Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 135 / Friday July 15, 1994 / Proposed' Rules

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made apart of the

Administrative Record.

IV Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office o[Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review)..

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required- by

section-2 of Executive Order-12778

(Civil' Justice Reform) and has

determined thatU to the extent allowed

by law thisrulb meets the applicable

standards.of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State-regulatory program s- and

program-amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated- by

a specificState;.not by OSM. Under

-sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.t1..732..15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on- proposed State regulatory

program and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely onia determination- of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementingFederal regulations

and whether-the other'requirements of

30 CFRParts,730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for, thisrule since section702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on.

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do-not constitute majorFederal: actions within the meaning o f

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act_(42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

-This-.rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of-the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on. a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject ofthis rule is based

upon correspondingFederal regulations

for which an. economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations, would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial of small entities.

Accordingly this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions- for the

correspondingFederal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations. Surface

mining, Underground, mining.

Dated: July 1, 1994.

Robert J. Biggi,

Acting AssistantDirector, Eastern Support

Center.

[FR.Doc. 94-17284 Filed 7-14-94. 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ16-1-6820; FRL-4884-5]

Clean Air Act Limited Approval/ Disapproval and Promulgation of PM o

Implementation Plan for Arizona

AGENCY* Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY, The EPA. proposes limited

approval/disapproval: ofthe State

implementation: plan ($IP), submitted'by

the State of Arizona for thepurpose of

bringing about the-attainment of the

National. ambient, air:quality standard

(NAAQS).for particulate matter-with an

aerodynamic diameterless than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM, ).

The implementation. plan was submitted

by the State to-satisfy certain Federal

requirements for an,approvable

nonattainment area PM, SIP for-the

Hayden/Miami areaan Arizona

DATES: Comments-on-this proposed

action must be received in writing by

August 15, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Rbbert Pallerino, Plans

Development Section (A-2-2), EPA, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. Copies of the State's submittal

and other information are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Air

and'Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

FOR FURTHER-INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Pallanino, Plans Development

Section (X-2-2)..U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone (415) 744-1212:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background'

The air quality planning requirements

for-moderate PM1 o nonattamment areas

are set out in subparts 1. and 4 of title

I of the Act, The EPA has issued a

"General Preamble" describing EPA s

preliminary views on how EPA intends

to review SIP's and SIP revisions

submitted under-title Iof the Act,

including those State, submittals

containing moderate PM 0

nonattainmentarea SIP requirements

(see generally 57 FR 3498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR'18070 (April' 28,

1992)). Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should, refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations, oftitle I advanced

in this proposal andthe supporting

rationale. In this action on the Arizona

moderate PMi 0 SIP EPA is proposing to

apply its interpretations takinginto

consideration the specific factual issues

presented. Thus., EPA will consider any

timely submitted comments before

taking final action. on this proposal.

Those States containing initial

moderate PM0 nonattainment areas

were required to-submit, among other

things, the following provisions by

November 15, 1991.

1. Provisions to, assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(including such reductions in.emissions,

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of-reasonably available

control techriology-RACT) shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31,. 1994. or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable:

3..Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

denhonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward, attainment by December

31, 1994; and,

4. Provisions to assure that the control

requirements applicable to:malor

stationary sources of PM1 o alsoapply to

major stationary sources of PM1 o

precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM1 o levelk-which. exceed the

NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c).

188, and 189 of the-Act.

36116,
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 135 1 Friday July 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules

Some provisions are due at a later

date. States with initial moderate PM,o

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM, by June 30, 1992 (see section

189(a)). Such States also must submit

contingency measures by November 15,

1993 which become effective without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the

PM,0 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline. See section 172(c)(9)

and 57 FR 13543-13544.

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA's review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566).

