# + 2

(,1 1/,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 totallyinformed ofthe above situation.

The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined thatAD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Since this condition could existor 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 ofthe nose wheel axle for cracks, replacement of the nosewheel axle if found cracked, and replacement ofthe 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 2hours 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 levelsof government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this proposal would not have sufficientfederalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I certifythatthis 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 ofsmall entities under the criteria ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy ofthe draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this actionhas been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of itmay be obtained by contactingthe Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
"ADDRESSES". List ofSubjects in14 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 ofthe 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 (allserial numbers); and RallyeModels 235C and235E airplanes (all serial numbers), certificated in any category.

Compliance:Required initially upon the accumulation of500 hours time-in-service (TIS) orwithin the next 50 hours TISafter the effective date ofthis AD,whichever occurs later, andthereafter as indicated, unless already accomplished.

To preventnose wheel axle fatigue failure, accomplish the following:

(a)Dye penetrant inspect the nosewheel axle assemblyfor cracks in accordance with the instructions in DESCRIPTION: (1)Of SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE Service Bulletin No. 150, datedJune 1991.

(1)If cracks arefound, priorto further flight,replace the nosewheel axleassembly inaccordance with the applicable maintenance manual, return the airplane to service, and reinspect at intervals not to exceed 500hours TIS.

(2)Ifno crackare found, return the airplane to service and reinspect at intervals notexceed500 hoursTIS.

(b)At every 4th repetitive inspection interval (2,000 hours TIS) mandated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) ofthis AD, replace the nosewheel axle attaching screws instead ofreinstalling the existing screws as specified in the instructionsand DESCRIPTION:

(2)OfSOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE SB No. 150,dated June 1991.

(c)Special flight permits may beissued in accordancewith FAR 21.197 and21.199 to operate the airplane to alocation where the requirements ofthis AD can be accomplished.

(d)An alternative method ofcompliance or adjustment of thecompliance times that provides anequivalent level ofsafety,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 beforwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification Office.

(e)Copies ofthe service information that is applicable to this AD may be obtainedfrom SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Socata Product Support, Aeroport Tarbes-OssumLourdes, B P930,65009Tarbes Cedex, France, ormay beinspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office ofthe AssistantChief Counsel, Room 1558,601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.

Issued in Kansas City,Missouri, on November 13, 1991. Barry D.Clements, Mamager,SmallAirplaneDirectorate, AircraftCertification 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 toSerious Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Several areas meeting the qualifications ofsection 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 AirAct Amendments of 1990. All ofthese areas
were also initially classifiedas moderate nonattainment areas by operation of law at thetime of designation in accordance with section 188(a) ofthe Act.

Section 188(b)(1) ofthe 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 proposingto 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) ofthe Act. Section 188(f) allowsthe Administrator
towaive 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 ofthe PM10 standard in the area. Those questions

are raised in section VI ofthis notice.
DATES: Written comments on this notice mustbe received by December 23, 1991 at the address below. ADDRESSES: 

### Written comments on this action shouldbe addressed to Kenneth R. Woodard, Air Quality Management Division,Mail Drop 15, Office ofAir 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 8:30a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30p.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 ActAmendments of 1990 (November 15, 1990), PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications ofsection 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw [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 ofthe 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 ofthese 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) ofthe Act].

Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 of the Act [42 U.S.C. section 7513] outlines theprocess for classification of the area and 

### establishes the area's attainment date. In accordance with section 188(a), atthe timeof designation, all PM-10 nonattainment areas are initially classified as moderate by operation of law.

Amoderate area can subsequently be reclassified as serious eitherbefore the applicable moderate area attainment date ifat any time EPAdetermines the

area cannot "practicably" attain the PM-10NAAQS bythis attainment date,

or following the passage ofthe applicable moderate area attainment date ifEPA determines the areahas failed to attain [see section 188(b)].'

In accordance with section 188(b)(1)(A), EPA mustnow propose to reclassify those areas which were designated nonattainment on the date of enactmentby operation oflaw, where EPA determines that the area cannot "practicably" attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. TheEPA also has discretionary authority under section 188(b){1) to reclassify any ofthese 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 thisdiscretion where, for example, EPA originally believed an
area could attain the standardsby December 31, 1994, but later determines that it cannot attain by that date. For example, EPA may find thatan area cannot practicably attain byDecember 31, 1994, after reviewing the November 15, 1991 SIP submittal for an area or

Under the plain meaningof the terms ofsection 1as(b)(i), EPA has general discretion to reclassify at anytime before the applicable attainment date any areaEPA determines cannotpracticably attain the standards by such date. Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) is ageneral expression ofdelegated rulemaking authority. In addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) ofsection 188(b)(1) mandate that EPA reclassify at specified timeframes [i.e., byDecember 31, 1991 for the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas, and within 18months 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 donot restrict the general authoritybut 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 ofadditional control measures in the situation where EPA finds, after the mandated reclassification rulemaking and before the applicable attainment date, thatan area cannot practicably attain the standards. This, in turn, would expedite ultimate attainment ofthe PM-1a standards. In summary. EPA believes it is a reasonable interpretation and consistent with the plain language ofthe 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, ata minimum, EPA make this inquiry at specified times. 

