+(,121/,1(

Citation: 56 Fed. Reg. 58656 1991 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Dec 21 14:49:57 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

airplanes in France. The airplanes are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States. Pursuant to a bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA totally informed of the

above situation.

The FAA has examined the findings of

the DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States. Since

this condition could exist or develop in

other SOCATA Groupe

AEROSPATIALE Morane Saulnier

MS890 series and Rallye 235 series

airplanes of the same type design, the

proposed AD would require repetitive

dye penetrant inspections of the nose

wheel axle for cracks, replacement of

the nose wheel axle if found cracked,

and replacement of the nose wheel axle

attaching screws. The actions would be

accomplished in accordance with the

instructions in SOCATA Groupe

AEROSPATIALE SB No. 150, dated June

1991.

It is estimated that 72 airplanes in the

U.S. registry would be affected by the

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 hours per airplane to

accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $55 an hour.'Parts cost

approximately $16 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $9,072.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this proposal

would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a "major

rule" under Executive Order 12291; (2) is

not a "significant rule" under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

or a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed in the Rules

Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

"ADDRESSES".

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursurant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations as follows:

PART 39-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423;

49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.

§ 39.13- [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding

the following new AD:

SOCATA GROUPE AEROSPATIALE:

Docket No. 91-CE-81-AD.

Applicability: Morane Saulnier Models

MS892A150, MS892E150, MS893A, MS893E,

MS894A, and MS894E airplanes (all serial

numbers); and Rallye Models 235C and 235E

airplanes (all serial numbers), certificated in

any category.

Compliance: Required initially upon the

accumulation of 500 hours time-in-service

(TIS) or within the next 50 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, and thereafter as indicated, unless

already accomplished.

To prevent nose wheel axle fatigue failure,

accomplish the following:

(a) Dye penetrant inspect the nose wheel

axle assembly for cracks in accordance with

the instructions in DESCRIPTION: (1) Of

SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE Service

Bulletin No. 150, dated June 1991.

(1) If cracks are found, prior to further

flight, replace the nose wheel axle assembly

in accordance with the applicable

maintenance manual, return the airplane to

service, and reinspect at intervals not to

exceed 500 hours TIS.

(2) If no crack are found, return the

airplane to service and reinspect at intervals

not exceed 500 hours TIS.

(b) At every 4th repetitive inspection

interval (2,000 hours TIS) mandated in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD,

replace the nose wheel axle attaching screws

instead of reinstalling the existing screws as

specified in the instructions and

DESCRIPTION:

(2) Of SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE

SB No. 150, dated June 1991.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to

operate the airplane to a location where the

requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety, may

be approved by the Manager, Brussels

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Europe,

Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American

Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium. The

request should be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification

Office.

(e) Copies of the service information that is

applicable to this AD may be obtained from

SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Socata

Product Support, Aeroport Tarbes-OssumLourdes, B P 930, 65009 Tarbes Cedex,

France, or may be inspected at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 13, 1991.

Barry D. Clements,

Mamager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 91-28014 Filed 11-20-91: 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AD-FRL-4032-7]

Reclassification of Moderate PM-10

Nonattainment Areas to Serious Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Several areas meeting the

qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of

the Clean Air Act (Act) were designated

nonattainment for PM-10 (particulate

matter nominally 10 microns or smaller

in diameter) by operation of law upon

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. All of these areas

were also initially classified as

moderate nonattainment areas by

operation of law at the time of

designation in accordance with section

188(a) of the Act.

Section 188(b)(1) of the Act requires

the Administrator to reclassify any area

he determines cannot practicably attain

the PM-10 national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) by the appropriate

attainment date. Section 188(b)(1)(A)

requires early reclassification of

appropriate areas designated

nonattainment for PM-10 by operation

of law. Today, EPA is proposing to

reclassify 14 of the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas as serious areas.

The EPA is also soliciting comments

today on several questions that are

raised by section 188(f) of the Act.

Section 188(f) allows the Administrator

to waive requirements for certain areas

where he determines that (1) .

anthropogenic sources of PM-10 do not

contribute significantly, or (2)

58656
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

nonanthropogenic sources contribute

significantly to the violation of the PM10 standard in the area. Those questions are raised in section VI of this notice.

DATES: Written comments on this notice

must be received by December 23, 1991

at the address below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kenneth

R. Woodard, Air Quality Management

Division, Mail Drop 15, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

The technical reports referenced in

today's notice can be found in Public

Docket No. A-91-53. The docket is

located at the U.S. EPA Air Docket,

room M-1500, Waterside Mall, LE-131,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. The docket may be inspected

from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30

p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays, and a

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Woodard, Air Quality

Management Division, Mail Drop 15,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-

5697, FTS 629-5697.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

On the date of enactment of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (November

15, 1990), PM-10 areas meeting the

qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of

the Act were designated nonattainment

by operation of law [see generally, 42

U.S.C. section 7407(d)(4)(B) of the Act].

