina through the South

Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC) on June

5, 1985, because it does not comply

with EPA’s Emissions Trading Policy

Statement (ETPS) of December 4, 1986,

or the Economic Incentive Program

Rules (EIP). The policy states that

existing state generic bubble rules

should be reviewed and that a notice be

published identifying any deficiencies

found in the review and giving a means

and a schedule to correct them.

However, since revision of their

federally approved generic rule or

withdrawal of the 1985 submittal will

require legislative action by the State,

South Carolina requested in a letter to

John Hankinson, Regional

Administrator, that EPA disapprove the

submittal. Therefore, EPA is rescinding

the previous approval of the generic

bubble regulations and disapproving the

June 5, 1985 submittal.

DATES: This final rule will be effective

May 8, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 7, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kay T.

Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed

below.

Copies of the documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay

T. Prince, Regulatory Planning and

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555 x4221. Reference file SC19–1–

5031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7,

1982 (47 FR 38887), EPA approved into

the SIP the South Carolina generic

bubble regulation as meeting all EPA