36004 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Jane S. Moore,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17459 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO43–2–6865; CO43–1–6931; FRL–5532–

07]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of State Implementation

Plan for Colorado; Carbon Monoxide

Attainment Demonstrations and

Related SIP Elements for Denver and

Longmont; Clean Air Act

Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency today proposes approval of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Colorado for the purpose of bringing

about the attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for carbon monoxide (CO). The

implementation plan revisions were

submitted by the State to satisfy certain

Federal requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area CO SIP for Denver

and Longmont. This action includes

proposed approval of revisions to

Colorado Regulations 11 (vehicle

inspection and maintenance) and 13

(oxygenated fuels) submitted to satisfy

conditions in the SIP. It also includes

proposed reclassification of the Denver

CO nonattainment area from Moderate

to Serious. The rationale for the

approvals and reclassification are set

forth in this document. Additional

information is available at the address

indicated below.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

August 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Richard R. Long, Director

of Air Programs (8P2–A), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466.

Copies of the State’s submittals and

other information are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, Air Programs, 999 18th

Street, 3rd Floor, South Terrace, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466; and Colorado Air

Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry

Creek Dr. South, Denver, Colorado

80222–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Houk at (303) 312–6446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate CO nonattainment areas

are set out in sections 186–187 of the

Clean Air Act (Act) Amendments of

1990 (CAAA) which pertain to the

classification of CO nonattainment areas

and to the submission requirements of

the SIP’s for these areas, respectively.

The EPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ describing EPA’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to review

SIP’s and SIP revisions submitted under

Title I of the Act, [see generally 57 FR

13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070

(April 28, 1992)]. Because EPA is

describing its interpretations here only

in broad terms, the reader should refer

to the General Preamble for a more

detailed discussion of the

interpretations of Title I advanced in

today’s proposal and the supporting

rationale. In today’s rulemaking action

on the Denver and Longmont CO SIPs,

EPA is proposing to apply its

interpretations taking into consideration

the specific factual issues presented.

Thus, EPA will consider any timely

submitted comments before taking final

action on today’s proposal.

This Federal Register document

specifically addresses several

requirements of the 1990 CAAA which

were required to be submitted no later

than November 15, 1992, and which the

State did not submit by that date. These

requirements include an attainment

demonstration, contingency measures

and, for Denver, a vehicle miles

travelled forecasting and tracking

program and transportation control

measures. EPA made a formal finding

that the State had failed to submit these

SIP revisions in a letter to Governor Roy

Romer dated January 15, 1993. This

Federal Register document also

addresses revisions to Regulations 11

and 13, submitted by the State of

Colorado to implement portions of the

control strategy relied upon by the

attainment demonstration.

Section 187(a)(7) required those States

containing CO nonattainment areas with

design values greater than 12.7 parts per

million (ppm) to submit, among other

things, an attainment demonstration by

November 15, 1992, demonstrating that

the plan will provide for attainment by

December 31, 1995 for moderate CO

nonattainment areas and December 31,

2000 for serious CO nonattainment

areas. The attainment demonstration

must include a SIP control strategy,

which is also due by November 15,

1992. The SIP control strategy for a

given nonattainment area must be

designed to ensure that the area meets

the specific annual emissions

reductions necessary for reaching

attainment by the deadline. In addition,

section 187(a)(3) requires these areas to

implement contingency measures if any

estimate of actual vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) or any updated VMT

forecast for the area contained in an

annual report for any year prior to

attainment exceeds the number

predicted in the most recent VMT

forecast. Contingency measures are also

triggered by failure to attain the NAAQS

for CO by the attainment deadline.

Contingency measures must be

submitted with the CO SIP by November

15, 1992. Finally, a vehicle miles

travelled forecasting and tracking

program is required by Section

187(a)(2)(A), and transportation control

measures are required for Denver by

Section 187(a)(2)(B). These

requirements are discussed in more

detail below and in the Technical

Support Document for this proposed

action.

Longmont had been designated as

unclassifiable/attainment prior to

passage of the 1990 CAAA. However, a

special monitoring study in 1988–89

recorded an exceedance of the NAAQS

in Longmont. As a result, EPA Region

VIII recommended that the Governor

designate this area nonattainment, and

on March 15, 1991, the Governor

submitted a nonattainment designation

for this area that was later codified by

EPA at 40 CFR Part 81. Since this area

had never had a SIP, EPA interpreted

Section 172 of the Act to require an

attainment demonstration for Longmont.

Contingency measures under Section

172(c)(9) were also required. On January

15, 1993, EPA made a formal finding

that the State had failed to submit these

SIP revisions for Longmont.

On July 11, 1994 and July 13, 1994,

Governor Roy Romer submitted

comprehensive revisions to the

Colorado SIP. The carbon monoxide SIP

element submittals for Denver and

Longmont addressed the outstanding

CAA requirements discussed above, as

well as other CAA mandates. The July

11, 1994 CO SIP revision for Denver was

developed primarily by the Colorado

Department of Health’s Air Pollution

Control Division (APCD), the Colorado

Air Quality Control Commission

(AQCC), and the Regional Air Quality

Council (RAQC), which represents local

government and citizen interests. The

July 13, 1994 CO SIP revision for

Longmont was developed primarily by

the APCD, in consultation with the City

of Longmont.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 36005

1Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

The EPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review

and action [see section 110(k)(1) and 57

FR 13565]. The EPA’s completeness

criteria for SIP submittals are set out at

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by EPA within six months after receipt

of the submission.

The AQCC held a public hearing on

June 16, 1994 to entertain public

comment on the implementation plan

revisions for Denver and Longmont.

Following the public hearing, the SIP

revisions were adopted by the AQCC,

and forwarded to the Colorado

Legislative Council for review. (Under

Colorado law, SIP revisions imposing

new or revised controls on mobile

sources must be reviewed and accepted

by the Colorado Legislative Council.)

The AQCC held an emergency hearing

on July 7, 1994, to address concerns

with the Denver SIP raised by the

Legislative Council, and on July 11 and

July 13, 1994, the SIP revisions were

submitted to EPA by the Governor for

approval.