These areas included all former Group I areas identified in 52 FR 29383 (August

7, 1987) and clarified in 55 FR 45799

(October 31, 1990), and any other areas violating the PM-10 standards prior to

January 1, 1989 (many of these areas were identified by footnote 4 in the

October 31. 1990 Federal Register

notice). A Federal Register notice

announcing all of the areas designated

nonattainment for PM-10 at enactment

and classified as moderate was

published in 56 FR 11101 (March 15,

1991). A follow-up notice correcting

some of these areas was published

August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654). All other

areas not designated nonattainment at

enactment were designated

unclassifiable [see section

107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act].

Once an area is designated

nonattainment, section 188 of the Act [42

U.S.C. section 7513] 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 PM-10

nonattainment areas are initially

classified as moderate by operation of

law.

A moderate area can subsequently be

reclassified as serious either before the

applicable moderate area attainment

date if at any time EPA determines the

area cannot "practicably" attain the

PM-10 NAAQS by this attainment date,

or following the passage of the

applicable moderate area attainment

date if EPA determines the area has

failed to attain [see section 188(b)].'

In accordance with section

188(b)(1)(A), EPA must now propose to

reclassify those areas which were

designated nonattainment on the date of

enactment by operation of law, where

EPA determines that the area cannot "practicably" attain the NAAQS by

December 31, 1994. The EPA also has

discretionary authority under section

188(b){1) to reclassify any of these areas

as serious after December 31, 1991 (e.q.,

after reviewing the State's PM-10 SIP), if

EPA determines they cannot practicably

attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December

el, 1994. The EPA may exercise this

discretion where, for example, EPA may

exercise this discretion where, for

example, EPA originally believed an

area could attain the standards by

December 31, 1994, but later determines

that it cannot attain by that date. For

example, EPA may find that an area

cannot practicably attain by December

31, 1994, after reviewing the November

15, 1991 SIP submittal for an area or

Under the plain meaning of the terms of section

1as(b)(i), EPA has general discretion to reclassify at

any time before the applicable attainment date any area EPA determines cannot practicably attain the

standards by such date. Accordingly, section

188(b)(1) is a general expression of delegated

rulemaking authority. In addition, subparagraphs

(A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate that EPA

reclassify at specified timeframes [i.e., by December

31, 1991 for the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas,

and within 18 months after the State

implementation Plan (SIP) submittal due date for

later-designated PM-Ia nonattainment areas] any areas it determines appropriate for reclassification

at those dates. These subparagraphs do not restrict

the general authority but simply specify that, at a minimum, it must be exercised at certain times. This

interpretation furthers the overarching purpose of

the statute in that reclassification would expedite

the application of additional control measures in the

situation where EPA finds, after the mandated

reclassification rulemaking and before the

applicable attainment date, that an area cannot

practicably attain the standards. This, in turn,

would expedite ultimate attainment of the PM-1a

standards. In summary. EPA believes it is a reasonable interpretation and consistent with the

plain language of the statute to construe section

188(b)(1) such that it authorizes EPA to reclassify an

area, as appropriate, at any time before the

applicable attainment date and mandates that, at a

minimum, EPA make this inquiry at specified times.

upon the failure of a State to submit a

SIP for an area.

For areas designated nonattainment

and classified as moderate subsequent

to the date of enactment, EPA must

reclassify appropriate areas as serious

within 18 months of the required

submittal date for the moderate area SIP

[see section 188(b)(1)(B)]. Taken

together with he statutory requirement

that these SIP's be submitted 18 months

after being designated nonattainment,

the statute thus requires that EPA

reclassify appropriate moderate areas

as serious within 3 years of the

nonattainment designation.

Finally, in those cases where EPA

determines that an area has failed to

attain the NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date, the area is reclassified

as serious by operation of law [see

section 188(b)]. The EPA must publish a

notice in the federal Register of such

determinations and consequent

reclassifications within 6 months

following the applicable attainment

date.

II. Determining an Area Cannot

Practicably Attain

Generally. EPA will rely on

information such as the control strategy,

the compliance schedule, and

attainment demonstration submitted by

the State in the SIP for a moderate PM10 nonattainment area to determine

whether it is practicable to attain the

NAAQS in that area by the applicable

attainment date. The SIP revisions are

due November 15, 1991, for the initial

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas

designated by operation of law. The SIP

must include a control strategy that

requires the use of reasonably available

control measures (RACM), including

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) [see sections 189(a)(1)(c) and

172(c)(1)]. The State must also

demonstrate that the SIP provides for

timely implementation of RACM and

RACT and attainment of the NAAQS.

The RACM/RACT must be implemented

in the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas

by December 10, 1993, and the areas

must attain the standards by December

31, 1994 [see sections 188(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C)I.

There are at least three reasons why

an area may not practicably attain the

standards by the applicable attainment

date. First, implementation of RACM/

RACT may not create sufficient

emission reductions to bring the area

into attainment. Second.

nonanthropogenic sources which cannot

reasonably be controlled may contribute

significantly to the violation of the PM10 NAAQS in the area [see section

58657

Bfi r7
58658 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

188(f)]. Third, the area may be

significantly impacted by PM-10

emissions emanating from outside the

United States. In such a case, the State

may qualify for treatment under section

179B of the Act.

