[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41856-41865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 69-0012; FRL-5867-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part the final
Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard--Maricopa County PM-
10 Nonattainment Area, (May 1997) (microscale plan) submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on May 7, 1997. The
microscale plan evaluates attainment of the 24-hour particulate matter
(PM-10) national ambient air quality standard at four monitoring
locations in the Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, PM-10
nonattainment area. EPA is approving the attainment and reasonable
further progress demonstrations for two of these sites (Salt River and
Maryvale) and disapproving them for two other sites (West Chandler and
Gilbert). EPA is also approving the reasonably available control
measure/best available control measure demonstrations in the microscale
plan for some significant source categories of PM-10 but disapproving
them for others.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning
[[Page 41857]]
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (415) 744-1248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Portions of Maricopa County are designated nonattainment for the
PM-10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 1 and
were originally classified as ``moderate'' pursuant to section 188(a)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). The
State of Arizona developed and submitted to EPA a PM-10 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision intended to address the CAA
requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. These moderate
area requirements are described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
for this action (henceforth ``the proposal''). 62 FR 31026 (June 6,
1997). EPA approved this SIP revision on April 10, 1995. 59 FR 38402.
This approval was subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996). In vacating EPA's
approval of the plan, the court found that the State had failed to
address the 24-hour PM-10 standard in its moderate area plan and
ordered EPA to require the State to submit moderate area reasonably
available control measure (RACM), attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstrations for that standard. 84 F.d. at 311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour standard and an annual
standard. 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just before the court issued its order, EPA found that the Maricopa
area failed to attain the PM-10 standards by the statutory deadline for
moderate areas of December 31, 1994. See 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996). As
a result, the area was reclassified to ``serious.'' The State is now
required to develop and submit a new PM-10 plan meeting the CAA
requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas by December 10,
1997. Statutory requirements for serious area PM-10 requirements are
described in the proposal at 62 FR 31026-31027.
In order to comply with the court's order without diverting
resources from the serious area plan effort, EPA, in consultation with
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Maricopa
County Environmental Services Department (MCESD), decided that the
State would incorporate the moderate area plan elements for the 24-hour
standard into the serious area plan, but would split that planning
effort into two related parts. Accordingly, EPA required submittal of a
limited, locally-targeted plan (known as the microscale plan) meeting
both the moderate and serious area requirements for the 24-hour
standard by May 9, 1997 and a full regional plan meeting those
requirements for both the 24-hour and annual standards by December 10,
1997. Thus, the microscale and regional plans taken together would
satisfy both the moderate area requirements mandated by the court and
the serious area planning requirements for both standards.
The submittal deadlines and requirements applicable to the
microscale plan are contained in letters dated September 18, 1996 and
March 5, 1997 from Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, to Russell Rhoades, Director, ADEQ (Marcus letter). In brief, the
microscale plan was to address the 24-hour standard violations at five
specific monitors in the metropolitan Phoenix area and meet the
statutory RACM, best available control measures (BACM), attainment, and
RFP requirements for moderate and serious PM-10 areas. Finally, the
plan was to contain the air quality modeling and emissions inventory
information necessary to support the required demonstrations and meet
the generally applicable SIP requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(l); necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and the
description of enforcement methods as required by 40 CFR 51.111. A
complete discussion of the EPA's rationale and requirements for the
microscale plan can be found in the proposal at 62 FR 31027-31029.
II. Summary of the Proposal
ADEQ submitted the Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10
Standard--Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area (May, 1997) (plan or
microscale plan) to EPA on May 9, 1997. EPA proposed to approve in part
and disapprove in part this plan on June 6, 1997 (62 FR 31025). EPA's
evaluation of the microscale plan and its proposed action on that plan
are summarized here; a complete discussion can be found in the proposal
and in the technical support document (TSD) for this rulemaking.
The microscale plan addresses exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS at the Salt River, Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler PM-10
monitoring sites in the metropolitan Phoenix area.2 The plan
showed that 24-hour exceedances at the Salt River site were primarily
due to fugitive dust from earth moving, industrial haul roads, unpaved
parking lots, and unpaved roads; at the Maryvale site, from disturbed
cleared area; at the Gilbert site from agricultural field aprons and
unpaved parking lots; and at the West Chandler site, from agricultural
fields, agricultural field aprons, vacant lots, and disturbed cleared
areas. Plan, pp. 17-19 and 62 FR 31031-31032. The plan addressed
attainment at these localized sites by identifying RACM and BACM
appropriate for controlling these types of fugitive dust sources.
However, the localized nature of the microscale plan precluded a
determination regarding the extent to which the identified RACM and
BACM should be implemented to address emissions over a larger
geographic area, as well as an assessment of the overall effectiveness
of these measures when applied throughout the nonattainment area as a
whole. These determinations will be addressed by the State in the full
regional plan. Plan, pp. 21-22 and 62 FR 31031-31032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The fifth monitoring site, East Chandler, was dropped from
the microscale plan because of a lack of sufficient inventory data
to evaluate exceedances at that site. 62 FR 31029, ftn 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Maricopa County, most fugitive dust sources are subject to
MCESD's Rule 310 (Open Sources of Fugitive Dust). MCESD committed in
the microscale plan to a number of improvements to the implementation
of Rule 310. These improvements are described in the plan (pp. 32-36)
and discussed in EPA's proposed action on the plan, 62 FR 31032-31034.