The SIP revision was reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

after its submittal, in accordance with

the completeness criteria set out at 40

CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). The submittal was found to be

complete, and a letter dated July 14,

1994 was forwarded to the Governor

indicating the completeness of the

submittal and the next steps to be taken

in the review process. The applicable

Clean Air Act requirements and EPA’s

rationale for its proposed actions are

discussed below.

Denver

A. Attainment Demonstration and

Control Strategies

(1) Attainment Demonstration

As noted, CO nonattainment areas

with design values greater than 12.7

ppm were required to submit a

demonstration by November 15, 1992,

that the plan will provide for attainment

by December 31, 1995 for moderate CO

nonattainment areas and December 31,

2000 for serious CO nonattainment

areas. APCD conducted an attainment

demonstration using urban areawide

modeling in conjunction with

intersection modeling for a modeling

region encompassing the Denver

nonattainment area.

The CO NAAQS are for 1-hour and 8-

hour periods and are not to be exceeded

more than once per year. The 1-hour CO

NAAQS is 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) and the

8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm (10 mg/

m3). The demonstration predicted that

the highest 8-hour design concentration

as of the attainment date will be 8.91

ppm, thus demonstrating attainment of

the 8-hour CO NAAQS. No

demonstration was required to be

carried out for the 1-hour NAAQS, as

Denver has not violated this NAAQS

since before the 1990 CAAA were

enacted. The same strategies which

bring the area into attainment with the

8-hour NAAQS will also contribute to

reduced 1-hour concentrations. The

modeled attainment demonstration is

discussed in greater detail below.

(a) Policy Issues: Reclassification to

Serious and Applicability of Serious

Area SIP Requirements

(i) Reclassification to Serious. During

the SIP development process, the RAQC

conducted an exhaustive review of

control strategies for use in

demonstrating attainment of the CO

NAAQS by the Clean Air Act-mandated

deadline for moderate areas of

December 31, 1995. Even with the

oxygenated fuels program and an

enhanced I/M program in place, the

RAQC and APCD determined that a

30% reduction in emissions would still

be needed to attain the NAAQS by this

date. Any measures would need to be

implemented in the 18-month period

between SIP adoption (in June 1994)

and the attainment date, ruling out

many potential strategies with longer

implementation horizons. The RAQC

considered several aggressive strategies,

including a mandatory no-drive day for

high emitting vehicles, but was unable

to identify a package of strategies that

would provide the necessary emission

reductions by December 31, 1995.

As a result, the RAQC recommended

to the AQCC that the Denver area seek

reclassification to serious. If Denver

were reclassified to serious, the

applicable attainment date would

become December 31, 2000 (CAA

Section 186(a)(1)). The AQCC adopted

this recommendation, and the Governor

formally requested reclassification to

serious in his July 11, 1994 letter

submitting the SIP. As part of this

Federal Register document, EPA is

proposing to reclassify the DenverBoulder nonattainment area to serious.

EPA had originally intended to rely

upon the authority for reclassification

provided by Section 110(k)(6) of the

Clean Air Act. This paragraph provides

broad authority for EPA to correct

previous approvals, disapprovals,

designations, and classifications based

on new information. However, air

quality data collected during calendar

year 1995 show that the Denver area

experienced two exceedances of the CO

NAAQS in 1995 at the CAMP monitor.

Because of this, Denver cannot

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS

by the statutory December 31, 1995

attainment date for moderate areas, and

must be reclassified, by operation of

law, to serious. Under Section

186(b)(2)(A), a moderate carbon

monoxide nonattainment area must be

reclassified as serious by operation of

law if the Administrator finds that the

area has failed to attain the CO NAAQS.

Pursuant to Section 186(b)(2)(B), EPA

must publish a document in the Federal

Register identifying those areas that

failed to attain the NAAQS and the

resulting classifications. In this

document, EPA is proposing to find that

the Denver/Boulder carbon monoxide

nonattainment area did not attain the

NAAQS by the required attainment date

of December 31, 1995, and to revise the

area’s classification for carbon

monoxide in 40 CFR Part 81 from

moderate to serious.

(ii) Impacts of Reclassification to

Serious. Areas classified as serious are

required to attain the CO NAAQS no

later than December 31, 2000. In

addition, the following additional

requirements of CAA Section 187 apply:

Gasoline sold during the winter

months must contain a level of oxygen

necessary to attain the NAAQS. (CAA

Section 187(b)(3))

A mandatory employer-based trip

reduction program must be adopted and

implemented, unless it can be shown

that such a program is not necessary to

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.

(CAA Section 187(b)(2), referencing

CAA Section 182(d)(1)(B))

A December 31, 1995 milestone must

be identified, and an economic
36006 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

incentive program must be adopted and

implemented if the milestone is not

achieved or if the area fails to attain the

CO NAAQS by December 31, 2000.

(CAA Section 187(d))

Vehicle miles travelled forecasts must

be submitted for the period 1996–2000

(submittal of vehicle miles traveled

forecasts for 1993–1995 is required for

moderate areas). (CAA Section

187(a)(2)(A))

Additional requirements for the

content and analysis of transportation

plans, programs and projects apply

under the EPA/DOT transportation

conformity regulations (58 FR 62215,

November 24, 1993).

The oxygenated gasoline, VMT

forecast, and conformity requirements

are discussed elsewhere in this

document.

(iii) December 31, 1995 milestone

demonstration. CAA Section 187(d)

requires areas classified as serious to

submit a demonstration no later than

March 31, 1996, that the area has

achieved CO emission reductions

equivalent to the total of the specified

annual emission reductions required by

December 31, 1995. The Act does not

provide further guidance on the form or

content of the milestone itself, the

specified annual emission reductions, or

the nature of the milestone

demonstration. EPA has not issued

guidance on this matter.

Since the Act does not prescribe a

methodology for determining a

milestone and EPA has not issued

guidance for this purpose, the State has

chosen to use its 1995 base case

emission inventory as the milestone

(Section XII–D of the SIP). The

milestone level is 1396 tons per day in

the nonattainment area; this level

represents progress toward attainment

from the 1988 level of 1709 tons per

day.