If the SIP demonstrates that an area

cannot practicably attain the standards

because RACM/RACT do not achieve

sufficient emission reductions in a

timely manner, then EPA will propose to

reclassify the area as a serious area.

The EPA has construed RACM,

including RACT, to be those emission

reduction methods that are

technologically and economically

feasible for application to existing PM10 sources in the nonattainment area in

light of the attainment needs of that

area. The burden is on the State to

demonstrate that an available control

method for an existing source is

infeasible or otherwise unreasonable

and, therefore, would not constitute

RACM (or RACT).2 Therefore, the SIP

should require implementation of all

available emission reduction methods

that have not been demonstrated to be

unreasonable. The State will have

shown that an initial PM-10

nonattainment area cannot practicably

attain the NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date if it demonstrates that a

SIP requiring implementation of all

RACM (including RACT) by December

10, 1993, will not achieve sufficient

emission reductions to attain the

standards by December 31, 1994. In this

case, it may be appropriate for the State

to modify the SIP to be submitted in

November 1991 to reconcile differences

between RACT and requirements for

best available control technology

(BACT) in serious areas, as discussed

below in section IV.

If the SIP demonstrates that RACM/

RACT would attain the standards if it

were not for a significant contribution

from nonanthropogenic sources or PM/

10 emissions emanating from outside the

United States, then special provisions of

the Act apply. Section 188(f) allows the

Administrator to waive some

requirements for certain areas impacted

by nonanthropogenic sources, and

section 179B allows EPA to approve

SIP's and not reclassify areas that

cannot attain the standards because of

emissions emanating from outside the

United States. The EPA's policies for

implementing these provisions of the

Act are discussed in section VI and VII

of this notice.

2 See "PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final

Staff Work Product," a memorandum from John

Calcagni. Director, Air Quality Management

Division. to Regional Air Division Directors. April 2,

1991, pp. 6-8.

Reclassification of an area as serious

does not obviate the legal requirement

to submit a moderate area SIP.3 Also, a

State should be penalized if the

attainment date for a moderate area is

missed because the State fails to adopt

and implement control measures as

expeditiously as practicable. Therefore,

if any State fails to submit a SIP by

November 15, 1991, for an initial

moderate PM-10 nonattainment area,

including the areas EPA proposes to

reclassify today, EPA plans to

immediately notify the Governor of its

intent to impose sanctions under

sections 110(m) and 179 of the Act or

adopt a Federal implementation plan

(FIP) under section 110(c) of the Act.

Once imposed, the sanctions will not be

removed until the State has satisfied all

the applicable planning requirements.

Further, EPA may reclassify moderate

areas for which a SIP has not been

submitted whenever it becomes

apparent, perhaps because of the delay

in submitting a SIP, that the area cannot

practicably attain the standards by the

end of 1994.

III. Proposed Action

Since EPA must propose to reclassify

the appropriate initial PM-10

nonattainment areas before the

moderate area SIP's are required to be

submitted, it is necessary to rely on

information other than the SIP's to judge

whether or not it is practicable for each

of the initial areas to attain by

December 31, 1994. The EPA has

proposed to reclassify appropriate areas

based on existing air quality data for

these areas. These objective criteria are

rebuttable indicators of an area's ability,

or inability, to attain the PM-10

standards by December 31, 1994.

Therefore, today's proposal is without

the benefit of an actual SIP revision

demonstrating, or not demonstrating,

attainment. However, given the

statutory deadline set out in section

3 Moderate nonattainment areas "shall submit"

an implementation plan which includes, among

other things, the requirements se out in section

189(a) (e.g.. RACM). If subsequently reclassified as

serious, an area must submit a SIP revision which

includes, among other things, the requirements set

out in section 169(b) [e.g., best available control

measures (BACM)]. In spelling out the serious area

plan requirements, the statute explicitly provides

that these requirements are "[in addition to the

provisions submitted to meet the requirements...

relating to Moderate Areas... " [see section

189(b](1)]. Thus, reclassification as serious gives

rise to a legal obligation to submit the applicable

serious area implementation plan requirements.

Further. as explicitly stated, the obligation to submit

serious area plan requirements is in addition to and

does not obviate the legal obligation to submit

moderate area SIP requirements consistent with the

applicable statutory deadlines (see discussion later

in this notice about reconciling RACM and BACM

requirements for areas reclassified as serious).

188(b)(1)(A), EPA must propose this

action before the SIP revisions for the

areas subject to reclassification are due.

The specified timeframe for final action

on this rulemaking and the timeframe

specified for an analogous rulemaking

for areas subsequently redesignated

nonattainment for PM-10, suggests that

Congress envisioned that in ultimately

determining which areas cannot

practicably attain the PM-10 standards

by the applicable attainment date and

are appropriate for reclassification, EPA

would also rely on the SIP revisions

submitted for these areas. Thus, while

EPA believes the indicators for

assessing an area's ability, or inability,

to attain are reasonable, they are

rebuttable on a case-by-case basis.