These improvements were primarily targeted at sources subject to
permitting (such as, earth moving, disturbed cleared roads, and
industrial haul roads) under MCESD's rules. For non-permitted sources
(such as vacant lots, agricultural sources, unpaved parking lots, and
unpaved roads), the microscale plan did not provide for proactive
implementation of controls. 62 FR 31034. In total, the plan contained
sufficient controls to show attainment at the Salt River and Maryvale
sites but also showed that additional controls were needed before
attainment could be demonstrated at the West Chandler and Gilbert
sites. Plan, pp. 37-40 and 62 FR 31025.
Based on its evaluation of the microscale plan, EPA proposed to
approve the provisions for implementing RACM and BACM for the
significant source categories of disturbed cleared areas, earth moving,
[[Page 41858]]
and industrial haul roads and disapprove the provisions for
implementing RACM and BACM for the significant source categories of
agricultural fields, agricultural aprons, vacant lands, unpaved parking
lots, and unpaved roads. EPA also proposed to approve the attainment
and RFP demonstrations at the Salt River and Maryvale sites and
disapprove these demonstrations at the West Chandler and Gilbert sites.
Finally, EPA proposed to find that the plan met the the generally
applicable SIP requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(l); necessary assurances that the implementing
agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and the description of enforcement
methods as required by 40 CFR 51.111. 62 FR 31035-31036.
III. Response to Public Comments on the Proposal
EPA received comments on its proposal from the Arizona Center for
Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) and the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. A summary of the most pertinent comments and
EPA's responses to those comments follow. A complete summary of all the
comments received and EPA's responses to those comments can be found in
the TSD.
In its June 9, 1997 comment letter, ACLPI incorporated by reference
its April 28, 1997 comments to ADEQ. EPA responds to both sets of
comments below.
Comment: While ACLPI agrees with EPA's proposal to approve the
various control measures in the microscale plan for inclusion in the
SIP, it does not agree that these measures have been shown to
constitute BACM for all the source categories addressed and notes that
the State indicated in the draft microscale plan that an evaluation of
BACM was being deferred to the full serious plan. ACLPI asserts that
the final microscale plan does not contain a complete BACM analysis
meeting all the requirements of EPA's PM-10 serious area guidance \3\
nor does the plan contain any explanation of why measures were
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This guidance is referred to as the Addendum and is found in
``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas,
and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16,
1994)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA's findings regarding the States' compliance with the
RACM and BACM requirements in the context of the microscale plan
recognize that this plan is limited in nature and, thus, is only a part
of--is in essence a down payment on--the full serious area PM-10 plan
contemplated by section 189(b) of the Act and relevant Agency guidance.
Consequently, EPA agrees that these measures have not been shown to
constitute complete BACM for the eight significant source categories in
the microscale plan and that the plan does not contain a complete BACM
analysis meeting the requirements of the Addendum. EPA acknowledged the
limited nature of these determinations when it stated, in its proposed
action on the microscale plan, that the proposed findings on RACM and
BACM implementation are ``applicable only to the microscale plan and
thus * * * will not constitute EPA's final decision as to the State's
full compliance with CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for RACM
and BACM for the eight source categories.'' 62 FR 31035. EPA further
stated in its proposal, ``[t]he subject of this proposed action is the
microscale plan only; the full regional plan is not due until late
1997[; therefore,] it is * * * premature to determine if the microscale
plan, in and of itself, fully complies with the Clean Air Act
requirements for moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas.'' 62
FR 31036. The proposal goes on to conclude that the State ``will need
to re-evaluate appropriate RACM and BACM for these sources in the full
regional plan.'' 62 FR 31035.
The Addendum defines BACM, among other things, as the maximum
degree of emission reduction achievable, considering energy, economic
and environmental impacts and outlines a multi-step process for
identifying BACM. Addendum at 42010-42014. The steps are (1)
development of a detailed emission inventory of PM-10 sources and
source categories, (2) air quality modeling evaluating the impact on
PM-10 concentrations of the various sources and source categories to
determine which are significant, and (3) identifying potential BACM
controls for significant source categories including their
technological feasibility, costs, and energy and environmental impacts.
Although detailed information was developed in the microscale plan
regarding factors such as the number and type of emissions sources and
their emissions, this information was gathered only for the limited
geographic area around the monitors addressed by the microscale plan.
However, EPA and the State agreed that any identified BACM controls
resulting from the microscale plan would be implemented regionally,
that is, throughout the entire nonattainment area. Marcus letter. As a
technological and planning matter, it is more logical to address the
third step of the BACM analysis (as outlined in the Addendum) by
assessing the effects of control implementation on the regional scale
rather than the localized one considered by the microscale
plan.4 In other words, while significant sources of PM-10
and candidate BACM for those sources could be identified within the
scope of the microscale plan, the final determination about whether
such controls represent the maximum degree of emission reductions
achievable given economic, energy and environmental considerations
depends on the type of information being developed for the regional
plan due in December.5 Therefore, it is reasonable for the
State to undertake the full BACM analysis in the context of the
regional plan and for EPA to defer its assessment of the State's
compliance with the requirements accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Regional implementation assured that the air quality
benefits associated with the controls identified at a microscale
site were realized over the much larger nonattainment area and not
just narrowly at the particular microscale site. The regional
implementation approach was taken because EPA believed that these
regional air quality benefits would outweigh any benefits that would
have accrued from a full BACM analysis resulting in implementation
of controls at the microscale sites alone. The Agency believes that
this preferable approach warrants the brief six month deferment of
the full BACM analysis to the full regional plan.
