[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18334]
[Federal Register: July 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ31-1-6531; FRL-5021-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Phoenix Nonattainment Area; PM10
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to approve the State implementation plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Arizona for the purpose of bringing
about the attainment in the Phoenix Planning Area (PPA) of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10). The ``moderate'' area SIP was submitted by the State to
satisfy certain Federal requirements in the Clean Air Act for an
approvable nonattainment area PM10 plan for the PPA.
Because the State of Arizona has demonstrated that it is
impracticable for the area to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the
December 31, 1994 attainment date, even with the implementation of
reasonably available control measures, EPA has the discretion to
reclassify the PPA from a ``moderate'' to a ``serious'' nonattainment
area at this time. In the alternative, EPA can evaluate the attainment
status of the area after December 31, 1994 and reclassify the area at
that time if the data warrant. While EPA is proposing in this notice to
reclassify the PPA at this time, it is the Agency's current position
that evaluation of the area's attainment status after December 31, 1994
is the more appropriate approach. EPA is requesting comment on these
alternative approaches.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
August 29, 1994. Comments should be addressed to the contact indicated
below.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other information are
contained in the docket for this rulemaking. The docket is available
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Pallarino (A-2-2), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics Division, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
PM10 areas, including the Phoenix Planning Area (PPA), meeting the
conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were designated nonattainment
by operation of law. Once an area is designated nonattainment, section
188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of the area and
establishes the area's attainment date. In accordance with section
188(a), at the time of designation, all PM10 nonattainment areas
were initially classified as ``moderate'' by operation of law. See 40
CFR 81.303 (1993) A moderate area may subsequently be reclassified as
``serious'' if at any time EPA determines that the area cannot
practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date for moderate areas, December 31, 1994. Moreover, a moderate area
must be reclassified if EPA determines within six months after the
applicable attainment date that the area is not in attainment after
that date. See section 188(b) of the Clean Air Act.
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the
Act. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary
views on how the Agency intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the Act, including those state submittals
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP provisions. 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 Arizona's moderate PM10 SIP for the PPA, EPA is
proposing to apply its interpretations taking into consideration the
specific factual issues presented. EPA will consider any timely
submitted comments before taking final action on today's proposal.
Those states containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following
provisions by November 15, 1991:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are additional submittals associated with moderate
PM10 nonattainment plans, such as a permit program for the
construction of new and modified major stationary sources and
contingency measures. See sections 189(a) and 172(c)(9). These
submittals were required to be submitted in 1992 and 1993,
respectively, and are not the subject of today's proposal which
addresses only those plan provisions required to be submitted on
November 15, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable;
3. Pursuant to section 189(c) of the Act, for plan revisions
demonstrating attainment, quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994;\2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\As will be seen below, the PM10 plan for the PPA does
not demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1994, but rather includes
the alternative demonstration that attainment by that date is
impracticable. Therefore, section 189(c) does not apply and is not
discussed further in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
II. Today's Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals. See 57 FR 13565-66. In today's action, EPA is
proposing to approve the plan revision submitted to EPA on August 11,
1993, as revised by addenda submitted on March 3, 1994, for the PPA
because it meets all of the applicable requirements of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\One of the rules proposed for approval in today's notice
contains a provision that may affect its enforceability. Because
Maricopa County has agreed to expedite a revision and resubmission
of this rule, EPA's proposed full approval of this rule is based on
the assumption that this will occur prior to final action on this
rulemaking. In the alternative, should a revision and resubmission
not occur prior to EPA's final action, EPA proposes to approve all
provisions of the rule, with the exception of the section affecting
its enforceability. This issue is discussed in the section of this
notice entitled ``Enforceability Issues.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
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.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set
out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1993). 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 six months after receipt
of the submission.
The State of Arizona originally submitted the implementation plan
revision to EPA on November 15, 1991. Upon reviewing the plan for
completeness, EPA deemed the plan incomplete because the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG), the lead air quality planning agency
for the PPA, did not hold a proper public hearing on the plan. The
submittal also did not provide enough evidence to show that the State
had the necessary authority to implement the locally adopted measures
in the event that local governments did not implement those measures.
By letter dated March 4, 1992, EPA informed the State that the
submittal was incomplete.