Further, it is difficult to generalize for

PM-10, given widely disparate sources

of PM-10 emissions, the availability and

feasibility of control measures, etc.

Accordingly, during the comment period

on this notice, States submitting timely

SIP revisions demonstrating that an area

identified in today's notice can

practicably attain the standards by the

applicable attainment date will not be

reclassified in EPA's final action on this

rulemaking despite the fact that an area

meets the objective criteria identified by

EPA..Conversely, if EPA receives a SIP

revision for an area not identified in

today's notice indicating that the area

cannot practicably attain the standards

by December 31, 1994, then EPA will

propose to reclassify the area, as

explained earlier in this notice.

The EPA based its judgment on

consideration of the precedents set by

the statute for ozone and carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas

and the magnitude of PM-10

concentrations experienced in the areas

during the 3 most recent calendar years.

First, Congress specified in section 181

of the Act that areas with design values

for ozone that are approximately 33

percent or more above the NAAQS

should be classified as serious, ".VQ'6e,

or extreme nonattainment areas, while

specifying that areas with design values

for CO in excess of approximately 83

percent or more above the NAAQS

should be classified as serious.

Several considerations led EPA to

select an intermediate criterion of

design values 58 percent or more above

the PM-1O.NAAQS for reclassifications

as serious areas. First, although PM-10

nonattainment is generally caused by

numerous and diverse categories of

emission sources, neither the number of

sources nor the variety of categories is

as great as in the case of ozone.

Consequently, EPA believes that air

quality concentrations can more readily
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

be reduced in most instances for PM-10

moderate nonattainment areas than for

ozone. It follows that the design value

for reclassification of PM-10

nonattainment areas from moderate to

serious should be higher than the ozone

analogy. Second, although the nature

and number of sources are less complex

for PM-10 than for ozone, PM-10

sources are markedly more diverse than'

in the case of most CO nonattainment

situations, wherein violations can be

attributed predominantly to mobile

sources. Accordingly, PM-10 moderate

area emission reductions may not be as

readily achieved as those for CO and,

therefore, a PM-10 design value lower

than the CO analogy is appropriate.

These considerations have thus led EPA

to select a design value of 58 percent

above the PM-10 NAAQS-a value that

falls directly between those represented

in the criteria adopted by Congress for

ozone and CO-as one basis for

proposing to reclassify areas as serious.

Next, EPA believes that multiple,

expected exceedances of the standard

are appropriate indicators of persistent

air quality problems that RACM/RACT

may not be adequate to correct.

Ambient PM-10 data for the three most

recent calendar years (1988-1990) in the

Atmospheric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS) revealed only a small

group of the 70 initial nonattainment

areas that still measured PM-10

concentrations far above the 24-hour

NAAQS and could be expected to

exceed the standard several times each

year. Areas where the average number

of expected exceedances over 3 years to

6 or more per year have at least 3

measured exceedances over that same

period. Therefore, EPA concluded that

an expected exceedance rate greater

than or equal to 6 per year would

adequately distinguish between areas

with persistent air quality problems and

those with more transitory violations. It

should be noted, however, that the

expected exceedance rate is not very

sensitive, i.e., changing this value up or

down slightly does not significantly

4 The design values derived for this report were

based on all data produced in 1988-1990. The

number of observations used in the look-up table

procedure is the combined number of observations

produced in 1988,1989, and 1990. No adjustments

were-made for periods with missing data or

differences in sampling frequency. The design

affect the areas that would be classified

serious.

The AIRS data were analyzed to

determine the PM-10 design

concentrations for the areas with high

values during the 1988-1990 calendar

years. The look-up table procedure

explained in section 6.3.1 of the "PM-1O

SIP Development Guideline," EPA-450/

2-86--001, June 1987, was followed. The

average number of expected

exceedances of the 24-hour standard for

a year is explained in 40 CFR 50,

Appendix K, section 3.

The EPA's analysis identified 14 areas

with design concentrations 58 percent or

more above the standard [> 237

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3)]

and with 6 or more expected

exceedances of the 24-hour standard per

year. The 14 areas which meet the above

criteria are listed in Table I along with

the design concentrations and numbers

of expected exceedances. 4

Additional considerations also led

EPA to conclude that the above criteria

are reasonable. First, in several cases

brought to EPA's attention, States

attempting to develop control strategies

using RACM/RACT for these areas had

concluded that it was not practicable to

attain the 24-hour standard by

December 31, 1994. Second, the annual mean PM-10 concentrations- for 1988-

1990 exceeded the annual NAAQS (50

pg/m 3) in 10 of the 14 areas. 5 In several

areas, the annual mean was 20 to 80

percent over the annual NAAQS. A high

annual concentration is another

indicator that an area experiences

persistently high PM-10 levels rather

than occasional brief exceedances.