(iv) Employer-based trip reduction

program (the ECO program). CAA

Section 187(b)(2) requires areas

classified as serious to adopt the

measures required by Section 182(d)(1).

These measures consist of

transportation control measures (CAA

Section 182(d)(1)(A)) and a mandatory

employer-based travel reduction

program (commonly known as the

Employee Commute Options, or ECO,

program) (CAA Section 182(d)(1)(B)).

Section 187(b)(2) also provides that, in

any area defined as a ‘‘covered area’’

under the Clean Fuel Fleet Program

requirements of Section 246(a)(2)(B) (the

Denver area meets this definition), a SIP

may exclude any of the Section

182(d)(1) measures if (1) the SIP

includes an explanation of why any

measure was not adopted and what

emission reduction measure was

adopted to provide comparable

reduction in emissions, or (2) the SIP

contains reasons why such reduction is

not necessary to attain the national

primary ambient air quality standard for

CO. (As a moderate area, Denver was

already required by the ‘‘Special Rule

for Denver,’’ Section 187(a)(2)(B), to

address the transportation control

measure requirements of Section

182(d)(1)(A). These requirements are

discussed in Chapter X of the SIP.)

The SIP demonstrates that no TCMs

are necessary to provide for attainment

of the NAAQS by December 31, 2000

(attainment demonstration, Tables XII–1

and XII–2). However, several TCMs

were adopted as part of the SIP,

including transportation management

associations to encourage and provide

technical support for voluntary

employer-based trip reduction activities;

financial incentives for subsidized

employee transit passes and other travel

reduction strategies for downtown

Denver employees; transit passes for

students at the Auraria campus in

downtown Denver; high-occupancy

vehicle lanes on Broadway and Lincoln,

two major arterials providing access to

the central business district; and

improved traffic signalization in the

central business district and elsewhere

in the nonattainment area. Appendix X–

A of the SIP also discusses several other

TCMs that were adopted and

implemented as part of the 1979 and

1982 SIPs for Denver and remain in

effect.

Section X.F. of the SIP provides the

formal justification for exclusion of the

ECO program from the Denver SIP.

However, on December 23, 1995, the

President signed revisions to the ECO

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

These revisions amended the Act to

make submittal of a SIP revision

providing for the ECO program

voluntary for areas which are bumped

up to a higher classification (and thus,

newly made subject to the requirement).

Thus, the State would have no longer

been required to submit such program,

even if EPA had initially interpreted the

Act to require this program for Denver.

(b) Technical Evaluation of Attainment

Demonstration

EPA is proposing to approve the

State’s attainment demonstration for

Denver. EPA has determined that the

State correctly applied national

guidance in conducting modeling of the

entire region and of six intersections

that could potentially cause violations

of the CO NAAQS. In addition, the State

complied with a Region VIII request to

conduct modeling of downtown

intersections above and beyond the six

required by national guidance.

However, due to the factors described

below, the model could not be properly

applied to two high-traffic downtown

intersections: Speer/Auraria and

Broadway/Colfax. Model predictions at

these two sites were affected by

uncertainties in meteorological and

motor vehicle emissions inputs. In

addition, the modeled predictions of

high ambient values at these

intersections were not supported by

saturation monitoring data obtained at

the same locations. Thus, the attainment

demonstration is based on modeled and

monitored values at a third downtown

intersection, CAMP, which has

historically recorded the highest CO

concentrations in the Denver metro area.

These issues are discussed in greater

detail below.

A variety of specialized models were

used to model the Denver area carbon

monoxide concentrations in accordance

with EPA guidance. The Urban Airshed

Model (UAM) was used to simulate

regional concentrations during two

historical episodes when very high

carbon monoxide levels occurred.

During these same episodes the

CAL3QHC model was used to simulate

concentrations from local streets and

roadways. The outputs from both

models were added together so that total

predicted concentrations could be

compared with values actually

measured at the monitoring sites during

these episodes. These comparisons

determine if the modeling meets the

performance criteria prescribed in the

UAM guidance document, and in the

modeling protocol. For both episodes

there was a tendency for the UAM/

CAL3QHC model to underpredict

concentrations. However, the degree of

underprediction was within the limits

specified in EPA UAM Guidance

documents, and in the modeling

protocol.

The validated UAM/CAL3QHC model

was then applied in the attainment year

(2000) to determine whether proposed

control strategies are sufficient to meet

the 8-hour ambient air quality standard

(9.0 ppm). The same meteorological

conditions used in the model validation

runs were used in the 2000 model runs.

However, the 2000 runs were modeled

with revised emission input files to

examine the benefits of the various

control strategies. The 2000 attainment

runs showed that the control strategies

in the SIP are sufficient to reduce

carbon monoxide concentrations to less

than 9.0 ppm at all locations in the

nonattainment area.

The Denver CO modeling protocol

was approved by EPA Region VIII in
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 36007

May 1992. Specific intersections to be

modeled were not identified in the

protocol. The State showed attainment

on each of the six highest ranked

intersections selected for modeling,

following screening criteria contained in

‘‘Guideline for Modeling CO from

Roadway Intersections’’, EPA–454/R–

92–005. The State subsequently found

that the six busiest intersections for

traffic congestion were located in the

suburban areas, where background air

quality levels are relatively low.

Application of CAL3QHC at these six

locations, combined with UAM

predicted background levels, showed

the year 2000 concentrations at levels

well within the CO NAAQS. The Region

requested the State to model an

additional intersection in the central

business district, to ensure that control

strategies provide for attainment at hot

spot locations in the urban core area,

not just at suburban locations exposed

to significantly lower background

concentrations.