On July 22, 1993, MAG held another hearing to entertain public
comment on a revised PM10 moderate area SIP revision. Following
this public hearing the SIP revision was adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA on August 11, 1993. Subsequently, the State revised a
portion of the SIP revision based on the adoption of a Maricopa County
fugitive dust rule, two Maricopa County reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules, and the subsequent revision of the SIP's
demonstration that attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the moderate
area attainment date is not practicable. The State held an additional
public hearing on February 28, 1994, adopted the revision, and
submitted it to EPA on March 3, 1994.
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 (1993). EPA concluded
that the State had addressed and corrected the two deficiencies which
were the bases for the incompleteness finding of March 4, 1992. MAG had
held a public hearing on the entire SIP revision, and the State had
passed new legislation, Arizona State Senate Bill 1430, which gave the
State the authority to take legal action against a local government if
the State determines that the local government is not carrying out its
responsibility to implement and enforce the control measures contained
in the SIP revision. See Appendix B, exhibit 13 of the SIP revision. By
letter dated September 7, 1993, EPA informed the Governor that the
submittal was complete.
In today's action EPA proposes to approve Arizona's PM10 SIP
submittal for the PPA and invites public comment on the action. As
explained more fully below, EPA is also taking comment on the
appropriate method of reclassifying the PPA as a serious PM10
nonattainment area.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. Because such inventories are necessary to an area's
attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot
practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be received with
the submission. See 57 FR 13539.
Arizona submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1989. The
base year inventory identifies re-entrained dust from paved roads and
exhaust from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles as the primary causes
of nonattainment, contributing over 80 percent of the total emissions
during the time that the violations were recorded. Additional
contributing sources include emissions from unpaved roads (1.5
percent), fireplaces and wood stoves (5 percent), non-road mobile
sources (2.5 percent), construction, demolition and farming activities
(1.5 percent) and numerous other combustion and geologic sources (9.5
percent).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\This category includes: (1) combustion of fuels for
industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural purposes and
power plants; (2) waste burning; and (3) geological emissions from
metallurgical, mineral and mining industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the plan revision's
air quality analysis consistent with the requirements of sections
172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean Air Act.\6\ For further details
see the Technical Support Document (TSD) that is contained in the
docket for today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\EPA issued guidance on PM10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of
the 1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. Pursuant to section 193 of
the Amendments, the guidance provided in this document, as well as
all other pre-Amendment guidance cited in this notice, remains in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993. See sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C). EPA's General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments contains a detailed discussion of EPA's
interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement. See 57 FR
13540-45 and 13560-61.
As stated in EPA's General Preamble the suggested starting point
for determining RACM for a particular area is to list all of the RACM
measures for which EPA has issued guidance under section 190 of the
Act. If a state receives substantive public comment demonstrating that
additional measures may be reasonably available, those measures should
then be added to the original list. Chapter 5 of the SIP revision lists
the 21 EPA RACM provided in a supplement to the General Preamble, 57 FR
18070, Appendices C1-C3 (April 28, 1992).\7\ In addition to the EPA
RACM, the SIP revision includes 58 measures developed by MAG for the
1988 MAG particulate plan (MAG measures). These MAG measures include
those designed specifically to reduce particulate matter emissions, as
well as those developed for MAG's 1987 carbon monoxide SIP revision
that could also reduce particulate matter emissions. Finally, as a
result of the public hearing, 82 additional measures were added to the
initial list of possible RACM, for a total of 161 measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\EPA's list of RACM for PM-10 was initially included in the
memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, ``PM-10 Moderate Area
SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product'', April 2, 1991. This
memorandum was provided to the State and local air quality planners
as guidance in developing the moderate area SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, those measures for sources which do not contribute
significantly to emissions from the area can be excluded from further
consideration as not being reasonable. Three of the public comment
measures were excluded as having a minimal impact on PM10
emissions and are identified in Appendix B, Exhibits 5 and 12 of the
SIP revision. In addition, six of the public comment measures were
excluded because they relate to sources not present in the PPA due to
its geographic or climatic conditions. These measures are identified in
Appendix B, Exhibits 4 and 5 of the SIP revision.