In this action, EPA is proposing to grant

a limited approval/disapproval of the

plan revision for Hayden/Miami

because it contains some portions which

strengthen the existing SIP but the

revision does not wholly meet the

applicable requirements of the Act. The

most serious deficiency of the SIP

revision is that it only addresses the

Hayden portion of the nonattainment

area. The Hayden/Miami nonattamment

area consists of two distinct air basins

which are separated by the Pinal and

Mescal Mountain ranges. These two air

basins are affected by different sources

of PM,0 and a separate control strategy

is required for each basin. Therefore,

while the submittal does not fully meet

the specific provisions of part D, for

example, a complete emission inventory

that addresses the entire nonattainment

area, a description of the monitoring

network for the entire nonattainment

area, and a demonstration of attainment

that includes the Miami portion of the

nonattainment area, it does contain

some provisions which adequately

address PM, 0 air quality in the Hayden

portion of the nonattainment area. The

operating permit issued to ASARCO,

Inc., which is the primary vehicle for

implementing the control strategy

developed for the Hayden area, is an

effective control of the largest sources of

PM, 0 emissions in the Hayden area and

advances the NAAQS-related air quality

protection goals of the Act. Therefore,

EPA proposes to grant a limited

approval.for the SIP revision because of

its overall strengthening effect on

Arizona's SIP but is also proposing to

disapprove the SIP revision because it

does not address the Miami portion of

the nonattainment area and because the

SIP revision did not address the general

requirements pertaining to establishing

provisions for an air quality surveillance

system.

A. Analysis of State Submission

The EPA is proposing to grant a

limited disapproval for the SIP

submittal for not meeting the specific

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(B),

172(c)(1), and 172(c)(3) of the Act.

These deficiencies result from the SIP's

failure to address the Miami portion of

the nonattainment area and also the

general monitoring requirements for the

entire nonattainment area. Further

discussion on these deficiencies is

provided in the Technical Support

Document contained in the docket.

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.' Section 110(1) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

The EPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review

and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57

FR 13565). The EPA s completeness

criteria for SIP submittals are set out at

40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by EPA within six months after receipt

of the submission.

The State of Arizona held a public

hearing on August 21, 1989 to entertain

public comment on the implementation

plan for Hayden, Arizona. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by

the State and signed by the Governor's

designee on October 16, 1989, and

submitted to EPA on October 16, 1989

as a proposed revision to the SIP On

February 3, 1992, Arizona submitted a

new transmittal letter to EPA asking that

EPA consider the October 16, 1989

submittal' as meeting the November 15,

1991 PMmo SIP submittal due date. This

transmittal letter included an attached

lustification for not implementing

additional RACM in the Hayden SIP

The SIP revision was reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of section I 10(a)(2).

after November 15, 1991, in accordance

with the completeness criteria set out at

40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). EPA determined that the

submittal was complete, but did not

make a formal finding of completeness.

By operation of law the submittal was

deemed complete as of May 15, 1992.

As noted, in this action EPA proposes

to partially approve Arizona's PM,0 SIP

submittal for Hayden/Miami and invites

public comment on the action.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant pollutants in

the nonattainment area. The emissions

inventory should also include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of allowable emissions in the

area. Because the submission of such

inventories are necessary to an area s

attainment demonstration (or

demonstration that the area cannot

practicably attain), the emissions

inventories must be received with the

submission (see 57 FR 13539). Arizona submitted an emissions

inventory for base year 1986. The base

year inventory only identified sources

in Hayden (the ASARCO smelter stack,

copper ore tailings, ore crushing, the

ASARCO slag dump, road dust,

ASARCO smelter building fugitives, and

copper ore). These are the primary

sources of PM,0 in the Hayden portion

of the nonattainment area, contributing

over 90 percent of the total emissions in

Hayden during the time that the

violations were recorded. Additional

contributing sources included lime

handling, gypsum handling, locomotive

exhaust, automobile exhaust, and

woodburning stoves.

The EPA is proposing to approve the

emissions inventory. While the

emission inventory contains some

inaccuracies with respect to certain

point, area, and mobile source

emissions, EPA feels that the inventory

is accurate enough for determining the

primary sources of PM10 in the Hayden

area and the control strategy's effect on

PM,, emissions in the nonattainment

area. Furthermore, EPA feels the

inventory provides a sufficient basis fur

determining the adequacy of the

attainment demonstration for this area

consistent with the requirements of

sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the

Clean Air Act (ACT).2 For further details

2 The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions

inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air

Continued

36117
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 135 / Friday July 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules

see the Technical Support Document

(TSD)"

3. RACM (Including-RACT)

As noted,, the-initial. moderate PM10

nonattainment areas must submit

provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented.no

later than December 10, 1993 (see

sections 172(c)(4) and: 189(a)(1)(C)). The

General Preamble contains adetailed.

discussion of EPA's interpretation of the

RACM (including RACT) requirement

(see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560

13561).