Because EPA intends to base its final

determinations on whether areas should

be reclassified on its review of the SIP's

due November 15, 1991, this proposal is

limited to those areas that appear most

likely, on the basis of ambient air

quality information, to have difficulty

attaining the PM-10 NAAQS by

December 31, 1994. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to reclassify the areas listed

in Table I as serious, with the caveats

concentrations currently being used for SIP

development were generally derived from

monitoring data collected in earlier years (i.e.. 1986

or 1987) and. therefore, may differ from those listed

in Table 1.

5 The annual mean concentrations in Table I are

based only on years with complete ambient data

discussed below. The EPA believes the

criteria used to identify the areas in

Table I area reasonable to use in

meeting its obligation under section

188(b)(1)(A). However, the criteria are

being used as surrogates for areaspecific information that will eventually

be provided in the SIP's. States can

rebut EPA's presumption that any of the

areas proposed for reclassification

cannot practicably attain the standards

by the attainment date by submitting a

SIP that provides for attainment by the

end of 1994. In such cases, EPA will not

take final action to reclassify the areas.

The EPA requests comments on the

choice of criteria used to identify the

areas that it proposes to reclassify.

Areas EPA Does Not Expect to

Reclassify

Based on preliminary information

described in more detail below, at this

time, EPA does not expect to reclassify

the four areas discussed below from

Table 1 as serious even though they

meet the above criteria. However, in

today's notice, EPA is proposing to

reclassify these areas, in the event that

EPA does not receive a SIP revision for

these areas by the time EPA takes final

action on this notice which

substantiates this preliminary

information. Similarly, if EPA receives a

SIP revision for these areas by the time

EPA takes final action on this notice

which indicates that the area cannot

practicably attain the PM-10 standards

by December 31, 1994, EPA is proposing

today to reclassify these areas in the

final rulemaking action on this notice.

Oglesby, Illinois-The EPA does not

anticipate reclassifying the Oglesby

nonattainment area. The area is

impacted primarily by a single source of

PM-1O, a cement manufacturing plant.

The State has submitted a dispersion

modeling demonstration that tentatively

shows emissions from the facility can be

controlled with RACT to a level that will

prevent future violations of the 24-hour

NAAQS. 6

sets. A data set requires at least 12 sample days per

quarter year to be complete. As noted in the table,

many of the areas had 1 or more years of

incomplete data.

* Proposed PM-10 emission limits for the Portland

Cement Manufacturing Plant and associated quarry

operations in LaSalle County, Illinois. February

1991.

58659
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.-AREAS WITH HIGH PM-10 DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS AND EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES

24-hour Expected Annual

EPA region Area concern' deeg W/ excee- mean (lig/ Sources

Mal dances mi)

II iberty, Lincoln. Port Vue, and Glassport Boroughs and the City of Clairton, PA 247 11.0 47 Point.

V Oglesby, IL ....................................................................................................................... 311 12.2 55 Point.

ViIl Libby, MT ............................................................................................................................ 239 11.9 61# FD, RWC, PB.

ViII Utah Co., UT ......................................................................................... . ...... ................... 241 127 53# PoinL

iX Paul Spur, AZ ................................................................................................................... 353 68.0 # Point FD

IX Nogales, AZ ..................................................................................................................... 244 10.7 # International, FD

IX San Joaquin Val., CA ....................................................................................................... 287 24.1 79#' FD, secondary PM, PB.

IX Owens Valley, CA .......................................................................................................... 1861 17.4 33# FD

IX South Coast Air Basin, CA ............................................................................................ 252 25.5 84 Secondary PM, FD.

IX Coachella Val., CA ............................................................................................................ 712 11.6 90# FD

IX Imperial Val.. CA ................................................................................................................. 676 8.9 78# FD, International, PB.

IX La-Vegas, NV ................................................................................................................ 368 6.5 66# FD

X Klamath Falls, OR ............................................................................................................. 723 36.3 .61 FD, RWC, PB.

X Spokane, WA .......................................................................................................... ... 414 7.4 47# FD, PB, RWC.

FD= Fugitive dust

PB=Prescrbed burning RWC=Residential wood combustion

International-International transport of PM-i0

Point=Dominant point source impact

*The full legal descriptions of the nonattainment areas were published In 56 FR 11101. March .5, 1991, and corrections were published in 56 FR 37654 (August

8, 1991).

# =One or more years of incomplete data are available that were not used in calculating the annual mean.

Utah County, Utah-The EPA does

not anticipate reclassifying the Utah

County nonattainment area because the

State has demonstrated that the

standards can be attained by December

31, 1994. The State has adopted

regulations requiring RACM for area

sources and RACT for point sources in

the area. The control measures are

scheduled to be implemented by

December 10, 1993. 7

Nogales, Arizona-The EPA does not

anticipate reclassifying- the Nogales

nonattainment area based on the results

of a preliminary study prepared by the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality in September 1990. The report

indicates that most of the PM-10

emissions in the area emanate from

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. The area

emission inventory indicates that 94

percent of the PM-10 emissions

originate in Mexico. An intensive

monitoring study, including time-lapse

photography of air flow at the border

conducted in 1989, indicated that PM-10

concentrations in Nogales, Arizona,

were primarily attributable to sources in

Nogales, Sonora. Therefore, the report

indicates the State may be able to

demonstrate in the SIP due November 15

that, with the application of RACM,

Nogales, Arizona, could attain the

standards by December 31, 1994, but for

7 Utah State Implementation Plan. Section 9

Control Strategy and Compliance Schedule. A. Fine

Particulate Matter (PM-10) submitted by Governor

Norman H. Bangerter to James 1. Scherer, Regional

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Denver,

Colorado, October 9,1990.

