[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21415-21418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11739]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[AZR92-0004; FRL-5503-8]
Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment
Area; Carbon Monoxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the Phoenix, Arizona carbon monoxide
(CO) nonattainment area has not attained the CO national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) by the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated attainment
date for moderate nonattainment areas, December 31, 1995. This proposed
finding is based on EPA's review of monitored air quality data for
compliance with the CO NAAQS. If EPA takes final action on this
proposed finding, the Phoenix CO nonattainment area will be
reclassified by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area. The
intended effect of such a
[[Page 21416]]
reclassification would be to allow the State additional time to submit
a new State implementation plan (SIP) providing for attainment of the
CO NAAQS by no later than December 31, 2000, the CAA attainment
deadline for serious CO areas.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by June 10,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Wallace Woo, Chief,
Plans Development Section, A-2-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
The rulemaking docket for this notice, Docket No. 96-AZ-PL-002, may
be inspected and copied at the following location between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
parts of the docket.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics
Division, Plans Development Section, A-2-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105.
Copies of the docket are also available at the State office listed
below: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, A-2-2, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Concerning Designation and
Classifications
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) were enacted on November
15, 1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each carbon monoxide
(CO) area designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990
Amendments, such as the Phoenix area, was designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section
186(a) of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section
107(d) was also classified by operation of law as either ``moderate''
or ``serious'' depending on the severity of the area's air quality
problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per
million (ppm), such as the Phoenix area, were classified as moderate.
These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in
40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
States containing areas that were classified as moderate
nonattainment by operation of law under section 107(d) were required to
submit State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to attain the CO
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 1995.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section
187(a) of the Act and differ depending on whether the area's design
value is below or above 12.7 ppm. The Phoenix area has a design
value below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR part 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reclassification to a Serious Nonattainment Area
EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and
186(b)(2) of the CAA, of determining, within six months of the
applicable attainment date whether the Phoenix area has attained the CO
NAAQS. Under section 186(b)(2)(A), if EPA finds that the area has not
attained the CO NAAQS, it is reclassified as serious by operation of
law. Pursuant to section 186(b)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA must publish a
notice in the Federal Register identifying areas which failed to attain
the standard and therefore must be reclassified as serious by operation
of law.
EPA makes attainment determinations for CO nonattainment areas
based upon whether an area has two years (or eight consecutive
quarters) of clean air quality data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of the Act
states that the attainment determination must be based upon an area's
``air quality as of the attainment date.'' Consequently, EPA will
determine whether an area's air quality has met the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995 based upon the most recent two years of air quality
data entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
data base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See generally memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, Director, Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air
Office Directors, entitled ``Criteria for Granting Attainment Date
Extensions, Making Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of
Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment Areas,''
October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determines a CO nonattainment area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50.8 and EPA policy.3 EPA has
promulgated two NAAQS for CO: an 8-hour average concentration and a 1-
hour average concentration. Because there were no violations of the 1-
hour standard in the Phoenix area in 1994 and 1995, this notice
addresses only the air quality status of the Phoenix area with respect
to the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour CO NAAQS requires that not more than
one non-overlapping 8-hour average per year per monitoring site can
exceed 9.0 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and they are
not considered exceedances). The second exceedance of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS at a given monitoring site within the same year constitutes a
violation of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical
Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value
Calculations'', June 18, 1990. See also Shaver memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Attainment Date Extensions
If a state does not have the two consecutive years of clean data
necessary to show attainment of the NAAQS, it may apply, under section
186(a)(4) of the CAA, for a one year attainment date extension. EPA
may, in its discretion, grant such an extension if the state has: (1)
Complied with the requirements and commitments pertaining to the
applicable implementation plan for the area, and (2) the area has
measured no more than one exceedance of the CO NAAQS at any monitoring
site in the nonattainment area in the year preceding the extension
year. Under section 186(a)(4), EPA may grant up to two such extensions
if these conditions have been met.
II. Today's Action
By today's action, EPA is proposing to find that the Phoenix CO
nonattainment area has failed to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS
by December 31, 1995. This proposed finding is based upon air quality
data showing violations of the CO NAAQS during 1994 and 1995.
A. Ambient Air Monitoring Data
The following table lists each of the monitoring sites in the
Phoenix CO nonattainment area where the 8-hour CO NAAQS has been
exceeded during 1994 and 1995.