The next test for reasonableness is the technological and economic
feasibility of implementing a measure in a particular area. Two of the
public comment measures were deemed to be technologically infeasible in
the PPA: congestion pricing and road pricing. According to information
contained in Appendix B, Exhibit 4, this conclusion is based on a
report developed by an EPA contractor entitled ``Improved Air Quality
in Maricopa and Pima Counties--The Applicability of Transportation
Measures'' (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., November 1986). This report is
included in the docket accompanying this proposed rulemaking. Another
measure deemed infeasible for the PPA was to implement tradable travel
permits. According to information in Appendix B, Exhibit 5, this
measure is considered a long term option due to the magnitude of change
required for implementation.
Two measures were determined to be economically infeasible. Non-
employee parking pricing was considered to be infeasible because
businesses impacted by such costs would be put at a major disadvantage
in competing with others not affected. See Appendix B, Exhibit 12.
Electrification of railroads is not feasible due to the excessive cost
of approximately $1.5 million per mile. See Appendix B, Exhibit 5.
Four of the public comment measures affect emissions associated
with aircraft and airports and are already being implemented by Sky
Harbor Airport in Phoenix and the Federal Aviation Administration.
These measures are identified in Appendix B, Exhibits 4 and 12. One
measure addresses emission standards for new jet aircraft engines.
Adoption of this type of control measure is outside the jurisdiction of
the State or local governments and is identified in Appendix B, Exhibit
5. One public comment measure involves the deregulation of private
transit. However, according to the SIP revision in Appendix B, Exhibit
5, there are currently no regulations in the PPA that restrict private
transit operations.
Of the remaining 62 measures submitted during the public comment
period, 53 measures are essentially the same as the initial MAG
measures and 9 measures were to be addressed in the State's 1993 SIP
revisions for carbon monoxide and ozone.
The revised list of possible RACM consists of 79 measures (21 EPA
measures and 58 MAG measures). The Maricopa Association of Governments
Air Quality Planning Committee (MAGAQPC) further excluded MAG measure
#1 and portions of MAG measure #2 (described on page 6-14 of the SIP
revision). These measures address broadening the State vehicle
inspection and maintenance program (#1) and controls on diesel vehicles
(#2). While MAG retained the portion of MAG measure #2 that addresses
the use of number one diesel fuel, the other portions of that measure
were excluded from further consideration because they were determined
to be economically infeasible. See Appendix B, Exhibit 7.
According to Chapter 6 of the SIP revision, 43 of the MAG measures
were specifically adopted for the State's 1987 carbon monoxide (CO)
SIP. As mentioned in the emission inventory section of this notice,
exhaust from gasoline and diesel vehicles are also significant
contributors to the PM10 nonattainment problem. The SIP's emission
inventory identifies exhaust from gasoline vehicles as contributing
about 20 percent of the total annual PM10 emissions and exhaust
from diesel vehicles as contributing about 16 percent. These CO
measures are included in the PM10 SIP revision because they could
also reduce particulate matter emissions. These measures, identified in
Chapter 6 of the SIP revision on pages 6-18 through 6-26, are designed
to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions through strengthening the vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs, requiring cleaner burning fuels in
vehicles, relieving traffic congestion, and reducing vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by providing alternative modes of transportation. Many
of the CO measures are transportation control measures (TCMs). In a
November 14, 1991 conformity analysis of the MAG Transportation
Improvement Plan and Regional Transportation Plan, EPA concluded that
TCMs with quantifiable emission reductions were in fact being
expeditiously implemented. A copy of this conformity analysis is
included in the docket.
Since the CO measures had already been implemented when the
PM10 SIP revision was being prepared, any reduction benefits
associated with them are built into the 1989 baseline PM10
emission inventory and the 1994 projected PM10 emission inventory.
Therefore the State has claimed no additional credit from reductions
from these measures.
The exclusion of these CO measures from the list of PM10
possible RACM leaves 35 measures to be addressed: 21 EPA measures and
14 MAG measures. However, in reviewing the remaining 14 MAG measures,
EPA has determined that nine of these MAG measures are nearly identical
to the EPA suggested RACM measures. One of the remaining five MAG
measures, use of number one diesel fuel, would reduce particulate
emissions because it is a cleaner burning fuel than other types of
diesel fuel. However, EPA has addressed this type of measure on a
national level in a Federal rulemaking. As of October 1, 1993, EPA
implemented a new national program of diesel fuel quality control,
requiring refiners to reduce the sulfur content of on-highway diesel
fuel. See 55 FR 34120, August 21, 1990. As a result of this program,
EPA estimates that total particulate emissions from diesel engines
could be reduced up to 90 percent nationwide by 1995. The remaining
four MAG measures address fugitive dust sources not specifically
addressed by EPA's RACM measures. Local cities and towns in the
nonattainment area were encouraged to develop regulations or programs
to implement these measures, but no local regulations (i.e. regulations
adopted by the cities and towns making up the nonattainment area) were
included in the plan submitted to EPA. However, as discussed below,
Maricopa County has adopted a countywide fugitive dust rule which EPA
believes fully addresses fugitive dust sources in the PPA and
incorporates the emission goals of these four remaining MAG measures.