The State performed preliminary

CAL3QHC modeling at three additional

intersections in the Downtown area:

Speer & Auraria; Broadway & Colfax;

and Broadway & Champa. These

preliminary 1995 results showed

predicted concentrations at Speer/

Auraria and Broadway/Colfax up to 6

ppm higher than concentrations

modeled at the CAMP monitor

(Broadway & Champa). Because of

uncertainties related to the validity of

meteorological inputs used in the

model, the State opted not to include

the CAL3QHC modeling results for the

two higher intersections in the current

SIP, deferring consideration of these

locations until additional saturation

monitoring studies could be conducted

at these intersections. The State selected

Broadway and Champa as the

intersection to use in the SIP attainment

demonstration because the on-site air

quality and meteorology monitoring

data available at this location provided

more confidence in the results, i.e.,

produced modelled concentrations that

were in good agreement with

concentrations actually monitored at the

site. There are significant and unique

micro-meteorological effects influencing

each of the three central business

district intersections, including: highrise office buildings, channeling of the

wind down ‘‘urban street canyons’’, and

urban heat island effects. Since the

Diagnostic Wind Model (DWM) used

with UAM does not include any of these

effects, the State did not consider the

meteorological outputs from DWM

appropriate for use in microscale

modeling.

The State’s intersection analysis is

consistent with national policy and

other recent UAM/CAL3QHC modeling

applications. Additional information on

the attainment demonstration modeling

is included in the Technical Support

Document for this action.

(2) Control Strategies

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans

for all nonattainment areas to provide

for the implementation of RACM

(including RACT) as expeditiously as

practicable and to provide for

attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA

interprets this requirement to impose a

duty on all nonattainment areas to

consider the available control measures,

and to adopt and implement such

measures as are reasonably available for

implementation in the area and

necessary for attainment of the NAAQS

as components of the area’s attainment

demonstration. The EPA has reviewed

the State’s explanation and associated

documentation and concluded that it

adequately justifies the control

measures to be implemented. EPA is

proposing to approve several of the

control strategies. The exact nature of

EPA’s proposed approvals is discussed

in more detail below and in the

Technical Support Document for today’s

action.

The Denver CO SIP takes credit for

several control programs in the

attainment demonstration. Those

identified in Chapter V of the SIP as

‘‘baseline strategies’’ are measures

which were in existence at the time of

CO SIP development, and for which no

further State regulatory action was

required. EPA is not taking action on

these control strategies through this SIP

revision, as these are strategies which

have been adopted through previous SIP

revisions and have been or are being

acted on in other Federal Register

documents. Those identified as

‘‘additional control strategies’’ are

measures which were newly-considered

and adopted for the attainment

demonstration, and which are being

acted on in this SIP revision.

The baseline strategies include the

Federal motor vehicle control program,

the 2.7% oxygenated fuels program

(approved in the Federal Register on

July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37698)), the

Enhanced inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program (conditionally approved

in the Federal Register on November 8,

1994 (59 FR 55584)), various

transportation system improvements,

and the woodburning control measures

adopted as part of the Denver PM10 SIP

(approved in the Federal Register on

July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37698)).

In addition, Section 246 of the Clean

Air Act requires that the State adopt and

implement the Clean Fuels Fleet

Program, an alternative fuels program

for certain commercial and

governmental fleet operations. AQCC

Regulation 17, the Clean Fuels Fleet

Program regulation, was adopted by the

AQCC on May 5, 1994, and submitted

with the Denver CO SIP. (The full Clean

Fuels Fleet Program SIP was submitted

to EPA on October 17, 1994.) A wide

variety of non-mandated alternative

fuels programs are also underway in the

Denver area. No credit is taken for

Regulation 17 or any of the other

programs in the attainment

demonstration, and EPA will act on the

Clean Fuels Fleet Program in the

Federal Register at a later date.

Several additional control strategies

have been formally incorporated into or

committed to in the Denver CO SIP to

provide for attainment of the CO

NAAQS by December 31, 2000. These

measures are described in Chapter VI of

the SIP and are discussed below.

(a) 3.1% oxygenated fuels program. In

the CO SIP, the State made a

commitment, which has since been met,

to implement and adopt a 3.1%

oxygenated fuels program, providing

additional benefit over the 2.7%

program already required of the area by

Section 211(m) of the Act. The program

is being implemented in two phases. In

the winter of 1994–95, a ‘‘maximum

blending’’ program took effect, which

requires gasoline suppliers using methyl

tert-butyl ether as an oxygenate to blend

at the 2.7% oxygen level (the maximum

allowed by Federal regulations), and

suppliers using ethanol as an oxygenate

to blend at the 3.5% oxygen level (also

the maximum allowed by Federal

regulations). The market share of

ethanol in the Denver area has exceeded

50% in recent years, and this approach

is expected to result in at least a 3.1%

oxygen content during each winter

season. If the maximum blending

approach should fail to provide for at

least a 3.1% oxygen content, the SIP

provides that in subsequent winter

seasons an averaging program, pursuant

to EPA guidance for such programs, will

take effect.

AQCC Regulation 13 governs the

oxygenated fuels program. The SIP

committed to revise this regulation in

two steps. Reg 13 was revised to

incorporate the maximum blending

approach for the winter of 1994–95 by

the AQCC on July 19, 1994. Reg 13 was

revised to incorporate the more complex

3.1% averaging program on October 20,

1994. Both sets of regulation revisions

were submitted by the Governor for EPA

approval on September 29, 1995. The
36008 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

September 29, 1995 submittal was

determined complete on November 30,

1995.

(b) Increased I/M failure rate for pre1982 vehicles. The SIP includes a

commitment, which has since been met,

to revise Regulation 11, which governs

the I/M program, to incorporate more

stringent emissions cutpoints which

will increase the failure rate for pre1982 vehicles from the current 14–26%

to approximately 40%. Pre-1982

vehicles have less advanced emission

control system technology, resulting in

higher CO emission levels, and the more

stringent cutpoints for these vehicles

will result in the identification and

repair of a greater number of highemitting vehicles than are captured by

the present I/M program (an increase of

approximately 70,000 vehicles per year).

These regulation revisions were adopted

by the AQCC on September 22, 1994,

and submitted by the Governor for EPA

approval on September 29, 1995. The

September 29, 1995 submittal was

determined complete on November 30,

1995.