PM-10 emissions emanating from

Nogales, Sonora.8

Imperial Valley, California-The EPA

does not anticipate reclassifying the

Imperial Valley nonattainment area

based on the results of an EPA study

conducted in 1989. The study indicated

that international transport of PM-I

from Mexicali in Mexico significantly

impacted monitoring sites in Calexico,

El Centro, and Brawley, California. The

report indicates the State may be able to

demonstrate in the SIP due November 15

that, with the application or RACM, the

Imperial Valley could attain the

standards by December 31, 1994, but for

PM-10 emissions emanating from

Mexicali.9

IV. Serious Area SIP Requirements

Additional Sip revisions are required

under section 189(b) for the initial

nonattainment areas that are

reclassified to serious. First, regulations

requiring the use of BACM, including

"the application of best available

control technology to existing stationary

sources" [H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong.

2d Sess. 267 (1990)] must be adopted and

submitted to EPA within 18 months after

the area is reclassified to serious

[section 189[b)(2)). The BACM and

BACT requirements must be

implemented within 4 years after the

area is reclassified [section 189(b)(1](B)].

8 Preliminary investigation of the Causes and

Extent of the Nogales, Arizona. PM-10 Problem,

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

September 1990.

9 Rural Fugitive Dust Analysis: Imperial County.

California. Final report, prepared by Mathtech. Inc.,

under EPA Contract No. 68-D8-0094. Work

Assignment No. 29, May 1990.

Second, the State must submit a SIP

revision within 4 years after

reclassification of the area that includes

a demonstration that the plan will attain

the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,

2001 [see sections 188(c)(2],

189(b)(1)(A](i), and 189(b](21]. 10 Third,

section 189(b)(3) provides that "for any

Serious Area, the terms 'major source'

and 'major stationary source' include

any stationary source or group of

stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common

control that emits, or has the potential to

emit, at least 70 tons per year of PM-10."

This provision requires, among other

things, smaller new and modified

sources (those with the potential to emit

70 or greater rather than 100 or greater

tons per year) to obtain section 172(c)(5)

construction permits which include

requirements to comply with lowest

achievable emission rates and to obtain

emission offsets [see sections 172(c](5)

and 1731.

It is reasonable, in some

circumstances, for States preparing SIP's

for moderate areas that will be

reclassified as serious, to consider the

relationship of RACM to BACM and

I0 Alternatively, the State must demonstrate that

attainment by December 31, 2001, is impracticable

and that the plan provides for attainment by the

most expeditious alternative date practicable (but no more than 5 years after the serious area attainment date), and that the section 188(e)

requirements for receiving an extension of the

attainment date have been satisfied (i.e.. the plan includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any State and can

feasibly be implemented in the area) [see section

189 (b](1l(A)(iil].

58660
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

RACT to BACT for the affected sources.

The EPA discussed this relationship in a

recent policy memorandum entitled

"PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance:

Final Staff Work Product" at pages 14-

16 (see footnote 1). The EPA anticipates

that BACM for area sources, if required,

will be additive to or not significantly

incompatible with RACM for these

sources. Therefore, the moderate area

SIP's for the areas which EPA is

proposing to reclassify should reflect the

application of RACM to appropriate

sources. If an area is reclassified in

EPA's final action on this rulemaking,

then additional requlations which

require BACM must be adopted and

submitted within 18 months and

implemented within 4 years after

reclassification.

Likewise, in the case of fugitive dust

associated with stationary sources, EPA

anticipates that the implementation of

BACT will not be significantly

incompatible with the implementation of

RACT. Therefore, EPA expects that the

moderate area SIP's for the areas

identified in today's notice will reflect

the application of RACT on fugitive dust

associated with stationary sources. If an

area is reclassified in EPA's final action

on this rulemaking, then additional

regulations requiring BACT for fugitive

dust at stationary sources must be

submitted within 18 months and

implemented within 4 years after the

area is reclassified.

In contrast to BACT for stationary

sources of fugitive dust, PM-10 emission

control technology determined to

represent BACT for processes at

stationary sources may be significantly

incompatible with the technology that

would represent RACT for the same

sources. Under such circumstances, it

would be unreasonable and, therefore,

would not constitute RACT to install

controls to meet the requirement for

RACT by December 10, 1993, that would

subsequently be replaced by BACT

within 2 years.'1 Accordingly, EPA does

not expect the SIP's for the moderate

areas that are finally reclassified as

serious to require major changes to the

control systems for specific stack and

process sources where the State

reasonably demonstrates that such

changes will be significantly

incompatible with the application of

I Under section 189(a), moderate areas designated nonattainment at enactment must

implement RACM (including RACT] by December

10. 1993. Under section 189(b), areas reclassified as

serious must implement BACM (including BACT

within 4 years after reclassification. If EPA takes

final action on December 31, 1991, these areas will

be required tn implement BACT by December 31,

1995. approximately 2 years after the December 10,

1993 implementation deadline for RACT.