The final list of measures consists of the 21 EPA suggested RACM.
The SIP's emission inventory identifies the major contributors to the
PM10 nonattainment problem in the PPA as re-entrained dust on
paved roads and other sources of fugitive dust including, but not
limited to, construction and demolition activities, farming operations,
uncovered haul trucks, and emissions from unpaved roads. These sources
constitute over 50 percent of the PM10 emissions in the PPA and
will be controlled by the implementation of Maricopa County Rule 310
``Open Fugitive Dust Sources''. According to the State, implementation
of this rule could reduce annual PM10 emissions in the urban
portion of the PPA by approximately 1,427 to 3,991 tons per year. The
low end of this range is based on the assumption that there will be no
change in the current level of enforcement staff at the County and in
the level of citizen complaint response. The high end assumes that all
local governing bodies will cooperate in the enforcement of Rule 310,
there will be a significant increase in citizen complaints due to
greater public awareness of the requirements and impacts of Rule 310,
and that the County will establish a 24 hour hotline to enable citizens
to report violations of the rule. Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act
requires RACM to be implemented by December 10, 1993. Rule 310 was
implemented as of December 1, 1993.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State claims emission reduction credits for some additional
measures. Since 1989, Maricopa County has implemented a Trip Reduction
Program which attempts to reduce VMT by encouraging the use of
carpooling and mass transit. The SIP revision estimates that
implementation of this measure throughout the nonattainment area will
reduce VMT in 1994 by 0.8 percent or 315 tons per year. The State also
claims credit for the use of two methanol buses in the PPA. This
measure provides a small but quantifiable reduction in PM10
emissions of 0.63 tons per year.
Maricopa County also has an adopted regulation for the control of
prescribed burning activities, Rule 314. This rule was already adopted
prior to the development of this moderate area PM10 SIP so no
additional emission reduction credits are associated with it. The
emission reductions achieved from this rule are built into the baseline
and projected emission inventories submitted with the SIP revision.
Rule 314 applies throughout the nonattainment area.
The General Preamble states that at a minimum all major stationary
sources of PM10 in a nonattainment area be required to apply RACT.
The State should then apply RACT to other PM10 sources in the
area, taking into account the attainment needs of the area and the
feasibility of such controls. Maricopa County has adopted regulations
requiring RACT for stationary sources of PM10: Rule 311,
``Particulate Matter from Process Industries'', and Rule 316,
``Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing''. These RACT rules apply
throughout the nonattainment area and to all affected sources
regardless of their size. The SIP does not claim emission reduction
credits for Rule 311, since this was an existing regulation which the
County revised in order to make it more enforceable. Rule 316 is a new
regulation, but the County has stated that emission reduction credits
would be difficult to quantify. The sources to which this rule will
apply contribute only 1 percent to the total annual emission inventory.
A more detailed discussion of the control strategy in the SIP
revision can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
EPA believes that the State has provided a reasoned justification
for eliminating measures from its initial list of possible RACM. The
remaining measures are legally enforceable. In addition, the State has
provided for the application of RACT to existing sources and new
sources of PM10. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the regulations
adopted for the State's moderate area PM10 SIP revision represent
RACM (including RACT) as required by sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)
of the Act. By this notice, EPA is proposing to approve the control
strategy.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994. Alternatively, the state must show
that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. See section
189(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
In order for a state to properly demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS, the SIP control strategy must provide for attainment of each
primary ambient air quality standard. There are two primary air quality
standards for PM10, a 24 hour standard (150 g/m3) and an
annual standard (50 g/m3). The 24 hour standard is attained
when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour
average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less than
one. The annual standard is attained when the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 g/m3
(lid). See 40 CFR 50.6.