### upon the failure ofa State to submit a SIPfor an area.

For areas designated nonattainment and classified asmoderate subsequent to the date ofenactment, EPA must reclassify appropriate areas as serious within 18 months ofthe required submittal date for the moderate area SIP [see section 188(b)(1)(B)]. Taken together with he statutory requirement that these SIP'sbe submitted 18 months after being designated nonattainment, the statute thus requires that EPA reclassify appropriate moderate areas
as serious within 3years ofthe nonattainment designation.

Finally, in those cases where EPA determines thatan area has failed to attain theNAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the area is reclassified

as serious by operation oflaw [see section 188(b)]. The EPA must publish a notice in the federal Register ofsuch 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 asthe control strategy, the compliance schedule, and attainment demonstration submitted by the State in the SIPfor a moderate PM10 nonattainment area to determine whether it is practicable to attain the NAAQS in that area by the applicable attainment date. The SIPrevisions are due November 15, 1991, forthe initial moderate PM-10nonattainment areas designated by operation oflaw.The SIP must include a control strategy that requires the useofreasonably 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 SIPprovides for timely implementation ofRACM and RACT and attainment oftheNAAQS. The RACM/RACT must be implemented in theinitial 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 areamay notpracticably attain the standards by the applicable attainment date. First, implementation ofRACM/ RACTmay 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 ofthe PM10 NAAQS in the area [see section58657 

### Bfir7

### 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 fortreatment under section 179B ofthe Act.

If the SIP demonstrates that an area cannot practicably attain the standards because RACM/RACT do not achieve sufficient emission reductions in a timelymanner, then EPA will propose to reclassify the area as a serious area. The EPAhas construed RACM, including RACT, tobe those emission reduction methods that are technologically and economically feasible for application to existing PM10 sources in the nonattainment area in lightof 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 orotherwise unreasonable and,therefore, would not constitute RACM (orRACT).2 Therefore, the SIP should require implementation ofall 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 ifit demonstrates that a SIPrequiring implementation ofall 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 bestavailable control technology (BACT)in serious areas, as discussed below in section IV.

If the SIP demonstrates that RACM/ RACTwould attain the standards ifit

were not for a significant contribution from nonanthropogenic sources orPM/ 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 forcertain 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 ofthis notice.

2See "PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final StaffWork Product," a memorandum from John Calcagni. Director, Air Quality Management Division. toRegional Air Division Directors.April2, 1991, pp. 6-8. Reclassification ofan area as serious doesnot obviate the legal requirement
to submit a moderate area SIP.3 Also, a State shouldbe penalized ifthe attainment date for a moderate area is missed because the State fails to adopt and implement control measures as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, ifany State fails to submit a SIPby 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 ofits intent to impose sanctions under sections 110(m) and 179 ofthe Act or adopt a Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) ofthe 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 ofthe 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 tojudge whether ornot itis practicable foreach ofthe 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,

orinability, to attain the PM-10 standards by December 31, 1994. Therefore, today's proposal is without thebenefit of an actual SIPrevision demonstrating, or not demonstrating, attainment. However, given the statutory deadline set out in section

3Moderate nonattainment areas "shall submit"

an implementation plan which includes,among other things, the requirements se out in section 189(a) (e.g.. RACM). Ifsubsequently reclassified as serious, an area must submit a SIP revision which includes,among other things, the requirements set outin section 169(b) [e.g., best available control

measures (BACM)]. In spelling out the serious area plan requirements, the statute explicitlyprovides that these requirements are "[inaddition to the provisionssubmittedto meet the requirements... relating to Moderate Areas... " [see section 189(b](1)]. Thus, reclassificationas serious gives rise to alegal obligationto submit the applicable serious area implementation plan requirements. Further. as explicitlystated, the obligation tosubmit serious area plan requirements is in addition to and does not obviate the legal obligationto submit moderate area SIP requirements consistentwith the applicable statutorydeadlines (see discussion later inthis noticeabout reconciling RACM and BACM requirements for areas reclassified as serious). 188(b)(1)(A), EPA must propose this actionbefore 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 forPM-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 forreclassification, EPA would alsorely on the SIPrevisions submitted forthese areas. Thus, while EPAbelieves the indicators for assessing an area's ability, orinability,
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 ofPM-10 emissions, the availability and feasibility ofcontrol measures, etc. Accordingly, during the comment period

on this notice, States submitting timely SIPrevisions 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, ifEPA 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 itsjudgment on consideration of the precedents setby the statute for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas and the magnitude ofPM-10 concentrations experienced in the areas during the 3 most recent calendar years.