\5\ An example will illustrate the importance of this regional
information in determining BACM: the microscale plan may have shown
that it is economically feasible to pave all unpaved roads within a
small microscale domain, but a regional analysis may very well show
that it is economically infeasible to do so within the almost 2,900
square miles of the Maricopa County PM-10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that some parts of the BACM analysis were not
appropriate for the microscale plan. In fact, the State performed the
BACM analysis required by the Addendum except for the final detailed
evaluation of economic, energy, and environmental considerations to
determine if the measures represented the maximum degree of control. It
developed an emission inventory around each monitor and evaluated the
impact of each source category on ambient concentrations. It also
identified candidate BACM controls for most significant source
categories (Plan, Appendix B, pp. 4-8--4-9) by reviewing EPA's fugitive
dust guidance documents and PM-10 controls programs in other areas
including the South Coast (Los Angeles) Air Quality Management District
and the Coachella Valley (Palm Springs), California. Plan, Appendix B,
p. 3-1. Based on the documentation of this effort in the
[[Page 41859]]
microscale plan, EPA has determined, given the inherent limitations of
the microscale approach, that the plan's BACM analysis is consistent
where relevant with the guidance in the Addendum. 62 FR 31031-31032.
Comment: ACLPI disagrees with EPA's assertions that some of the
dust control strategies in the microscale plan constitute BACM because
they represent an improvement over existing RACM. ACLPI argues that a
control measure is not BACM merely because it is more effective than an
existing measure or merely because it emphasizes prevention; rather
BACM is the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable,
considering energy, economic and environmental impacts.
Response: As discussed immediately above, a full BACM analysis as
contemplated by the Addendum was not possible, for the limited purposes
of the microscale plan, in the microscale plan; therefore, it was not
possible to determine if any particular candidate BACM represented the
``maximum degree of emission reduction achievable, considering energy,
economic and environmental impacts.'' The Addendum, however, recognizes
that the source categories for PM-10 are varied and, consequently, does
not limit its description of BACM to this definition. In the Addendum,
BACM can ``include, though it is not limited to, expanded use of some
of the same types of control measures as those included as RACM in the
moderate area SIP.'' Addendum at 42013. This is necessarily the case
because the universe of control measures available to States to address
certain PM-10 sources, such as fugitive dust, is limited. The technical
guidance on control of fugitive dust sources \6\ makes this point:
``When a fugitive dust source has been controlled under a RACM
strategy, the implementation of BACM will generally involve additive
measures that consist of a more extensive application of fugitive dust
control measures imposed under RACM.'' Fugitive Dust BACM TID, p. 1-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical
Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/
2-92-004, September 1992 (Fugitive Dust BACM TID). This document is
one of several guidance documents that EPA was required to develop
on RACM and BACM for certain PM-10 source categories pursuant to CAA
section 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also states in the Addendum a preference that BACM include
pollution preventive measures and measures that provide for long-term
sustained progress toward attainment rather than quick, temporary
controls. Addendum at 42013. With respect to this criterion, EPA's
fugitive dust guidance states: ``The reduction of source extent and the
incorporation of process modifications or adjusted work practices which
reduce the amount of exposed dust-producing material constitute
preventive [best available control] measures for control of fugitive
dust emissions.'' Fugitive Dust BACM TID, p. 1-6.
Given that both the Addendum and the Fugitive Dust BACM TID provide
that adoption of control measures that go beyond or expand the use of
adopted RACM and that emphasize prevention constitute BACM for fugitive
dust sources especially, it is appropriate for EPA to assess the BACM
analysis in the microscale plan in terms of these criteria, as well as
to conclude that the microscale plan's BACM demonstration, within the
narrow scope of that plan, is acceptable. These criteria are discussed
in greater detail in the proposal and TSD (62 FR 31029 and TSD, p. 21)
and are, as noted, fully consistent with the Addendum. Finally, EPA
notes that, given the limited set of measures available for control of
PM-10 fugitive dust sources, the BACM selected for implementation after
the complete BACM analysis required by the Addendum is performed for
the regional plan may be the same as those identified in the microscale
plan.
Comment: ACLPI asserts that EPA must disapprove the BACM
demonstration for all source categories in the microscale plan, not
just the five that EPA proposed and that such a disapproval would not
impose any severe or unexpected burdens on the State since the State is
already planning to do a full BACM analysis after submission of the
microscale plan. ACLPI asserts that EPA's approval of the state's
``thin or nonexistent'' analysis as a BACM demonstration would create a
serious risk of weakening the entire particulate matter program because
other states may well cite EPA's action here as evidence of what
constitutes BACM for these sources when in fact there are much more
effective measures in practice.
Response: EPA has found that the microscale plan contains adequate
BACM demonstrations for three source categories and inadequate BACM
demonstrations for five categories and has fully documented its
determinations in the proposal and supporting TSD. 62 FR 31031-31035
and TSD, pp. 24-34. EPA based its determination on Clean Air Act
requirements, the Addendum, the requirements for the microscale plan
laid out in the Marcus letters, the inherent limitations of the
microscale approach, and the information presented in the microscale
plan.
ACLPI's concern about risking the entire particulate matter program
because other states may cite to this action is unfounded. First, EPA
has made it clear that its findings are limited to the microscale plan
and that ``the State will need to re-evaluate appropriate RACM and BACM
for these sources in the full regional plan.'' 62 FR 31035. Second, as
noted by ACLPI in its comments, the final determination of BACM is
based, per EPA guidance, on a showing that a selected control is the
``maximum degree of emission reduction achievable, considering energy,
economic and environmental impacts.'' Addendum at 42010. Since
determining BACM for significant source categories like those in the
microscale plan is necessarily based on area-specific information
regarding energy, economics, and environmental impacts, each serious
PM-10 area must perform its own BACM analysis. While other areas may
review the microscale plan to identify candidate BACM measures, they
cannot assume that something is or is not BACM simply because it has
been determined to be so in the microscale plan.