[[Page 21417]]
Exceedances of 8-hour CO NAAQS for Phoenix Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995
Monitoring site ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Date Concentration Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3847 W. Earll Drive................. 9.6 ppm.................... 12/3
(1)None recorded.
10.0 ppm................... 12/17 .........................
1845 E. Roosevelt Street............ 9.7 ppm.................... 12/17
(1)None recorded.
2710 N.W. Grand Avenue.............. ........................... .......
(1)None recorded
9.89 ppm................... 11/23
10.23 ppm.................. 12/2
9.5 ppm.................... 12/3
3315 W. Indian School Road.......... 9.7 ppm.................... 12/2 10.1 ppm................... 12/2
10.4 ppm................... 12/3 9.5 ppm.................... 12/3
10.5 ppm................... 12/17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1994 Data
In a March 1995 letter to EPA,4 Arizona requested that the
1994 exceedances of the CO NAAQS at the West Indian School Road
monitoring site be ``flagged'' as affected by ``exceptional events'' as
those terms are defined in EPA guidance.5 In the same letter, the
State requested that the December 17, 1994 exceedance at the West Earll
Drive monitoring site be invalidated because that monitor had failed an
audit. In response, EPA requested more information to evaluate the
exceptional event claims at the West Indian School Road monitoring site
and disapproved the State's request to invalidate the December 17, 1994
exceedance at the West Earll Drive monitoring site.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See letter from Edward Z. Fox, Director, Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality to David P. Howekamp, Director, Air &
Toxics Division, EPA, Region IX, March 31, 1995.
\5\ EPA has established criteria and procedures to identify or
flag data which may be affected by exceptional events (e.g.,
structural fires or industrial accidents) in its ``Guideline on the
Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional
Events,'' July 1986. Under the flagging system, state and local air
pollution control agencies are responsible for initially identifying
and documenting data influenced by exceptional events. These
agencies are expected to develop the appropriate background
information necessary to support a decision to flag an individual
piece of data. The agencies must then submit the information to EPA
for concurrence. Flagging a piece of data or data set does not
exclude that data from being used for nonattainment designations or
classifications. The actual exclusion would only be allowed if, as a
result of a public review process, the responsible government
agency, in this case EPA, determines that the data are inappropriate
for use in a specific regulatory activity.
\6\ See letter from David P. Howekamp, Director, EPA, to Russell
F. Rhoades, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,
November 27, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to EPA's request for more information, on March 25,
1996, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted
to EPA additional documentation, prepared by the Maricopa Association
of Governments (MAG), on the West Indian School Road exceedances.7
On April 12, 1996, EPA responded to ADEQ's submittal by concluding that
MAG's claims that these 1994 exceedances were affected by exceptional
events (unusual traffic conditions and air stagnation conditions) were
not supported by the submitted documentation. EPA stated that minor
traffic accidents are common in any metropolitan area and that air
stagnation conditions routinely occur during the CO season in the
Phoenix area. See letter from David P. Howekamp, EPA, to Russell
Rhoades, ADEQ, April 12, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See letter from Russell F. Rhoades, ADEQ, to David Howekamp,
EPA, March 25, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as demonstrated in the table above, even if the West
Indian School Road exceedances were deemed to be exceptional events and
ultimately rejected for use in the Phoenix area's attainment status
determination, there would still be two exceedances in 1994 at West
Earll Drive since EPA disapproved the State's request to invalidate the
December 17, 1994 exceedance. As discussed in section I.B. of this
notice, the second exceedance at a given monitoring site in the same
year constitutes a violation. Therefore, based on the 1994 data alone,
EPA has concluded that the Phoenix area cannot be deemed to have
attained the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
2. 1995 Data
As demonstrated by the above table, the monitoring data indicate
that Phoenix area recorded violations of the CO NAAQS in 1995 at Grand
Avenue (three exceedances) and West Indian School Road (two
exceedances). To date, the State has made no claims to EPA that the
exceedances recorded at these monitoring sites are invalid for the
purpose of determining the area's attainment status. However, EPA is
aware that there have been ongoing communications between ADEQ and MAG
regarding potential exceptional events claims for all except one of
these exceedances (December 3, 1995 at West Indian School Road).8
MAG has recommended that ADEQ flag all 1995 exceedances at Grand Avenue
and the December 2, 1995 exceedance at West Indian School Road as being
affected by traffic accidents, freeway ramp closures, meteorological
considerations, and other events. In response, ADEQ stated that in
order to meet EPA's Exceptional Event Guideline, MAG would have to
submit appropriate documentation demonstrating a causal relationship
between the events and measured air quality, and referred MAG to EPA's
November 27, 1995 letter on the appropriate documentation regarding
traffic accidents. EPA concurs with ADEQ's assessment and refers the
reader for further detail to the correspondence between MAG and ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See e.g., letter from Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to Russell F.