Arizona used receptor modeling coupled with a proportional rollback
model for its PPA air quality analysis. This analysis indicated that
neither the 24 hour nor the annual standard for PM10 can be
attained by December 31, 1994. The SIP revision indicates that a 27.2
percent reduction in PM10 emissions would be necessary in order to
attain the annual PM10 NAAQS in 1994. The State's analysis of the
adopted control measures in the plan claims that the measures provide
for a reduction of 11.1 percent. It should be noted however, that EPA,
using the information contained in the plan, calculates that a
reduction target of 22.8 percent is needed to attain the annual NAAQS
and EPA's analysis of the control measures results in a reduction of
18.8 percent. This difference in the control strategy's effectiveness
is due to the fact that the State's analysis made an assumption that
the control strategy would not be applied to the entire nonattainment
area. However, Rule 310, the measure from which the greatest reductions
in PM10 emissions would be realized, clearly applies to the entire
PPA. The TSD accompanying this notice provides more detail on EPA's
analysis of control measure effectiveness.
Regardless of the difference in EPA's and the State's analysis of
the control strategy's effect on the annual standard, the SIP's design
value for the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS is 242 g/m3, 61 percent
greater than the standard. Therefore even if the control strategy does
provide a greater benefit than the State predicted, it still falls far
short of meeting the 24 hour NAAQS. The control strategy used to
achieve these design concentrations is summarized in the section of
this notice entitled ``RACM (including RACT).''
By this notice EPA is proposing to approve the State's
demonstration that attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31,
1994 is impracticable. For a more detailed description of the
demonstration of impracticability and the control strategy used, see
the TSD accompanying this notice.
5. Reclassification
Since EPA is proposing to approve the control strategy and the
State's demonstration that attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by
December 31, 1994 is impracticable, EPA has the discretion, pursuant to
section 188(b)(1) of the Act, to propose to reclassify the PPA as a
serious nonattainment area at this time. If the PPA is reclassified
under this section of the Act, the State would have four years from the
final reclassification to submit a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the area will attain the PM10 NAAQS no later than
December 31, 2001. See sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(2).
In the alternative, EPA has the option to wait until after the
moderate area attainment date, December 31, 1994, and then proceed
under section 188(b)(2) of the Act. This provision requires EPA to
determine by June 30, 1995 whether the PPA attained the PM10
standard by December 31, 1994. If the Agency finds that the PPA is not
in attainment after that date, the area is reclassified by operation of
law as a serious area. If the PPA is reclassified under the section
188(b)(2) procedure, the State would have to submit the serious area
attainment demonstration within 18 months after reclassification. See
section 189(b)(2).9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\It should be noted that when a moderate area is reclassified
under either section 188(b)(1) or (b)(2), the State is required,
within 18 months after reclassification, to submit provisions to
assure that best available control measures (BACM) for the control
of PM10 shall be implemented no later than four years after
reclassification. For additional specific requirements relating to
all serious PM10 areas, and to those serious areas seeking an
extension of the attainment date, see section 189 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that there are advantages to pursuing reclassification
under section 188(b)(2) and that the circumstances here justify such an
approach. Under section 188(b)(1), the State would initially develop
its BACM determination in the absence of an attainment demonstration
with the potential result that the chosen measures would not ultimately
attain the PM10 standards by the applicable attainment date. Such
a result, however, would not be revealed until several years later,
when the air quality modeling analysis is conducted for the attainment
demonstration. If, at that point, additional measures are found to be
necessary for the area to attain the PM10 NAAQS, new measures
would have to be developed, adopted and submitted to EPA. In contrast,
under section 188(b)(2), all the required elements of the serious area
plan must be submitted to EPA within 18 months of reclassification.
Thus, under section 188(b)(2), the process of attaining the PM10
standards is expedited.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the State originally concluded
that the PPA could not practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by
December 31, 1994 when it developed its November 1991 plan submission.
Despite procedural delays and plan updates culminating in the 1993 and
1994 SIP submittals, this conclusion has not changed. Therefore, the
State has been on notice for almost three years that reclassification
was likely. Moreover, the moderate attainment date is now only several
months away. EPA's current view is that under these circumstances, a
delay of four years for the submission of a serious area attainment
demonstration is unwarranted. Rather, the Agency believes that it is
more appropriate to accelerate, to the maximum extent possible, the
submission of a complete plan to attain the PM10 NAAQS.