First, Congress specified in section 181 ofthe Actthat areas with design values forozone that are approximately 33 percent ormore above the NAAQS shouldbe classified as serious, ".VQ'6e,

orextreme nonattainment areas, while specifying that areas with design values for CO in excess ofapproximately 83 percent ormore above the NAAQS shouldbe 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 ofozone. 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 mostinstances for PM-10 moderate nonattainment areas than for

ozone. It follows that the designvalue forreclassification ofPM-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 forozone, PM-10

sources are markedly more diverse than' in thecase of mostCO nonattainment situations, wherein violations can be attributed predominantly to mobile

sources. Accordingly, PM-10 moderate

area emission reductions may not be as readily achieved asthose for COand, therefore, a PM-10 design value lower than the CO analogy is appropriate. These considerations have thus ledEPA to select a design value of58 percent above thePM-10 NAAQS-a value that falls directly between thoserepresented inthe criteria adopted by Congress for

ozone and CO-as onebasis for proposing toreclassify areas as serious.

Next, EPA believes that multiple, expected exceedances ofthe standard

are appropriate indicators ofpersistent airquality 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 ofthe70 initial nonattainment

areas that still measured PM-10 concentrations farabove the 24-hour NAAQS and could be expected to exceed the standard several times each year. Areas where the average number ofexpected exceedances over 3years to 6 ormore per year have at least 3 measured exceedances over that same period. Therefore, EPA concluded that

an expected exceedance rategreater than or equal to 6 peryear would adequately distinguish between areas withpersistent airquality problems and those with more transitory violations. It should be noted, however, that the expected exceedance rate is notvery sensitive, i.e., changing this value up or down slightly does not significantly

4The design values derived forthis report were based on all data produced in 1988-1990. The number of observations used in the look-up table procedure is thecombined number ofobservations produced in1988,1989, 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 thePM-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 ofthe "PM-1O SIPDevelopment Guideline," EPA-450/ 2-86--001, June 1987, was followed. The average number ofexpected exceedances ofthe 24-hour standard for

a year is explained in40 CFR 50, Appendix K,section 3.

The EPA's analysis identified 14 areas with design concentrations 58percent or
more above the standard [> 237 micrograms percubic meter (ug/m3

### )] and with 6 or more expected exceedances ofthe 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 ofexpected 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 ofthe 14 areas.5 In several
areas, the annual mean was 20 to 80 

### percent over the annual NAAQS. Ahigh annual concentration is another indicator that an area experiences 

### persistently high PM-10 levelsrather than occasional briefexceedances.

Because EPA intends to base its final determinations onwhether areas should be reclassified on its review ofthe SIP's dueNovember 15, 1991, this proposal is limited to those areas that appear most likely,on thebasis of ambient air quality information, to have difficulty attaining the PM-10NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Therefore, EPAis proposing to reclassify the areas listed inTable I as serious, with the caveats

concentrations currently being used forSIP 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.

5The annual mean concentrations inTable I are based onlyon years with complete ambient data 

### discussed below.The EPAbelieves the criteria used to identifythe areas in Table I area reasonable to usein meeting its obligation under section 188(b)(1)(A). However, the criteria are being used as surrogates forareaspecific information that will eventually be provided in the SIP's. States can rebut EPA's presumption that any ofthe

areas proposed for reclassification cannot practicably attain the standards by the attainment date by submitting a SIP that provides for attainment by the end of1994. 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.

AreasEPA DoesNotExpectto 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 1as serious even though they meet the above criteria. However, in today's notice, EPAis proposing to reclassify these areas, in the event that EPA does not receive a SIP revision for these areas by thetime EPA takes final action on this notice which substantiates this preliminary information. Similarly, ifEPA receives a 

### SIP revision forthese areas by the time EPA takes final action on thisnotice which indicates that the area cannot practicably attain thePM-10 standards by December 31, 1994,EPA is proposing today to reclassify these areas in the final rulemaking actionon this notice.