Comment: ACLPI comments that the plan does not clearly identify
which control strategies will be required in a given situation, noting
that Rule 310 and the dust control plan form list various control
options, some of which may constitute BACM but there is no assurance
that the BACM option will be chosen by the source in any given
situation. On the same theme, ACLPI notes that while the attainment
demonstration at the Salt River site assumed watering to the depth of
the cut, the plan does not clearly require this strategy in every
situation. ACLPI asserts that EPA should condition its approval of the
attainment demonstration at the Salt River site on the County providing
a clear commitment to requiring this strategy.
Response: While the dust control plan checklist covers a broad
range of dust generating activities, it narrowly limits the control
options available for any particular activity. For example, the BACM
identified in the microscale plan for disturbed cleared areas is
stabilization of the surface at all times including
weekends.7 This BACM is reflected on the checklist in the
category ``temporary stabilization'' which requires stabilization of
disturbed cleared areas (including weekends and
[[Page 41860]]
holidays) using one of two equivalent control techniques--water to form
a crust or application of chemical stabilizers to form a
crust.8, 9 Plan, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The modeling analysis indicated that the needed control was
stabilization or crusting of disturbed surface areas at all times
including weekends. The analysis did not depend on a particular
control technique for achieving this stabilization. Plan, p. 27.
\8\ The equivalency of these two measures is shown in Table 4-1
(Plan, p. 22) in the microscale plan which gives the control
efficiency of chemical stabilization at 82-97 percent and that of
watering to maintain a crust at 90 percent.
\9\ This limitation on control options is also true for the
other two source categories for which EPA is approving the RACM/BACM
demonstration: industrial haul roads (3 options, stabilize with
gravel, dust suppressant or water) and earthmoving (2 options, water
to the depth of the cut or water to eliminate or minimize visible
emissions). Plan, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Salt River site, ACLPI's comment illustrates the importance
of regional evaluation in the final determination of BACM. While
wetting to the depth of the cut was appropriate for the cutting
operation at the Salt River site, it may not always be appropriate at
cutting operations elsewhere in the nonattainment area. For example,
soil types vary throughout the Maricopa area and in some places a
coleche layer or patch may be present. A coleche layer is impermeable
to water and thus watering to the depth of the cut is not feasible when
a coleche layer is encountered during cutting operations. Plan,
Appendix G, p. 2. Since dust control is still needed where water to the
depth of the cut is impracticable, the provision of a second equivalent
control option--in this case, watering as necessary to prevent or
minimize visible emissions--is reasonable and necessary. Since the
checklist already requires application of at least one of these two
options, EPA does not believe that it need condition its approval of
the attainment demonstration at the Salt River monitor on the County
providing a clear commitment to require watering to the depth of the
cut in every situation.
Comment: Stating that the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP
assure adequate resources for enforcement and that the attainment
demonstrations in the microscale plan depend on adequate enforcement of
Rule 310, ACLPI asserts that the County continues to operate this
program with ``grossly'' inadequate staffing levels. ACLPI notes that
the plan indicates that the County is dedicating only 1.75 FTEs to the
dust control program and asserts that other county inspectors are
``available'' to perform field observations and respond to complaints,
but apparently only when their other duties allow and that the County
does not quantify or even estimate how much time these other inspectors
will spend on Rule 310 enforcement. ACLPI asserts that, because there
is no commitment to assign any specified level of staffing from this
group, EPA must assume for SIP purposes that it will be zero.
Response: The microscale plan does not indicate that the County is
dedicating only 1.75 FTE to implementing Rule 310. The plan clearly
indicates that 1.75 FTE is the number of staff that are assigned full
time to Rule 310 implementation and that there are a number of other
personnel who work on Rule 310 implementation as part of their
responsibilities and as needed. These other personnel include the
public involvement coordinator, the small business assistance program,
and 19 other inspectors, aides, engineers and supervisors.10
Plan, Appendix E, Letter, Joy Bell, MCESD, to Joe Gibbs, ADEQ, May 6,
1997 (Bell letter).11 It should also be noted that the
County's commitment to use these other resources to implement Rule 310
is not ``when available'' as ACLPI asserts but ``as needed.'' Plan,
Appendix E, Bell letter. The Cities are also contributing resources to
improving implementation of Rule 310 through the regional coordination
effort. Plan, Appendix E, ``Resolutions Adopted by Various Cities and
Towns within Maricopa County'' (city resolutions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These inspectors are the ones who inspect stationary
sources that may have Rule 310 sources, such as earth moving,
located on them (like many of the stationary sources surrounding the
Salt River monitor) and respond to complaints. Letter, Joy A. Bell,
MCESD, to Frances Wicher, EPA, July 2, 1997 (July 2 Bell letter).
\11\ The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors adopted on May 14,
1997 a resolution committing to implement improvements to the
administration of the fugitive dust control program and to foster
interagency cooperation to address fugitive dust. The microscale
plan included the draft resolution, and ADEQ transmitted the adopted
resolution to EPA on May 27, 1997. See letter from Nancy Wrona,
ADEQ, to John Kennedy, EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not believe that it must be assumed for SIP purposes that
the resources from these other inspectors must be zero simply because
the County did not quantify or even estimate how much time these other
inspectors will spend on Rule 310 enforcement. Inspectors inspect
facilities, and most facilities have multiple, distinct emission
points. Each point is potentially subject to a different rule or
regulation. Because of this, inspectors are trained to be able to
inspect facilities for compliance with a number of rules.12
Because an inspector may do inspections for compliance with multiple
rules on a single site visit, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
tease out just how much time is or will be spent inspecting for
compliance with a particular rule. Thus, the lack of a specific
numerical FTE commitment to Rule 310 implementation for the 19
inspectors, aides, engineers, and supervisors does not bar considering
their availability in determining if the plan provides for adequate
resources.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA considers an on-site visit to a facility an inspection
only if it meets EPA's Level II inspection requirements. In short,
Level II inspections require an assessment of the compliance status
of all units within a source that are subject to SIP, New Source
Performance Standards, or National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutant regulation. ``Revised Compliance Monitoring
Strategy,'' March 1991, (Revised CMS) p. 3.