BACT. A State's demonstration should

include, for example, showing what the

State believes RACT and BACT are for

the source and why they are

significantly incompatible. Rather,

within 18 months after the final

rulemaking action to reclassify these

areas, the States must submit

regulations requiring the use and

implementation of BACT within 4 years.

V. Final Action

In addition to the criteria discussed in

this notice, EPA's final decision to

reclassify the areas identified in today's

notice as serious areas will rely on the

moderate area SIP, due November 15,

1991, and on comments received in

response to this notice of proposed

rulemaking. The final decision will be

based primarily on the SIP attainment

demonstration showing whether or not

the States can implement sufficient

RACM/RACT by December 10, 1993, to

bring about attainment of the standards

by December 31, 1994. Any areas that

EPA determines cannot practicably

attain will be reclassified except for

those areas that could attain but for PM10 emissions emanating from outside the

United States. Areas that could attain

but for significant contributions of PM10 from nonanthropogenic sources to

PM-10 NAAQS violations in the area

may be reclassified as serious areas.

Subsequently, the attainment date or

various requirements may be waived for

these areas if EPA determines that

anthropogenic sources do not contribute

significantly to violations of the PM-10

NAAQS [see section 188(f}]

The EPA will also review the

technical information submitted with the

SIP's for the four areas meeting the air

quality criteria identified by EPA but

which EPA does not expect to reclassify.

If EPA determines, based on new

information contained in those SIP's,

that any of these areas cannot

practicably attain the standards by the

end of 1994, even after discounting

emissions emanating from outside the

United States, or the State fails to

submit an adequate demonstration

substantiating the preliminary

information identified earlier, EPA will

take final action on this rulemaking

proposal to reclassify such areas as

serious.

VI. Waivers for Certain Areas

Some of the areas EPA is proposing to

reclassify as serious have very arid

climates and are impacted by

nonanthropogenic sources of PM-10 as

well as anthropogenic sources. Section

188(f) of the Act authorizes EPA to "on a

case-by-case basis, waive any

requirement applicable to any Serious

Area [under subpart 4] where the

Administrator determines that

anthropogenic sources of PM-10 do not

contribute significantly to the violation

of the PM-10 standard in the area." The

legislative history suggests that

Congress contemplated a narrrow

definition of what may qualify as "nonanthropogenic" and would limit it

to include activities where the human

role in the causation of the pollution is

highly attenuated [see generally, H.R.

Rep. No. 490, 101st Congress. 2d Sess.

265 (1990]]. As one example of a type of

source Congress considered to be

anthropogenic, the House Report states

as follows: "The term 0anthropogenic

sources' is intended to include activities

that are anthropogenic in origin. An

example of such sources is the dry lake

beds at Owens and Mono Lakes in

California, which give rise to dust

storms that are a result of the diversion

of water that would otherwise flow to

such lakes and should be considered

anthropogenic sources" (H.R. Rep. No.

490 at 265).

The EPA will rely primarily on

information in the SIP's submitted in

November 1991 to determine whether

anthropogenci sources contribute

significantly to violations in each of the

above areas. The emissions inventories

and PM-10 filter analyses (i.e., chemical

mass balance analysis) for the areas

will be the primary sources of

information relied upon. If EPA

determines that anthropogenic sources

do not contribute significantly in a

particular area, EPA will decide whether

any or all requirements for BACM/

BACT should be waived for the area.

Section 188(f) also grants EPA the

authority to "waive a specific date for

attainment of the standard when the

Administrator determines that

nonanthropogenic sources of PM-10

contribute significantly to the violation

of the PM-10 standard in the area." The

legislative history suggests that "[t]he

attainment date may only be waived for

areas that have fully implemented their

plan requirements" (H.R. Rep. No. 490 at

265).

Several questions must be answered

before EPA can establish a policy for

granting the waivers authorized under

section 188(f). For example, FPA must

determine:

1. What sources will be considered,

"nonanthropogenic."

2. When nonanthropogenic sources

contribute "significantly" to violations

in an area.

3. When anthropogenic sources do

not contribute significantly to violations

in an area.

58661
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 1991 / Proposed Rules

4. What requirements, if any,

applicable to serious areas should be

waived.

The EPA is specifically soliciting

public comment on appropriate answers

to these questions. The EPA will

consider any comments received before

the close of the comment period on

ioday's proposal when developing its

policy for implementing the waiver

provision authorized under section

188(fg.

VII. International Border Areas

Section 818 of the 1990 Clean Act

Amendments adds a new action 179B to

subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the Act.