Oglesby, Illinois-The EPAdoes 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 toa level that will prevent future violations of the 24-hour NAAQS. 6

sets. A data set requires at least 12sample days per quarter year to be complete. As noted in the table, many ofthe areas had 1or more years of incomplete data.

* Proposed PM-10 emission limitsfor 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 W/ concern' deeg excee- mean (lig/ Sources Mal dances mi)

II iberty, Lincoln. Port Vue, and Glassport Boroughs and the Cityof 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 JoaquinVal., 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 canbe attained by December 31, 1994. The Statehas adopted regulations requiring RACM forarea

sources and RACT forpoint 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 theresults ofa preliminary study prepared by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality in September 1990.The report indicates that most ofthe PM-10 emissions in the area emanate from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. The area emission inventory indicates that 94 percent ofthe PM-10 emissions originate in Mexico. An intensive monitoring study, including time-lapse photography ofair flow at theborder 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 ofRACM, Nogales, Arizona, could attain the standards by December 31, 1994, but for

7Utah State Implementation Plan.Section 9 Control Strategy andCompliance Schedule. A. Fine Particulate Matter(PM-10) submitted byGovernor Norman H.Bangerter toJames1. Scherer,Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA RegionVIII,Denver, Colorado, October9,1990. PM-10 emissions emanating from Nogales, Sonora.8

Imperial Valley, California-The EPA does not anticipate reclassifying the Imperial Valley nonattainment area based on theresults of an EPA study conducted in 1989.The study indicated that international transport ofPM-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 dueNovember 15 that, with the application orRACM, 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) forthe initial nonattainment areas that are reclassified to serious.First, regulations requiring the use ofBACM, including "the application ofbest 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 within4 years after the

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



### 8Preliminary investigationofthe Causes and Extent ofthe 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 within4years after reclassification of the areathat includes

a demonstration that theplan will attain the PM-10NAAQS byDecember 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 orgroup of stationary sources located within a contiguous area andundercommon control that emits, orhas thepotential to emit, at least 70 tons peryear ofPM-10." This provision requires,among other things, smallernew andmodified

sources (thosewiththe potential to emit 70 orgreater rather than 100or 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 formoderate areas that willbe reclassified as serious, to consider the relationship ofRACM toBACM and

I0 Alternatively,the State mustdemonstrate that attainment by December 31, 2001, isimpracticable andthatthe planprovides for attainmentby the most expeditiousalternative date practicable (but
nomore than5yearsafter theseriousarea attainment date), and that the section 188(e) requirements forreceiving anextensionofthe attainmentdatehave been satisfied (i.e.. the plan includes the most stringent measures that are includedin the implementation planofanyState or are achievedin practice in anyState andcan feasiblybe implemented in thearea) [see section 189 (b](1l(A)(iil]. 

### 58660

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

RACT to BACT forthe affected sources. The EPA discussed this relationship in a recent policy memorandum entitled "PM-10Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product" at pages 14- 16 (seefootnote 1). The EPAanticipates that BACM for area sources, ifrequired, willbe additive to or not significantly incompatible with RACM for these

sources. Therefore, the moderate area SIP's forthe areas which EPA is proposing to reclassify should reflect the application ofRACM to appropriate

sources. Ifan area isreclassified 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 offugitive 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 ofRACT on fugitive dust associated with stationary sources. Ifan

area isreclassified in EPA'sfinal 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 BACTfor stationary

sources offugitive 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 forthe 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 2years.'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 (includingRACT] by December 10. 1993. Under section 189(b), areas reclassified as serious mustimplement BACM (includingBACT within4years after reclassification.IfEPA takes final action on December 31, 1991, these areas will be required tn implement BACT by December 31, 1995. approximately2 years afterthe December 10, 1993 implementation deadline for RACT. BACT. A State's demonstration should include, forexample, 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 ofBACT 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 willrely on the moderate area SIP,due November 15, 1991, and on comments received in response to this notice ofproposed rulemaking. The final decision will be based primarily on the SIPattainment demonstration showing whether or not the States can implement sufficient RACM/RACT by December 10, 1993, to bring about attainment ofthe standards by December 31, 1994. Any areas that EPA determines cannot practicably attain will be reclassified except for those areas that could attain but forPM10 emissions emanating from outside the United States. Areas that could attain but for significant contributions ofPM10 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 ifEPA determines that anthropogenic sources do not contribute significantly to violations ofthe PM-10 NAAQS [see section 188(f}]

The EPA will alsoreview 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 toreclassify. IfEPA 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, orthe State fails to submit an adequate demonstration substantiating the preliminary information identified earlier, EPA will take final action on thisrulemaking proposal toreclassify such areas as serious.