\13\ EPA again notes that the MCESD committed to use these
inspection resources as needed to implement Rule 310. The County
also committed to revising its standard operating procedures for
stationary source inspections to include Rule 310 compliance checks.
Plan, Appendix E, Bell letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, MCESD's commitments to improving Rule 310
implementation go well beyond just adding staff. The commitments
include upgrading the Rule's implementation guidelines, educating the
regulated community about its responsibilities under the Rule, revising
its inspection procedures, providing a small business assistance
program, and coordinating with the Cities and towns of Maricopa County.
To judge the adequacy of the resources to carry out the microscale
plan's control strategy, EPA evaluated this entire set of commitments
as well as the information contained in the plan about the nature and
extent of sources contributing to the 24-hour PM-10 standard
exceedances and the controls needed to eliminate these exceedances.
This evaluation (which is discussed extensively in the proposal and the
TSD) led EPA to two conclusions: One, that the microscale plan provided
the necessary assurances that adequate resources are available to
implement Rule 310 for permitted sources, and two, that the plan did
not provide the required assurances that controls will be implemented
by Maricopa County on non-permitted sources. As a result of these
conclusions, EPA is approving the RACM/BACM demonstration for permitted
source categories and disapproving the demonstrations for the non-
permitted source categories.
Comment: In its April 28, 1997 comments ACLPI notes that in
addition to inspecting 1,200 to 1,600 new permittees every year, these
inspectors must respond to complaints and monitor compliance by
previously permitted facilities and that it seems impossible that the
County will be able to inspect each new permittee once per year unless
the inspectors neglect other facilities. ACLPI notes further that once
per year inspection is grossly inadequate in many cases--particularly
where a source has a chronic problem
[[Page 41861]]
and requires repeated visits. Finally, ACLPI states that the County
does not explain how it expects to identify unpermitted sources that
fail to self-report.
Response: MCESD has committed to inspecting all sites of 10 acres
and larger (Plan, Appendix E, Bell letter) and targets smaller sources
based on past history of the contractor and/or developer and field
observations. Plan, p. 12. Resources in the plan are adequate for this
level of inspection as committed to by MCESD. Between June 1, 1996 and
May 31, 1997, the County inspected 43 percent of sources 10 acres or
greater. July 2 Bell letter. This was the inspection rate with only
0.75 FTE dedicated to the program. With the additional FTE allocated to
the program, the County should easily meet its commitment. Plan,
Appendix E, Bell letter. The County is upgrading and integrating its
database to be better able to identify problem sources. Plan, Appendix
E, Bell letter. In addition, the cooperative program with Cities that
includes better training of City inspectors on Rule 310 requirements
should also help identify and target problem sources. Plan, Appendix E,
city resolutions.
Focusing resources on and targeting annual inspections to larger
sources (with their inherent ability to be more polluting) are
consistent with EPA's inspection guidance which calls for inspecting
large sources annually but does not specify an inspection frequency for
smaller sources.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy,'' March 1991,
Appendix 5. In California, most air pollution control districts
inspect all their minor sources at least once every two (e.g.,
Ventura County) to four years (South Coast). See FY 1995-97
Compliance Operating Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The County addressed its method for identifying unpermitted sources
in the microscale plan and agreed to provide an annual summary of
notices of violations and citations for failure to obtain earthmoving
permits. Plan, Appendix G, p. 18.
Comment: In its April 28, 1997 comments, ACLPI enclosed excerpts of
EPA's July, 1992 audit of the County's Air Quality Program. ACLPI
states that among other things, the audit found that the County failed
to inspect many facilities on an annual basis, that enforcement and
penalties were grossly inadequate, and that there was no program to
identify unpermitted facilities. ACLPI also enclosed a copy of the 1996
internal County Audit finding that the Air Pollution program was
seriously understaffed, and that the County had no process in place to
verify the accuracy of emissions survey information submitted by
sources. ACLPI asserts that in light of these findings, the County
cannot adequately expand Rule 310 enforcement by adding just one FTE.
Response: The County has made a number of changes to its program to
address EPA's and the County auditor's findings. As noted in the
microscale plan, MCESD has added five inspectors since January, 1996
(Plan, Appendix G, p. 26) and has moved to improve its database
tracking systems to address problems in verifying the accuracy of
emission survey information submitted by sources. (See, in general,
Memorandum, Al Brown, Director, MCESD, to Ross Tate, Lead Auditor,
Internal Audit Department, ``Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department's Response to the June 1996 Performance Audit,'' July 12,
1996, reproduced in the Plan, Appendix G). EPA evaluated MCESD's
enforcement policy for the proposal and found that it is adequate to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.111(a) and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
62 FR 31036.
Comment: ACLPI also takes issue with EPA's assertion that the state
need not control source categories that contribute less than 5
g/m\3\ to a location of expected 24-hour exceedance. ACLPI
claims that there is absolutely no authority in the Act for EPA to
exempt such sources and that such an exemption is contrary to the Act's
emphasis on timely attainment and protection of health. Control of a
source category contributing 5 g/m\3\, could make a difference
between attainment and nonattainment. ACLPI gives, as an example of its
position, a site with ambient 24-hour levels in the 155 to 158
g/m\3\ range and states that with a 80 percent control
effectiveness of a source category contributing 5 g/m\3\, the
site would become attainment. Based on this example, ACLPI concludes
that it is wholly irrational for EPA to assert that such a source
category is invariably de minimis. Further, ACLPI asserts that since
PM-10 is a nonthreshold pollutant and thus adverse health effects
increase on a linear scale with increased concentration, any reductions
in PM-10 levels will have direct public health benefits.