(c) Prohibition on the re-registration of

abandoned and impounded pre-1982

vehicles sold at auction. This element of

the SIP requires local governments in

the Denver area to modify their

ordinances or procedures for disposing

of pre-1982 abandoned and impounded

vehicles to prohibit purchasers from

obtaining any form of title to the

vehicles. These vehicles may be sold for

scrappage or dismantling only. This

measure will accelerate the normal rate

of removal of vehicles of this age from

the fleet, by preventing up to 5,000

vehicles of this type from being reregistered. Elimination of this many pre1982 vehicles could reduce regional CO

emissions by up to 5 tons per day.

However, because of the difficulty of

defining a concise emission reduction,

the State does not take credit for this

strategy in the attainment

demonstration.

B. Transportation Control Measures

Section 187(a)(2)(B) (Special Rule for

Denver) requires the State to submit a

SIP revision that includes the TCMs as

required in Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the

Act, for the purpose of reducing CO

emissions. The SIP may exclude any of

the Section 182(d)(1)(A) measures if 1)

the SIP includes an explanation of why

any measure was not adopted and what

emission reduction measure was

adopted to provide comparable

reduction in emissions, or 2) the SIP

contains reasons why such reduction is

not necessary to attain the national

primary ambient air quality standard for

CO.

The TCM SIP revision is contained in

Chapter X of the Denver CO SIP. The

TCMs adopted as part of the SIP are

listed below. See the Technical Support

Document for today’s document and the

SIP itself for a more detailed description

of these measures.

(1) Employer-based transportation

emission management programs

promoted and encouraged by

transportation management associations

and financial incentives.

(2) Auraria transit pass.

(3) Conversion of Broadway/Lincoln

Bus Lanes to Bus/HOV.

(4) Improved Traffic Signalization.

(5) Other Measures.

Appendix X–A contains the State’s

assessment of the measures listed in

Section 108(f), including a

comprehensive description of strategies

already in place in Denver and the

newly-adopted measures. Several TCMs

have already been adopted as part of the

SIP in previous ozone and CO SIP

revisions, and have been approved by

EPA (45 FR 51199, August 1, 1980, and

48 FR 55284, December 12, 1983).

Appendix X–A also describes projects

and programs which are not being

included in the SIP but nevertheless

provide some emission reduction

benefit.

EPA is proposing to approve this

element of the Denver CO SIP. The SIP

satisfies the requirement of Section

187(a)(2)(B) to either include the TCMs

or provide a justification for not

including them. The attainment

demonstration for the SIP does not

include credit for any of the TCMs;

however, the above measures were

adopted as enforceable provisions of the

SIP.

C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasting

and Tracking

Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA,

in consultation with the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT), to

develop guidance for states to use in

complying with the VMT forecasting

and tracking provisions of Section 187.

A Notice of Availability for the resulting

Section 187 VMT Forecasting and

Tracking Guidance was published in the

Federal Register on March 19, 1992.

Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires Denver to

submit a SIP revision providing for a

VMT forecasting and tracking program,

and contingency measures for

implementation in the event that a VMT

forecast is exceeded. The specific

requirements are discussed in detail in

the Technical Support Document for

today’s action.

The State of Colorado has submitted

a SIP revision to EPA in order to satisfy

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

and Section 187(a)(3). In order to gain

approval, the State submittal must

provide for each of the following

mandatory elements: (1) a forecast of

VMT in the non-attainment area for

each year prior to the attainment year;

(2) a provision for annual updates of the

forecasts along with a provision for

annual reports describing the extent to

which the forecasts proved to be

accurate; these reports shall provide

estimates of actual VMT in each year for

which a forecast was required; (3)

adopted and enforceable contingency

measures to be implemented without

further action by the State or the

Administrator if actual annual VMT or

an updated forecast exceeds the most

recent prior forecast or if the area fails

to attain the CO NAAQS by the

attainment date.

(1) VMT Forecasts

Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires that the

State include in its SIP submittal a

forecast of VMT in the non-attainment

area for each year before the year in

which the SIP projects the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO

will be attained. The forecasts are to be

based on guidance developed by EPA in

consultation with DOT, i.e., the Section

187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking

Guidance. Table XIV–2 of the SIP

contains the required forecasts of annual

VMT for the years 1993–2001.

(2) Annual VMT Updates/Reports

Section 187(a)(2)(A) specifies that the

SIP revision provide for annual updates

of the VMT forecasts and annual reports

that describe the accuracy of the

forecasts and that provide estimates of

actual VMT in each year for which a

forecast was required. The Section 187

VMT Forecasting and Tracking

Guidance specifies that annual reports

should be submitted to EPA by

September 30 of the year following the

year for which the VMT estimate is

made. The SIP commits to the

submission of these annual reports and

identifies responsibilities among the

various transportation agencies in

Denver to develop the reports.

(3) Contingency Measures

Section 187(a)(3) specifies that the

State, in its SIP revision, adopt specific,

enforceable contingency measures to be

implemented if the annual estimate of

actual VMT or a subsequent VMT

forecast exceeds the most recent prior

forecast of VMT or if the area fails to

attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment

date. Implementation of the identified

contingency measures must not require

further rulemaking activities by the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 36009

State or EPA. Certain actions, such as

notification of sources, would probably

be needed before a measure could be

implemented effectively. The State has

met this requirement, as discussed in

Section D. below. The State of Colorado

has submitted a SIP revision

implementing each of the required

elements required by Section

187(a)(2)(A) and Section 187(a)(3) of the

CAAA.

D. Contingency Measures

The Clean Air Act requires each CO

nonattainment area with a design value

above 12.7 ppm at the time of

classification to adopt contingency

measures that will take effect without

further action by the State or EPA upon

a determination by EPA that an area

failed to make reasonable further

progress or to attain the standards, as

described in § 172(c)(9), or that actual or

forecasted VMT exceeded a previous

forecast. Section 187(a)(3) requires the

State to submit a SIP revision containing

contingency measures no later than

November 15, 1992. The State submitted

these measures as part of the Denver CO

SIP on July 11, 1994.

States may implement contingency

measures early to obtain additional

emission reductions, without being

required to adopt replacement

contingency measures to put in place

should one of the triggering events for

implementation of contingency

measures occur. This policy is described

in a memorandum from Tom Helms,

Chief of the OAQPS Ozone Policy and

Strategies Group entitled ‘‘Early

Implementation of Contingency

Measures for Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

August 13, 1993.