VI. Waivers for Certain Areas

Some ofthe areas EPA is proposing to reclassify as serious have very arid climates and are impacted by nonanthropogenic sources ofPM-10as well as anthropogenic sources. Section 188(f) ofthe Act authorizes EPA to "on a case-by-case basis, waive any requirement applicable to anySerious Area [under subpart 4] where the Administrator determines that anthropogenic sources ofPM-10 do not contribute significantly to the violation ofthe PM-10 standard in the area." The legislative history suggests that Congress contemplated a narrrow definition ofwhat 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 ofa type of

source Congress considered to be anthropogenic, the House Report states

as follows: "The term 0anthropogenic sources' is intended toinclude activities that are anthropogenic inorigin. 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 ofwater that would otherwise flow to such lakes and should be considered anthropogenic sources" (H.R. Rep. No. 490 at 265).

The EPA will relyprimarily 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 orall requirements forBACM/ BACT should be waived for the area.

Section 188(f) also grants EPA the authority to "waive a specific date for attainment ofthe standard when the Administrator determines that nonanthropogenic sources ofPM-10 contribute significantly to the violation ofthe PM-10 standard in the area." The legislative history suggests that "[t]he attainment date may only be waived for

areas thathave fully implemented their plan requirements" (H.R. Rep. No. 490 at 265).

Several questions mustbe 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, ifany, applicable to serious areas should be 

### waived.

The EPAis specifically soliciting public comment on appropriate answers to these questions. The EPA will consider any comments received before the close ofthe 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 ofthe 1990Clean Act Amendments adds a new action 179B to subpart 1ofpart D ofTitle Iofthe Act. Section 179B applies to areas that could 

### attain therelevant NAAQS by the attainment date but foremissions emanating from outside the United States. For PM-10 nonattainment areas, section 179B provides thatEPA can approve the moderate area SIPifthe State establishes that the SIPwould be adequate to attain and maintain the PM-10 NAAQS bythe attainment date but foremissions from outside the United States, andthat the area is not to be subject to theprovisions ofsection 188(b)(2). Section 188(b)(2) provides that any moderate PM-10 nonattainment

area that isnot in attainment after the applicable attainment date shall be reclassified byoperation oflaw as a serious area.Therefore, Congress does
not want areas that could attainbut for emissions emanating from outside the United States to be automatically reclassified as serious after failing to attain bythe applicable date. Inthe

same spirit,EPA does notbelieve Congress intended for areas that the States demonstrate could attain the standards butfor 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 ofthe standards but for emissions emanating from outside the United States shall notbe subject tosection 188(b)(2) (reclassification for failure to attain). By analogy to this provision and applying canons ofstatutory construction, EPA will notreclassify 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 topenalize areas where emissions emanating from outside the country are the but-forcause ofthe PM-10 attainment problems. Further, ifEPA were to reclassify such areas before the applicable attainment date, EPA. ineffect, would be reading section 179B(d) out ofthe 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

tothe provision insection 179B(d) which prohibits EPA from reclassifying such areas afterthe applicable attainment date. Canons ofstatutory 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, ifthe technical information submitted with the SIP in November for any ofthese 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 forComments.

The EPArequests comments on all aspects ofits proposal to reclassify the above areas as serious nonattainment

areas. For example, EPA requests comments on its choice ofcriteria for identifying areas it proposes to reclassify as serious including technical information to substantiate orrefute 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 ofcriteria and policy for granting waivers for certain areas under section 188(f). Several questions

were raised in section Vi of this notice that mustbe answered in developing the waiver policy. Comments are requested

on those questions as well as the scope ofsuch waivers.

IX. OtherRegulatory 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 $100million, would not cause a major increase in prices, and would not have a significant adverse effect on competition or the ability ofUnited States enterprises to compete with foreign enterprises. This proposal was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) as required by Executive Order (E.O.) 12291. Any written comments from OMB and any written EPAresponses 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 etseq.). AFederalism assessment under E.O. 12612 is not required for this action since reclassification ofmoderate

areas that cannot attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date as serious

areas is mandated by section 188(b) of the Act.

B.RegulatoryFlexibility 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 ofsmall 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 ofSubjects in 40 FR Part 81

Air pollution, Particulate matter, Waivers, International border areas.

Authority: Sections 188(b) and 301(a) ofthe Clean Air Actas amended.

Dated: November 15,1991. William K.Reilly, Administrator. 

### (FRDoc. 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 ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition by Dr.Carl C. Clark ofthe Safety Systems Company to amend the Head Injury Criterion limit ofStandard 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 thepetition 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