ACLPI claims that EPA does not explain where the de minimis
principle comes into play in its proposed approval of the microscale
plan and asks EPA to provide such an explanation in response to its
comments.
Response: Contrary to what the comment implies, EPA has not taken
the position in this rulemaking--nor does the Agency's PM-10 serious
area guidance take the position--that the State need not control
insignificant source categories if such controls are needed for
attainment. Rather, EPA's position is that the level of control on such
insignificant sources need only be at the level required to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and expeditious attainment. Addendum at
42011. This level may not be at RACM, or if applicable, BACM levels. In
other words, the de minimis policy is invoked only for determining
which source categories need RACM and/or BACM and not for determining
which source categories need controls for attainment. For serious PM-10
nonattainment areas such as the Maricopa County area, the CAA requires
the plan to include not only BACM but also a demonstration of
attainment by the statutory deadline or the most expeditious
alternative deadline practicable. Sections 189(b)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A).
EPA's de minimis exemption for BACM does not interfere with this latter
requirement for expeditious attainment and thus does not defeat the
Act's requirement for timely attainment and protection of health.
ACLPI's example is somewhat puzzling because it appears to assume
that the 155 to 158 g/m\3\ level is made up of 30 plus source
categories each contributing no more than 5 g/m\3\ (31 sources
each contributing 5 g/m\3\=155 g/m\3\). This case is
very unlikely; what is more likely is that there would be one or more
significant source categories in addition to a number of insignificant
ones that make up the 155-158 g/m\3\ level. Adequate controls
on these significant sources would reduce ambient concentrations below
the standard. Even if this were not the case, a state still is required
to demonstrate attainment and thus would need to control at least some
of the de minimis sources.
EPA did provide a thorough explanation of how the de minimis
principle affected its proposed action on the microscale plan. First,
EPA fully discusses its de minimis policy and the rationale and legal
authority for that policy in the Addendum at 42011. This policy states
that BACM are required for all categories of sources in serious areas
unless the State adequately demonstrates that a particular source
category does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS and that a source category will be presumed to contribute
significantly to a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS if its PM-10 impact
at the location of the expected violations would exceed 5 g/
m\3\. EPA referenced
[[Page 41862]]
this discussion in the proposal in the section describing the
requirement for BACM. 62 FR 31028. Secondly, EPA proposed, solely for
the purposes of evaluating the microscale plan, to use the 5
g/m\3\ action level to determine which source categories
required RACM. 62 FR 31027.
The State generated tables that listed each contributing source
category at each monitor and that source's ambient impact at the
monitor and at the point of maximum concentration. Plan, Tables 3-2 to
3-5, pp. 17-19 and Appendix A, Tables 5-2 to 5-7 pp. 5-4--5-9 and Table
7-3, p. 7-20. Based on the State's documentation, EPA determined and
thoroughly documented which source categories were significant and thus
required the application of RACM and BACM. 62 FR 31031 and TSD at pp.
24-27. Except for some source categories at the Salt River monitor
(TSD, p. 25), EPA did not also list the insignificant sources at each
monitor since this information can be easily determined from the cited
tables in the microscale plan and in the TSD (Tables II-3 through II-6,
pp. 15-18). EPA has revised the TSD to specifically state which source
categories EPA found insignificant. These following source categories
were found to be insignificant: for the Salt River monitor, industrial
yards, surface mining, other industrial activities, paved roads,
trackout, and paved parking lots;15 for the Maryvale
monitor, paved roads and unpaved roads;16 for the Gilbert
monitor, paved roads and unpaved roads; and for the West Chandler
monitor, paved and unpaved roads. It should be noted that even complete
elimination of emissions from these insignificant sources would not
have resulted in attainment at any of the monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Except for paved roads and paved parking areas, all these
source categories are already subject to controls and in most cases
are permitted by MCESD. Improvements to the overall permitting,
inspection, and enforcement program at the County should improve
implementation of the controls on these sources.
\16\ Unpaved roads is a significant source category at the Salt
River monitor and is thus a significant source category subject to
RACM and BACM requirements even thought it was found to be an
insignificant source category at the other three monitors. EPA is
disapproving the plan's provisions for implementing RACM/BACM for
this source category. The recently complete regional emission
inventory shows that paved roads are very likely to be a significant
source category in the regional plan. 1994 Regional PM-10 Emission
Inventory for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (Draft Final
Report), Maricopa Association of Governments, May 1997, p. 2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has not made a finding that PM-10 is a nonthreshold pollutant;
that is, that there is a direct linear relationship between PM-10
reductions and health benefits to the public. Although the PM-10 NAAQS
is set--indeed is required under CAA section 109(b) to be set--at
levels that provide an adequate safety margin with respect to overall
public health, some degree of risk remains at levels below the NAAQS.