For the reasons set forth above, it is EPA's current intention to
proceed under section 188(b)(2) as soon after December 31, 1994 as the
Agency has the air quality data and other relevant information to
determine whether the PPA has attained the NAAQS. In spite of the above
analysis, however, EPA recognizes that there may be valid reasons to be
advanced in favor of EPA's invoking its discretionary authority to
reclassify the PPA at this time pursuant to section 188(b)(1). As a
result, EPA is in this notice proposing to reclassify the PPA as a
serious nonattainment area. However, in the absence of a compelling
justification from the public during the comment period, EPA does not
intend to take final action on this proposal.10 If EPA does not
take final action on this proposal, the Agency will proceed under
section 188(b)(2) after December 31, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0If EPA does take final action on this proposal, the change
in classification will appear in 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. PM10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in
that area. See section 189(e) of the Act. An analysis of air quality
and emissions data for the PPA nonattainment area indicates that
exceedances of the NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct particulate
matter emissions from re-entrained dust from paved roads and exhaust
from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Sources of particulate
matter precursor emissions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate
contribute only 3 percent to the total annual emissions of PM10.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that major sources of precursors
of PM10 do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels in
excess of the NAAQS. The consequence of this finding is to exclude
these sources from the applicability of PM10 moderate
nonattainment area control requirements. Further discussion of the
analyses and supporting rationale for EPA's finding are contained in
the TSD accompanying this notice. Note that while EPA is making a
general finding for this area, today's finding is based on the current
character of the area including, for example, the existing mix of
sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth
could change the significance of precursors in the area. EPA intends to
issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the
significance of precursor emissions in an area. It should be noted,
however, that if the PPA is reclassified as a serious PM10
nonattainment area, the State will be required to determine in its BACM
analysis whether PM10 precursors contribute significantly11
to ambient concentrations of PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1A source category in a serious PM10 nonattainment area
will be presumed to be significant if its contribution to a
violation of the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS exceeds 5 g/m\3\
or if its contribution to a violation of the annual NAAQS exceeds 1
g/m\3\ (Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, Chief, SO2/
Particulate Matters Programs Branch, ``PM-10 Serious Area Guidance:
Final Staff Work Product'' (September 24, 1993). For the moderate
area RACM analysis, there is no presumptive level of significance;
the determination is made on a case by case basis. See 57 FR 13539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Enforceability Issues
The particular control measures contained in the SIP revision for
the PPA are addressed above under the section entitled ``RACM
(including RACT).'' These control measures apply to the types of
PM10 emission sources identified in that discussion including, for
example, dust on paved roadways, construction and demolition
activities, unpaved roads, farming operations, uncovered haul trucks,
prescribed burning, process industries, and nonmetallic mineral mining
and processing.
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
EPA and the State. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556. The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions are stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. See 57 FR 13541. The TSD for this notice contains
detailed information on enforceability requirements including
applicability, enforceable emission limitations, the source types
subject to the rules, test methods and compliance schedules as
appropriate, averaging times for compliance test methods, and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Only enforceability issues meriting
particular attention are addressed in this notice.
Rule 310 contains a section which EPA believes threatens the
enforceability of the rule. Section 221 of the rule lists the
reasonably available control measures that a source can use in reducing
PM10 emissions. These measures are all consistent with EPA
recommended measures with the exception of section 221.9, which
authorizes ``Other means approved by the Control Officer.'' This
provision of the rule enables the Control Officer to approve
alternative measures that may not meet the enforceability and other
approvability criteria established by EPA.
Following discussions with EPA on this issue, Maricopa County has
agreed to revise the rule to delete section 221.9. However, the County
must go through another public notice and comment period before the
County Board of Supervisors will approve this change. The County
intends to expedite its administrative procedures so that the rule can
be revised and resubmitted to EPA prior to final action on this SIP
revision. See letter, with attached draft rule revision and notice of
public hearing, dated June 23, 1994 from Karen J. Heidel, Maricopa
County Environmental Services Department to Dave Calkins, EPA. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Maricopa County Rule 310 on
the assumption that it will be resubmitted with the noted change prior
to final action on this rulemaking. In the alternative, if the County
does not revise and resubmit the rule prior to EPA's final action, EPA
proposes to approve all provisions of Maricopa County Rule 310 with the
exception of section 221.9.