As noted above, the State did not take

credit in the attainment demonstration

for the TCMs adopted to meet the

requirements of Section 187(a)(2)(B).

Because these measures are surplus to

the reductions needed for attainment,

the State has adopted these as the

required contingency measures as well.

The Denver region is proceeding with

early implementation of these measures

to obtain the additional emission

reductions they provide.

If a triggering event for contingency

measures occurs, EPA will review the

status of implementation of the TCMs

adopted in Chapter X of the SIP. Each

of the TCMs must be fully implemented

in order to satisy the contingency

measures requirements of Sections 172

and 187. In addition, the EPA/DOT

transportation conformity regulation (58

FR 62235, November 24, 1993) requires

DRCOG and USDOT to demonstrate that

SIP TCMs are being implemented or are

on schedule for implementation before

making a conformity determination for

transportation plans or TIPs. This

provides an extra degree of assurance

that the contingency measures will be

implemented if needed.

Section XIII.C. of the SIP defines the

target emissions reduction level for

contingency measures. Based on average

projected annual VMT growth between

1995 and 2000 and the modeled fleet

emission factors for those years, the

State determined that minimum

emission reductions of 26 tons per day

in 1995 and 16 tons per day in 2000

represented the minimum emission

reduction levels for contingency

measures pursuant to EPA guidance.

The TCMs, when fully implemented, are

projected to produce an emission

reduction of 34 tons per day in the year

2000. The emission reductions would be

higher in earlier years, since the

baseline fleet emission factors to which

the contingency measure effectiveness

would be applied are higher. Thus, the

submittal satisfies EPA’s minimum

criteria for contingency measure

effectiveness.

E. Mobile Source Emissions Budgets and

Transportation Conformity

Section 176(c)(1) of the Act directs

that no department, agency, or

instrumentality of the federal

government may permit any activity

that does not conform to a SIP. Section

176(c)(2) further specifies that federally

funded transportation improvement

programs (TIPs), regional transportation

plans, and projects must conform to the

SIP in order to be adopted by the

metropolitan planning organization.

EPA and DOT promulgated

implementing regulations for this CAA

provision on November 24, 1993 (58 FR

62235).

One key provision of the conformity

regulations requires a demonstration

that emissions from the transportation

plan and TIP are consistent with the

emissions budget in the SIP (Sections

93.118 and 93.119 of the conformity

rule). The emissions budget is defined

as the level of mobile source emissions

relied upon in the attainment and/or

maintenance demonstration to achieve

compliance with the NAAQS in the

nonattainment area. The rule’s

requirements and EPA’s policy on

emissions budgets are found in the

Preamble to the transportation

conformity rule (58 FR 62193–96) and

in the sections of the rule referenced

above. The SIP defines emissions

budgets for the 1995 milestone year and

the 2000 attainment year.

The 1995 budget is consistent with

the mobile source emissions estimate for

the milestone year and is 1125 tons per

day in the nonattainment area. This

budget no longer applies for conformity,

since that date has passed. For the year

2000, the SIP includes modeling for

scenarios with and without TCMs. The

RAQC recommended that the AQCC

adopt the emissions budget for the

scenario without TCMs as the budget to

be used for conformity (825 tons per day

in the nonattainment area). However,

the AQCC adopted (and the Governor

submitted) an emission budget of 808

tons per day in the nonattainment area.

This lower budget reflected some (not

all) of the emissions reductions

associated with the implementation of

the TCMs. The AQCC felt that this lower

budget would provide a margin of safety

for attainment and would provide an

extra incentive (through the conformity

requirements) for implementation of the

TCMs.

Subsequent to submittal of the SIP,

DRCOG completed an initial conformity

analysis for the 2015 transportation plan

and the 1995–2000 TIP, and found that

the plan and TIP could not conform to

the lower budget adopted by the AQCC

and submitted to EPA. In response, the

RAQC adopted a resolution requesting

that the AQCC revise the SIP to raise the

emission budget to the attainment level

of 825 tons per day. The AQCC adopted

this SIP revision after a public hearing

on February 16, 1995, and the Governor

submitted this SIP revision on July 18,

1995.

The Governor’s July 18, 1995 letter

withdraws the 808 ton per day emission

budget submitted on July 11, 1994. This

leaves the default budget of 825 tons per

day from the attainment demonstration

as the applicable budget under EPA’s

conformity rule. Since EPA is proposing

to approve the attainment

demonstration, the 825 ton per day

budget that the attainment

demonstration is based on would be

approved by default, and no separate

action is necessary on the July 18, 1995

submittal of this budget.

Section 93.106(b) of the conformity

rule requires that the transportation

plans in moderate nonattainment areas

reclassified to serious meet certain

content and analysis requirements.

These new requirements would affect

plans adopted two years after

reclassification to serious. Once EPA

reclassifies the Denver area to serious,

these requirements will take effect two

years thereafter. DRCOG’s transportation

planning methodologies already meet

many of these requirements.
36010 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Longmont

A. Background of Sip Revision

Pursuant to the requirements of the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, each

State was required to identify its

nonattainment areas and submit

descriptions of these areas for EPA

promulgation in 40 CFR Part 81.

Longmont had been designated as

unclassifiable/attainment prior to

passage of the 1990 Amendments.

However, a special monitoring study in

1988–89 recorded an exceedance of the

NAAQS in Longmont. (This study is

described in Chapter II of the Longmont

SIP.) As a result, EPA Region VIII

recommended that the Governor

designate this area nonattainment in a

letter dated January 15, 1991. In a letter

dated March 15, 1991, Governor Roy

Romer submitted a request that

Longmont be designated a moderate

nonattainment area, and submitted

boundaries for the new area. The

designation, classification and

boundaries were promulgated by EPA in

the Federal Register on November 6,

1991 (56 FR 56733).

Since this area had never had a SIP,

EPA interpreted Section 172 of the Act

to require an attainment demonstration

for Longmont. As a moderate area, the

applicable attainment date for

Longmont is December 31, 1995.

Contingency measures under Section

172(b)(9) were also required. On January

15, 1993, EPA made a formal finding

that the State had failed to submit these

SIP revisions for Longmont.