Section 179B applies to areas that could

attain the relevant NAAQS by the

attainment date but for emissions

emanating from outside the United

States. For PM-10 nonattainment areas,

section 179B provides that EPA can

approve the moderate area SIP if the

State establishes that the SIP would be

adequate to attain and maintain the

PM-10 NAAQS by the attainment date

but for emissions from outside the

United States, and that the area is not to

be subject to the provisions of section

188(b)(2). Section 188(b)(2) provides that

any moderate PM-10 nonattainment

area that is not in attainment after the

applicable attainment date shall be

reclassified by operation of law as a

serious area. Therefore, Congress does

not want areas that could attain but for

emissions emanating from outside the

United States to be automatically

reclassified as serious after failing to

attain by the applicable date. In the

same spirit, EPA does not believe

Congress intended for areas that the

States demonstrate could attain the

standards but for emissions emanating

from outside the United States to be

reclassified before the attainment date

under section 188(b)(1).12

'2 As noted, section 179B(dl states that areas

demonstrating attainment of the standards but for

emissions emanating from outside the United States

shall not be subject to section 188(b)(2)

(reclassification for failure to attain). By analogy to

this provision and applying canons of statutory

construction, EPA will not reclassify before the

applicable attainment date areas which can

demonstrate attainment of the standards but for

emissions emanating from outside the United States

[see section 188(b)(1)]. First. section 179B evinces a

general congressional intent not to penalize areas

where emissions emanating from outside the

country are the but-for cause of the PM-10

attainment problems. Further, if EPA were to

reclassify such areas before the applicable

attainment date, EPA. in effect, would be reading

section 179B(d) out of the statute. Specifically, if

EPA proceeded to reclassify before the applicable

attainment date those areas qualifying for treatment

under section 179B, an area would never be subject

to the provision in section 179B(d) which prohibits

EPA from reclassifying such areas after the

applicable attainment date. Canons of statutory

Consequently, EPA does not

anticipate reclassifying Nogales,

Arizona, and Imperial Valley,

California, as serious areas at this time

based on preliminary information

submitted by the States. The preliminary

information indicates these areas could

attain the NAAQS but for emissions

from Mexico. However, if the technical

information submitted with the SIP in

November for any of these areas does

not satisfactorily confirm the

preliminary analysis relied on in today's

proposal, EPA will proceed to reclassify

that area as a serious area in its final

action on this rulemaking.

VIII. Request for Comments.

The EPA requests comments on all

aspects of its proposal to reclassify the

above areas as serious nonattainment

areas. For example, EPA requests

comments on its choice of criteria for

identifying areas it proposes to

reclassify as serious including technical

information to substantiate or refute its

basis for today's proposed action. The

comment period which closes December

23, 1991, will additionally allow EPA to

consider the SIP revisions required to be

submitted for these areas by November

15, 1991. The EPA is also investigating

the development of criteria and policy

for granting waivers for certain areas

under section 188(f). Several questions

were raised in section Vi of this notice

that must be answered in developing the

waiver policy. Comments are requested

on those questions as well as the scope

of such waivers.

IX. Other Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Orders

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

has determined that this proposed

action is not "major" because

reclassification of the areas would not

have an annual effect on the economy of

at least $100 million, would not cause a

major increase in prices, and would not

have a significant adverse effect on

competition or the ability of United

States enterprises to compete with

foreign enterprises. This proposal was

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) as required by

Executive Order (E.O.) 12291. Any

written comments from OMB and any

written EPA responses to those

comments are included in the docket.

This action does not contain any

construction counsel against interpreting the law

such that language is rendered mere surplusage.

Finally. note that section 179B(d) contains a clearly

erroneous reference to carbon monoxide instead of

PM-10, and that this section contains other clear

errors [see, e.g.. section 179B(c} reference to section

186(b)(9). which does not exist].

information collection requirements

subject to OMB review under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). AFederalism assessment

under E.O. 12612 is not required for this

action since reclassification of moderate

areas that cannot attain the NAAQS by

the statutory attainment date as serious

areas is mandated by section 188(b) of

the Act.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the

Administrator has certified that

redesignations do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities (see 46 FR

8709). Because reclassifications under

section 188(b) constitute a refinement of

existing designations, such actions are

also not expected to have significant

impacts on small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 FR Part 81

Air pollution, Particulate matter,

Waivers, International border areas.

Authority: Sections 188(b) and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended.

Dated: November 15, 1991.

William K. Reilly,

Administrator.

(FR Doc. 91-28064 Filed 11-20-91; 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Denial of Petition for

Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition

by Dr. Carl C. Clark of the Safety

Systems Company to amend the Head

Injury Criterion limit of Standard No.

208, Occupant Crash Protection. The

petitioner sought to reduce the Head

Injury Criterion limit from'1000 to 750.

After careful review, NHTSA has

determined that the petition failed to

provide sufficient justification to change

the current Head Injury Criterion limit.

The petition did not present information

calling into question the agency's belief

that the current Head Injury Criterion

limit of 1000 is.the most appropriate and

practicable level for minimizing the risk

• ill II I IJilll I 

II I I

i

58662