Compliance for certain measures, such as Rules 310, 311, 314, and
316 must be determined in accordance with appropriate test methods. The
SIP revision provides that compliance with Rule 310 be determined in
accordance with EPA reference method912. Rule 314 requires persons
to obtain a permit from the Control Officer in order to conduct
prescribed burning activities. Certain types of burning, as discussed
in the TSD, must not exceed the County's visible emission standard of
20 percent opacity. Rule 314 specifies that compliance with the opacity
standard will be determined in accordance with reference method 9
contained in the Arizona Testing manual. The State's method 9 is the
same as EPA's method 9. Compliance with Rule 311 shall be determined in
accordance with EPA reference methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. Compliance
with Rule 316 shall also be determined in accordance with EPA reference
methods 1 through 5 and 9. EPA believes these test methods are
appropriate for determining compliance for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2Compliance with Rule 310 is determined in accordance with
EPA Method 9, except that opacity observations for intermittent
visible emissions shall require 12 rather than 24 consecutive
readings at 15 second intervals for the averaging time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 310, 314
As mentioned above, compliance with these rules is determined using
EPA reference method 9. While this test method is designed to determine
opacity of smoke plumes from stationary sources, EPA believes that it
is acceptable for determining compliance with these types of dust
generating activities. While there is not a smokestack from which a
plume emanates, EPA has not provided a more appropriate test method for
determining compliance for sources such as these. Discussions with the
Maricopa County Division of Air Pollution Control have indicated that
the County enforcement personnel believe a more appropriate method
needs to be devised and using method 9 on area source emissions can be
difficult. However, they believe that method 9 can be reasonably
utilized to determine the severity of visible emissions from the dust
producing sources to which the rule applies. Since EPA cannot suggest a
reasonable alternative test method that would provide better results,
EPA proposes to approve this method of determining compliance.
Rule 311, Rule 316
As mentioned above, Rules 311 and 316 utilize test methods 1
through 5 and 9 to gauge compliance. These are all appropriate test
methods to determine emissions from stationary sources. See 40 CFR Part
60, Appendix A.
In addition to meeting the enforceability requirements of the Act
and EPA guidance, nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain
a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and
other elements in the SIP. See sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 172(c)(7).
Moreover, where the State relies on a local or regional government
agency for implementing any plan provision, the State has the
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of that provision.
See section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).
The State of Arizona has a program that will ensure that the
measures contained in the SIP revision are adequately enforced. Primary
enforcement of the RACM and RACT rules will be under the jurisdiction
of the Maricopa County Division of Air Pollution Control. Regarding the
County's enforcement program, see ``MAG 1991 Particulate Plan for
PM10 for the Maricopa County Area and 1993 Revisions--Revised
Chapter 9 and Maricopa County Rules 310, 311 & 316, Responsiveness
Summary,'' ADEQ.
Under section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) of the Act, the State must provide
necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of these plan provisions. The State has the
authority to take legal action against the County if the State
determines that the County is not carrying out its enforcement
responsibilities. See Appendix B, Exhibit 13 of the SIP revision,
Arizona State Senate Bill 1430.
III. Implications of Today's Action
EPA is proposing to approve the moderate nonattainment area
PM10 plan revision submitted to EPA for the Maricopa County Urban
Planning Area on August 11, 1993 and amended on March 3, 1994. Among
other things, the State of Arizona has demonstrated that the PPA cannot
practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. EPA is
therefore proposing to reclassify the PPA as a serious nonattainment
area at this time. However, EPA currently believes that the alternative
approach authorized by the Clean Air Act of evaluating the area's
attainment status after December 31, 1994 is a more appropriate
approach. Therefore, in the absence of compelling countervailing
arguments from the public, EPA does not intend to take final action on
the reclassification proposal in this notice.
As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas were due at later dates. EPA will determine the
adequacy of any such submittal as appropriate.
IV. Request for Public Comments
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of today's proposal. As
indicated at the outset of this notice, EPA will consider any comments
received by (30 days from date of publication).
V. Executive Order 12866
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 has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
VI. 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 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
Clean Air 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
Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. the Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246,
256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410 (a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401-7671q.
Dated: July 11, 1994.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-18334 Filed 7-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