Rhoades, ADEQ, February 22, 1996; letter from Nancy Wrona, ADEQ, to
John DeBolske, MAG, March 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the MAG/ADEQ correspondence, EPA believes that the 1995
exceedances are valid for use in determining the attainment status of
the Phoenix area. EPA is therefore proposing to find, based on the 1994
and 1995 CO violations discussed above, that the area did not attain
the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995. Similarly, because of the 1995
violations, EPA does not believe that the area could qualify for a one
year extension of the attainment deadline.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On March 11, 1996, MAG requested that ADEQ flag as affected
by exceptional events (unusual traffic conditions and meteorological
considerations) CO NAAQS exceedances on January 10 and 13, 1996 at
Grand Avenue. See letter from Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to Russell F.
Rhoades, ADEQ, March 11, 1996, attached to letter from Russell F.
Rhoades to David Howekamp, March 25, 1996. In its March 25, 1996
letter to EPA, ADEQ submitted documentation from MAG in support of
these claims. These 1996 exceedances, while lending additional
support to EPA's proposed finding of failure to attain based on the
1994 and 1995 data, are relevant to today's proposal in only one
respect. If EPA were to conclude that the Phoenix area qualified for
a one year extension of the attainment date, the 1996 exceedances,
if validated as a NAAQS violation, would prevent the area from
obtaining a second one year extension. As stated above, EPA does not
believe the Phoenix area can qualify for the first extension.
Moreover, EPA does not believe that the 1996 exceedances were
affected by exceptional events. See letter from David P. Howekamp,
EPA to Russell Rhoades, ADEQ, April 12, 1996. Therefore, the 1996
data are not addressed further in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21418]]
B. SIP Requirements for Serious CO Areas
CO nonattainment areas reclassified as serious under section
186(b)(2) of the CAA are required to submit, within 18 months of the
area's reclassification, SIP revisions demonstrating attainment of the
CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,
2000. The serious CO area planning requirements are set forth in
section 187(b) of the CAA. EPA has issued two general guidance
documents related to the planning requirements for CO SIPs. The first
is the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' that sets forth EPA's preliminary
views on how the Agency intends to act on SIPs submitted under Title I
of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992). The second general guidance document for CO SIPs
issued by EPA is the ``Technical Support Document to Aid the States
with the Development of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans,''
July 1992.
If the Phoenix area is reclassified to serious, the State would
have to submit a SIP revision to EPA that, in addition to the
attainment demonstration, includes: (1) a forecast of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year and provisions
for annual updates of these forecasts; (2) adopted contingency
measures; and (3) adopted transportation control measures and
strategies to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT or
number of vehicle trips. See CAA sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),
187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Upon reclassification, contingency
measures in the moderate area plan for the Phoenix area must be
implemented.
III. Executive Order (EO) 12866
Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to
determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore
should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria identified in
section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may ``have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.''
The Agency has determined that the finding of failure to attain
proposed today would result in none of the effects identified in
section 3(f). Under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure
to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon
air quality considerations and must occur by operation of law in light
of certain air quality conditions. They do not, in-and-of-themselves,
impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition,
because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to
the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are
automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered
by air quality values, findings of failure to attain and
reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact
on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant 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.
As discussed in section III of this notice, 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 proposed action does
not have a significant impact on small entities.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must assess whether various actions undertaken in association with
proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix; Carbon Monoxide 14
EPA believes, as discussed above, that the proposed finding of
failure to attain and reclassification of the Phoenix nonattainment
area are factual determinations based upon air quality considerations
and must occur by operation of law and, hence, do not impose any
Federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Carbon monoxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11739 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