On July 13, 1994, Governor Roy

Romer submitted comprehensive

revisions to the Colorado SIP. The

carbon monoxide SIP element submittal

for Longmont addressed the outstanding

CAA requirements discussed above, as

well as other CAA mandates. EPA found

this SIP element complete on July 14,

1994. The CO SIP revision for Longmont

was developed primarily by APCD, in

consultation with the City of Longmont.

The SIP development process is

discussed in Chapter I of the SIP.

Throughout the remainder of this

Federal Register document, references

are made to the ‘‘Longmont area.’’ This

is a matter of convenience; these

references apply to the Longmont CO

nonattainment area as defined in 40

CFR Part 81 unless otherwise noted.

B. Attainment Demonstration and

Control Strategies: Longmont

(1) Attainment Demonstration

A different approach was used for

demonstrating attainment in Longmont

than the methodology used in Denver.

Originally, the State planned to develop

the attainment demonstration for

Longmont as part of the modeling for

Denver. However, it was discovered that

the ambient conditions which led to

exceedances of the CO NAAQS in

Denver were not directly applicable to

Longmont. After reviewing the results of

the 1988–89 special monitoring studies,

which suggested that exceedances occur

due to emissions on a neighborhood

scale, and in consideration of

Longmont’s small size and low traffic

counts relative to conditions in Denver,

EPA concluded that the complex UAM/

CAL3QHC modeling methodology used

in Denver was not necessary for

demonstrating attainment in Longmont.

EPA recommended that a simple

rollforward analysis, similar to that used

in attainment demonstrations for

Colorado’s smaller PM10 nonattainment

areas, be used for Longmont. This

decision is documented in a July 26,

1993 letter from EPA to APCD.

The methodology used and the results

are presented in Chapter IV of the SIP.

The SIP projects a second maximum

concentration of 6.97 ppm at the end of

1995, well below the 9.0 ppm NAAQS.

(2) Control Strategies

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires

the plans for all nonattainment areas to

provide for the implementation of

RACM (including RACT) as

expeditiously as practicable and to

provide for attainment of the NAAQS.

EPA interprets this requirement to

impose a duty on all nonattainment

areas to consider the available control

measures, and to adopt and implement

such measures as are reasonably

available and necessary for attainment

of the NAAQS as components of the

area’s attainment demonstration. EPA

has reviewed the State’s explanation

and associated documentation and

concluded that it adequately justifies

the control measures being

implemented.

The Longmont CO SIP takes credit for

several control programs in the

attainment demonstration. These

control strategies, identified in Table

III.3 and discussed in Chapter V of the

SIP, are measures which were in

existence at the time of CO SIP

development, and for which no further

State regulatory action was required.

EPA is not taking action on these

control strategies in this Federal

Register document, as these are

strategies which have been adopted

through previous SIP revisions and have

been or are being acted on in other

Federal Register documents. The

attainment demonstration does not take

credit for any newly-adopted control

strategies, nor are any such strategies

included in the SIP. In addition,

Chapter V discusses several other

activities underway in the Longmont

area that have emission reduction

benefits. However, these activities are

not identified as control strategies and

are not reflected in the 1995 attainment

emission inventory, and thus, EPA is

not incorporating these measures into

the SIP.

The control strategies relied upon for

the Longmont attainment demonstration

include the Federal motor vehicle

control program, the 2.7% oxygenated

fuels program (approved in the Federal

Register on July 25, 1994 (59 FR

37698)), the enhanced inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program

(conditionally approved in the Federal

Register on November 8, 1994 (59 FR

55594)), various ongoing travel

reduction strategies and transportation

system improvements, and

woodburning control measures from the

Denver PM10 SIP (the woodburning

program was approved in the Federal

Register on July 25, 1995 (59 FR

37698)).

The package of strategies incorporated

in the attainment demonstration is

expected to reduce emisssions from

55.070 tons per day in 1988 to 37.292

tons per day in 1995, for an overall

reduction of approximately 32%. The

strategies result in a 1995 projected

second maximum concentration of 6.97

ppm.

C. Contingency Measures: Longmont

EPA’s requirements for contingency

measures are described above. Unlike

Denver, Longmont is not subject to the

CAA Section 187(a)(2)(A) requirement

for a VMT forecasting and tracking

program, and thus is not required to

implement contingency measures in the

event that a VMT forecast is exceeded.

Contingency measures for Longmont

were submitted as part of the July 13,

1994 SIP.

The 3.1% oxygenated fuels program,

adopted as part of the Denver CO SIP,

has been adopted as the contingency

measure for Longmont. This measure is

being implemented in the entire sixcounty Denver metropolitan area as

required by the Clean Air Act, and thus

is being implemented in Longmont,

even though it is not credited in the

attainment demonstration. EPA

considers this to be early

implementation of the contingency

measure, as provided for in the August

13, 1993 Tom Helms memorandum

referenced above.

Section V.C. of the SIP defines the

target emissions reduction level for

contingency measures. VMT growth in

Longmont was estimated at 3.1% per
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 36011

year, which equates to CO emissions

growth of 0.92 tons per year. The 3.1%

oxygenated fuels program gives

Longmont an additional incremental

emission reduction over the 2.7%

program of 1.01 tons per year, which

exceeds the minimum emission

reduction level. Thus, EPA’s minimum

requirements for contingency measures

are satisfied by the State’s submittal.

II. Implications of This Action

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to

approve SIP revisions submitted by the

Governor on July 11, 1994, July 13,

1994, and September 29, 1995.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to (1)

approve the July 11, 1994 attainment

demonstration, VMT tracking and

forecasting program, TCM, and

contingency measures submittals for

Denver; (2) approve the July 13, 1994

attainment demonstration and

contingency measures submittals for

Longmont; and (3) approve the control

strategies for Denver, including the

September 29, 1995 submittal of

revisions to Regulations 11 and 13 (I/M

and oxygenated fuels).