As described extensively in the recent proposal to revise the
particulate matter NAAQS,17 the overall consistency and
coherence of the epidemiological evidence strongly suggests a likely
causal role of ambient particulate matter in contributing to adverse
health effects (61 FR 65648 and 65653); however, at the same time, EPA
cautioned that seeking to derive quantitative health risk estimates
from this evidence includes significant uncertainties (61 FR 65649 and
65653). These uncertainties are greater with respect to attempts to
estimate health risks associated with the coarse fraction of
particulate matter, that is, particulate with diameters between 2.5 and
10 microns (61 FR 65649). Fugitive dust is primarily coarse fraction
PM-10 and, as demonstrated in the microscale plan, fugitive dust is the
primary cause of 24-hour PM-10 exceedances in the Maricopa County area.
Thus, ACLPI's claim that PM-10 is a nonthreshold pollutant is
unsupported by the current scientific evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 61 FR 65638 (December 13, 1996). The final notice revising
the particulate matter standards was signed by the Administrator on
July 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Actions
A. Final Approvals and Disapprovals
For the reasons discussed above and in the proposal, EPA is
approving:
(1) Under sections 172(c)(1), 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B), the
provisions for implementing RACM and BACM for the significant source
categories of disturbed cleared areas, earth moving, and industrial
haul roads; and
(2) Under sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A), and 189(c), the
attainment and RFP demonstrations for the Maryvale and Salt River
sites.
EPA is also approving the following as elements of the Arizona PM-
10 State Implementation Plan for the Maricopa area:
(1) The resolution by the County of Maricopa to improve the
administration of Maricopa County's fugitive dust control program and
to foster interagency cooperation (adopted May 14, 1997);
(2) The resolutions of intent to work cooperatively with Maricopa
County to control the generation of fugitive dust pollution adopted by
the Cities of Phoenix (April 9, 1997), Tempe (March 27, 1997), Chandler
(March 27, 1997), Glendale (March 25, 1997), Scottsdale (March 31,
1997), and Mesa (April 23, 1997) and the Town of Gilbert (April 15,
1997); and
(3) MCESD's Rule 310 (Open Fugitive Dust Sources), Rule 311
(Particulate Matter from Process Industries) and Rule 316 (Nonmetallic
Mineral Mining and Processing).18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ These rules were originally approved by EPA as part of the
approval of the Maricopa moderate area plan in 1995. 60 FR 18009.
While not at issue in the litigation regarding that plan, EPA's
approval of these rules was also incidently vacated by the Ober
decision; therefore, EPA must restore its approval of these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is finding that the microscale plan: (1) provides the necessary
assurances that the state and local agencies have adequate personnel,
funding and authority under state law to carry out the submitted
microscale plan; and (2) includes an adequate enforcement program, as
required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(a)(2)(C).
For the reasons discussed above and in the proposal, EPA is
disapproving:
(1) Under sections 172(c)(1), 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B), the
provisions for implementing RACM and BACM for the significant source
categories of agricultural fields, agricultural aprons, vacant lands,
unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roads; and
(2) Under sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A), and 189(c)(1), the
attainment and RFP demonstrations at the West Chandler and Gilbert
sites.
These approvals, disapprovals, and findings are applicable only to
the microscale plan and thus, do not constitute EPA's final decision as
to the State's full compliance with the requirements of CAA sections
189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for RACM and BACM for the eight source
categories and CAA sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and 189(c)(1)
for attainment and RFP demonstrations at the Salt River, Maryvale,
Gilbert and West Chandler monitoring sites. The State will need to re-
evaluate appropriate RACM and BACM for these sources in the full
regional plan and, because regional factors may influence attainment at
these sites, the State will need to re-evaluate modeling at all four
sites as part of that plan.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for a revision
to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to
[[Page 41863]]
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Consequences of the Final Disapprovals
As noted before, EPA required submittal of a microscale plan
meeting both the moderate and serious area requirements for the 24-hour
PM-10 standard by May 9, 1997 and a full regional plan meeting those
requirements for both the 24-hour and annual standards by December 10,
1997. The microscale and regional plans taken together would satisfy
both the moderate area requirements for the 24-hour standard mandated
by the Ninth Circuit in Ober and the serious area planning requirements
for both standards. The subject of this final action is the microscale
plan only; the full regional plan is not due until late 1997. It is,
therefore, premature to determine if the microscale plan, in and of
itself, fully complies with the Clean Air Act requirements for moderate
and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas. Such a determination is not
possible until the regional plan is submitted and reviewed.
Because the microscale plan taken alone is not intended to fully
comply with the RACM/BACM implementation, reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration requirements of the Clean Air Act, the
final disapprovals of portions of the microscale plan do not trigger
sanctions under CAA section 179(a). CAA section 179(a) requires the
imposition of one of the sanctions in section 179(b) within 18 months
of a disapproval if EPA ``disapproves a [State] submission * * * based
on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements
required by [the CAA]''. Because the purpose of the microscale plan was
to, in effect, provide a down payment towards meeting certain
requirements of the Act, EPA is not, at this time, proposing to find
that the State has failed to meet any of the applicable elements
required by the CAA as contemplated by section 179(a).
EPA is subject to the terms of a consent decree approved by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on March 25, 1997. Ober
v. Browner, No. CIV 94-1318 PHX PGR. The consent decree obligates EPA
to propose a federal implementation plan (FIP) for PM-10 in the
Maricopa nonattainment area by March 20, 1998 and finalize that FIP by
July 18, 1998 19 if the Agency disapproves all or part of
the microscale plan. Therefore, based on the final disapprovals
described above, EPA has an obligation to promulgate a regional
moderate area PM-10 FIP that addresses the statutory requirements for
attainment, RACM and RFP. Under the consent decree, the scope of this
FIP obligation is reduced to the extent that EPA approves by July 18,
1998 SIP provisions meeting the statutory requirements for RACM, RFP
and attainment for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The FIP deadlines each advance 2 months if EPA fails to act
on the microscale plan by July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes, as is expressed in CAA section 101(a), that air
pollution control is primarily the responsibility of states and local
jurisdictions. Therefore, the Agency will work with the State of
Arizona and the local agencies and jurisdictions responsible for PM-10
planning and control in Maricopa County to develop SIP provisions that
can reduce the scope of, or eliminate, any potential FIP. Considerable
work is already underway or planned in the area to address the PM-10
problem. As noted before, the full serious area regional PM-10 plan is
due December 10, 1997. In addition, the microscale plan contains two
initiatives, MCESD's regional program to address controls on
nonpermitted sources and the ADEQ/MCESD/NRCS agreement to address
fugitive dust from agricultural sources, that are targeted at
significant but currently uncontrolled sources of PM-10.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 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. Similarly, withdrawal
of the FIP contingency process does not impose any new requirements.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval and FIP withdrawal does not
impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that they do
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal/state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571, 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 cost-effective and
least burdensome alternative that achieves that 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 this rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a federal mandate that may result in estimate costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector.
Through submission of these SIP revisions, the State and any
affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program
provided for under sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These rules may
bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform certain actions
and also require the private sector to perform certain duties. To the
extent that the rules being approved today will impose any mandate upon
the State, local, or tribal governments either as the owner or operator
of a source or as a regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the
private sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such
sources are already subject to these requirements under State law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. EPA has
also determined that this action does not include a mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or
[[Page 41864]]
tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. This
federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, imposes no new Federal requirements, and withdraws other federal
requirements applicable only to EPA. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
results from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General
Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judaical review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 1997. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Arizona was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: July 18, 1997.
Harry Seraydarian,
Acting Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in this notice, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended as follows:
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (c)(73);
b. By revising paragraph (c)(74)(i)(A) and removing and reserving
paragraph (c)(74)(i)(B);
c. By removing paragraph (c)(77)(i)(A)(1) and redesignating
paragraph (c)(77)(i)(A)(2) as (c)(77)(i)(A)(1); and
d. By adding paragraph (c)(88), to read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(74) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department new Rule 316,
adopted July 6, 1993, and revised Rule 311, adopted August 2, 1993.
Note: These rules are restored as elements of the State of Arizona Air
Pollution Control Implementation Plan effective September 3, 1997.
* * * * *
(88) Plan revisions were submitted on May 7, 1997 by the Governor's
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.
(1) Rule 310, adopted September 20, 1994.
(2) Resolution To Improve the Administration of Maricopa County's
Fugitive Dust Program and to Foster Interagency Cooperation, adopted
May 14, 1997.
(B) The City of Phoenix, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Phoenix City Council Stating the City's
Intent to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa County to Control the
Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted April 9, 1997.
(C) The City of Tempe, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Council of the City of Tempe, Arizona,
Stating Its Intent to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa County to
Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted March 27,
1997.
(D) The Town of Gilbert, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Mayor and the Common Council of the Town of
Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona, Providing for the Town's Intent to
Work Cooperatively with Maricopa County, Arizona, to Control the
Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted April 15, 1997.
(E) The City of Chandler, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chandler,
Arizona, Stating the City's Intent to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa
County to Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted
March 27, 1997.
(F) The City of Glendale, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Council of the City of Chandler, Maricopa
County, Arizona, Stating Its Intent to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa
County to Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted
March 25, 1997.
(G) The City of Scottsdale, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Scottsdale City Council Stating the City's
Intent to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa County to Control the
Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted March 31, 1997.
(H) The City of Mesa, Arizona.
(1) A Resolution of the Mesa City Council Stating the City's Intent
to Work Cooperatively with Maricopa County to Control the Generation of
Particulate Air Pollution and Directing City Staff to Develop a
Particulate Pollution Control Ordinance Supported by Adequate Staffing
Levels to Address Air Quality, adopted April 23, 1997.
* * * * *
3. Section 52.123 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.123 Approval status.
* * * * *
(f) Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area (Phoenix Planning
Area). (1) Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard--Maricopa
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area (May, 1997) submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality on May 7, 1997.
(i) The Administrator approves the provisions for implementing RACM
and BACM for the significant source categories of disturbed cleared
areas, earth moving, and industrial haul roads.
(ii) The Administrator approves the attainment and reasonable
further progress demonstrations for the Maryvale PM-10 monitoring site
and Salt River PM-10 monitoring site.
(iii) The approvals in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section are applicable only to the plan identified in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section and do not constitute the Administrator's final
decision as to the State's full compliance with the requirements of
Clean Air Act sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for RACM and BACM
and sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and 189(c)(1) for attainment
and reasonable further progress.
4. Section 52.124 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.124 Part D disapproval.
* * * * *
(b) Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area (Phoenix Planning
Area). (1) Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard--Maricopa
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area (May, 1997) submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality on May 7, 1997.
[[Page 41865]]
(i) The Administrator disapproves the provisions for implementing
RACM and BACM for the significant source categories of agricultural
fields, agricultural aprons, vacant lands, unpaved parking lots, and
unpaved roads.
(ii) The Administrator disapproves the attainment and reasonable
further progress demonstrations for the Gilbert PM-10 monitoring site
and West Chandler PM-10 monitoring site.
(iii) The disapprovals in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section are applicable only to the plan identified in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section and do not constitute the Administrator's final
decision as to the State's full compliance with the requirements of
Clean Air Act sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for RACM and BACM
and sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and 189(c)(1) for attainment
and reasonable further progress. Therefore such disapprovals do not
constitute state failures for the purpose of triggering sanctions under
Sec. 179(a) of the Clean Air Act.
[FR Doc. 97-20470 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