In this document, EPA is also

proposing to find that the Denver/

Boulder carbon monoxide

nonattainment area did not attain the

NAAQS by the required attainment date

of December 31, 1995, and to revise the

area’s classification for carbon

monoxide in 40 CFR Part 81 from

moderate to serious. This proposed

finding is based on air quality data

revealing more than one exceedance of

the CO NAAQS during calendar year

1995, resulting in a design value higher

than the NAAQS for the period 1994–

95. By action dated December 20, 1994,

the EPA Administrator delegated to the

Regional Administrators the authority to

determine whether CO nonattainment

areas attained the NAAQS, and to

reclassify those that did not.

III. Request for Public Comments

EPA is requesting comments on all

aspects of today’s proposal. As

indicated at the outset of this document,

EPA will consider any comments

received by August 8, 1996.

IV. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under EO 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

EO. The EO 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) of the EO, 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 SIP-related actions proposed

today have been classified as Table 3

actions for signature by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

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

revised by a July 10, 1995 memorandum

from Mary Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted these regulatory actions

from EO 12866 review.

Likewise, EPA has determined that

the finding of failure to attain proposed

today would result in none of the effects

identified in section 3(f) of the EO.

Under Section 186(b)(2) of the Clean Air

Act, 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.

V. Regulatory Flexibility

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.

sections 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 jurisidiction

over populations that are less than

50,000.

SIP revision approvals under Section

110 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 process does not

impose any new requirements, EPA

certifies that this proposed rule would

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

actions. 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, 256–266 (S. Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).

As discussed in section IV. of this

document, findings of failure to attain

and reclassification of nonattainment

areas under Section 186(b)(2) of the

CAA do not, in and of themselves,

create any new requirements. Therefore,

I certify that today’s proposal does not

have a significant impact on small

entities.

VI. Unfunded Mandates

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 has determined that the SIP

approval actions proposed today do not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. These Federal actions

approve pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and impose no

new Federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to State, local or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from these actions.

Likewise, EPA believes, as discussed

in section IV of this document, that the

proposed finding of failure to attain and

reclassification to serious are factual

determinations based upon air quality

data 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.
36012 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and

the preamble to the final rule promulgated

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further

background and information on the OCS

regulations.

2 After delegation, each COA will use its

administrative and procedural rules as onshore. In

those instances where EPA does not delegate

authority to implement and enforce part 55, EPA

will use its own administrative and procedural

requirements to implement the substantive

requirements. 40 CFR 55.14 (c)(4).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control.

Authority: U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17319 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–5534–7]

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations; Consistency Update for

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

consistency update.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements

applying to OCS sources located within

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries

must be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act (‘‘the Act’’), the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. The portion

of the OCS air regulations that is being

updated pertains to the requirements for

OCS sources for which the South Coast

Air Quality Management District (South

Coast AQMD) and the Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District (Ventura

County APCD) are the designated COAs.

The OCS requirements for the above

Districts, contained in the Technical

Support Document, are proposed to be

incorporated by reference into the Code

of Federal Regulations and are listed in

the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

Proposed changes to the existing

requirements are discussed below.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

update must be received on or before

August 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

(in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air

Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No. A–93–16

Section XII, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Toxics Division,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Docket: Supporting information used

in developing the proposed notice and

copies of the documents EPA is

proposing to incorporate by reference

are contained in Docket No. A–93–16

Section XII. This docket is available for

public inspection and copying Monday–

Friday during regular business hours at

the following locations:

EPA Air Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No.

A–93–16 Section XII, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Toxics

Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St.,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

EPA Air Docket (LE–131), Attn: Air

Docket No. A–93–16 Section XII,

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW, Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Air and Toxics

Division (A–5–3), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR part 551, which

established requirements to control air

pollution from OCS sources in order to

attain and maintain federal and state

ambient air quality standards and to

comply with the provisions of part C of

title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all

OCS sources offshore of the States

except those located in the Gulf of

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.

Section 328 of the Act requires that for

such sources located within 25 miles of

a state’s seaward boundary, the

requirements shall be the same as would

be applicable if the sources were located

in the COA. Because the OCS

requirements are based on onshore

requirements, and onshore requirements

may change, section 328(a)(1) requires

that EPA update the OCS requirements

as necessary to maintain consistency

with onshore requirements.

Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule,

consistency reviews will occur (1) at

least annually; (2) upon receipt of a

Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or (3)

when a state or local agency submits a

rule to EPA to be considered for

incorporation by reference in part 55.

This notice of proposed rulemaking is

being promulgated in response to the

submittal of rules by two local air

pollution control agencies. Public

comments received in writing within 30

days of publication of this notice will be

considered by EPA before publishing a

notice of final rulemaking.

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that

EPA establish requirements to control

air pollution from OCS sources located

within 25 miles of states’ seaward

boundaries that are the same as onshore

requirements. To comply with this

statutory mandate, EPA must

incorporate applicable onshore rules

into part 55 as they exist onshore. This

limits EPA’s flexibility in deciding

which requirements will be

incorporated into part 55 and prevents

EPA from making substantive changes

to the requirements it incorporates. As

a result, EPA may be incorporating rules

into part 55 that do not conform to all

of EPA’s state implementation plan

(SIP) guidance or certain requirements

of the Act. Consistency updates may

result in the inclusion of state or local

rules or regulations into part 55, even

though the same rules may ultimately be

disapproved for inclusion as part of the

SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not

imply that a rule meets the requirements

of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it

imply that the rule will be approved by

EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA

reviewed the rules submitted for

inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they

are rationally related to the attainment

or maintenance of federal or state

ambient air quality standards or part C

of title I of the Act, that they are not

designed expressly to prevent

exploration and development of the

OCS and that they are applicable to OCS

sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also

evaluated the rules to ensure they are

not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12

(e). In addition, EPA has excluded

administrative or procedural rules,2 and

requirements that regulate toxics which

are not related to the attainment and

maintenance of federal and state

ambient air quality standards.

A. After review of the rules submitted

by South Coast AQMD against the

criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR

part 55, EPA is proposing to make the

following rules applicable to OCS

sources for which the South Coast

AQMD is designated as the COA.

1. The following rules were submitted

as revisions to existing requirements:

Rule 102 Definition of Terms (Adopted

11/17/95)