It should be noted that the SIP

revision, for the Hayden area was

developed prior to the passage of the

Clean. Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Implementation of RACM was not a

required porton ofthe SIP at that time.

Arizona subsequently submitted an

addendum to the SIP revision on

February 3, 1992 which presented the

justification for not implementing all qf

the RACM measures identified in

Appendices.CL.C2..and C3 of the

General Preamble. The basic argument

against implementation- of further

RACM. was.that the, SIP demonstrated

attainment of the PMto NAAQS'in 1990,

four years-sooner than required by the

Act, and: that additional RACM would

not cause the area to~reach attainment

any sooner. This is,a valid argument in

favor of not adopting further RACM.

The control measures that are being

implemented in, the Hayden area are

consistent with the guidance issued by

EPA regarding fugitive dust in its

General Preamble. Furthermore, the

Hayden area has. not experienced any

violations of the PMo NAAQS since

1990. TheSIP submitted'by Arizona for

the Hayden- nonattainment, area used

Chemical Mass Balance receptor

modeling-and dispersion modeling and

then reconciled the results according to

guidance provided, by EPA in the

document Protocol'For Reconciling

Differences Among Receptor And

Dispersion Models, EPA, March 1987

As a result, five sources were identified

as contributing to the PM111

nonattainment problem, in Hayden and

will be controlled with a variety of

measures. Table 1 lists.these measures

and the associated emission reductions.

TABLE 1

Emissions.w/o Emissions

controls (con- after controls

Source/source category Control measure tnbution to 24 (contribution to

hr ambient 24 hr ambient

-levels in jig/ levels in jigl m) in3

)

Ore Unloading, Crushing, and Conveying .......... Increased use of; spray bars, hooding, enclosures, 410.8 39.6

newer and more efficient rotoclones, better housekeeping. Unpaved Roads .............................................................. Capping&,waterrng. use of dust suppressants .............. 86.5 8.7

Locomotives-. .............................. Implementationiof 40%-opacity limit ............................. 58.8, 23.5

Paved Roads .................. No controlsto be-implemented ................................... 29.9. 29.9

Gypsum Handling ........................................................ Source permanently shut down ................................... 102 0.0

The control measures in Table 1 have

been implemented and therefore meet

the requirement, of implementing RACM

by December 10,. 1993. According to the

SIP control ofithese sources will result

in an estimatedemission reduction of

292 tons per year of PM o. A more

detailed discussiomn of the individual

source contributions, their associated

control measures (including available

control technology) and an explanation

as to why certain available control

measures were not implemented, can be

found in the Technical Support

Document (TSD).

The EPA has. reviewed the State s

explanation and associated

documentation. and: concluded that it

adequately lustifie& the control

measures to be implemented. There are

a limited, and obviousnumber of PM 10

sources in. the Hayden area and the State

addresses each. of them in the SIP

revision. The implementation of

Arizona's parta lparticulate matternonattainment plan! control strategy will

result m the attainment of the PM,o

NAAQS;by December 31,1994.. By this.

document EPA is proposing to approve

Act Amendmients'enthe form of the 1987 PM-7O

SIP Development Guideline. We believe that this

the RACM. including RACT developed

by Arizona for the Hayden. area s control

strategy. EPA is proposing to approve

the operating permit, issued to ASARCO,

Inc., the measure restricting off road

vehicle use,.the measure for locomotive

emissions and the-measure for gypsum

handling.

4. Demonstration.

As noted, the CA-A requires that

initial moderate PM10 nonattainment

areas must' submit, a, demonstration

(includingair quality modeling)

showing, that the plan will provide for

attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but no, later than December

31, 1994 (See section 189(a)(1)(B) of the

Act). Alternatively, the State must show

that attainment by December 31, 1994 is

impracticable: The, SIP submitted by

Arizona for Hayden contains an

attainment demonstration using

Chemical Mass-Balance (CMB) Receptor

Modeling reconciled. with the Industrial

Source Complex Short Term (ISCST)

Dispersion Model. This demonstration

indicates that the NAAQS-for PM1 o will

be attained by 1990 in Hayden and

document provides a general basis for meeting the

requirements of-the new Act.

maintained in future years. The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic

meter (igIm 3

), and the standard is

attained when the expected-number of

days per calendar year with a 24-hour

average concentration above 150 jg/mis equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR

50.6). The annualPMo NAAQS is 50

jg/m- and the standard isattained

when the expected annual arithmetic

mean concentration is less than or equal

to 50 gIg/m , The demonstration

predicted that the 24-hour design

concentration.in the attainment year of

1990 will be 129-g/m- thus

demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour

PM,, NAAQS. The annual design

concentration. of 31.6 ig/m3 predicted

for the same year demonstrates

attainment of the annual PM 1o NAAQS

The demonstration also showed that the

PMo NAAQS will be maintained in

future years by predicting a 24-hour

design concentration of 147.1 jig/m 3

and an annual- design concentration of

34.2 ig/im3 for the year 1997.-The

control strategy used to achieve these

design concentrations is summarized in

36118
Federal Register / Vol. 59.. No. 135 / Frrday, July 15. 1994 / Proposed Rules

the.section titled "RACM (including

RACT)"

The State s demonstration of

attainment of the 24 hour NAAQS in the

Hayden area is approved as is the, SIP's.

demonstration of attainment of the

annual PMt0 NAAQS in the Hayden

area. For a more detailed description of

the attainment demonstration and the'

control strategy used, see the Technical

Support Document.

-5. PM1 ( Precursors

The control requirements which are

applicable to major stationary sources. of

PMo, also apply to major stationary

sources of PMt0 precursors unless EPA

determines such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM1 0 ,rlevels in

excess of the NAAQS in that area (see.

section 189(e) of the Act)'.

An analysis of air quality and

emissions data for the Hayden portion

of the nonattamment area indicates that

exceedances of the NAAQS are

attribttable chiefly to direct particulate

matter emissions from. copper ore

unloading, crushing and conveying

activities, unpaved roads, locomotives,

and gypsum handling. Sources of

particulate matter precursor emissions

of SO, contribute anywhere from 3, jig/

m - to 5 pglm. to. the 24 hr design

concentration. Consequently EPA is

proposing to find that major sources of

precursors of PM10 do not contribute

significantly to PMo, levels in excess of

the NAAQS. The consequences of this

finding are that the PMa nonattainment

area control requirements will not apply

to. the sources of PMo- precursors.

Further discussion of the analyses andi

supporting rationale for EPA s finding

are contained in the Technical Support

Document. Note that while EPA is

making a general finding for this area,

today s finding is based on the current

character of the area including, for

example, the existing mix of sources in

the area. It is possible, therefore, that

future growth could change the

significance of.precursors in the area.

The EPA intends to issue future

guidance addressing such potential

changes in the significance of precursor

emissions in an area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM. nonattainment area plan

revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones

which are to be achieved every 3 years

until the area is redesignated attainment

and which demonstrate RFP as. defined

in section 171JI), toward attainment by

December 31, 1994 (see section 189(cli of

the Act). Reasonable further progress. is

defined in section 171(1) as such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by part D or may reasonably be required

by the Admciimstrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

In determining RFP for this initial

moderate area. EPA has reviewed the

attainment demonstration and control

strategy for the-area and assessed

whether annual incremental reductions

different from those provided in the SIP

should be required in order to ensure

attainment of the PMo. NAAQS by

December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)).

Since Arizona has not recorded a

violation of the PMO, NAAQS in the

Hayden since 1990, EPA feels that the.

State of Arizona has satisfied the RFP

requirement for the Hayden portron of

the nonattainment area.

7 Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)}2)tAJ and 57 FR 13556). The EPA

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIP's and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 197 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et a. (see 57 FR 13541).

Nonattainment area plan provisions

must also contain a program that

provides for enforcement of the control

measures and other elements. in, the SIP

(see section 110(a)(2)(CI). The particular control measures

contained in the SIP are addressed

above under the section headed "RACM

(including RACT). These control

measures, apply to the types of activities

identified in that discussion, including,

for example, copper ore unloading,

crushing and conveying, dust from

unpaved roads, locomotive exhaust,

gypsum handling, and off-road vehicle

use. The SIP provides. that the affected

activities are subject to the applicable

control measures,

Consistent with the attainment

demonstration described above, the SIP

requires that all affected activities must

be: in full compliance with the

applicable SIP provisions by December

31, 1991. In addition to the applicable

control measures, this includes-the

applicable record-keeping requirements

which are addressed in the, supporting

technical information. In addition, the

SIP sets out a compliance schedule for

the ASARCO smelting, facility that

includes. enforceable deadlines by

which the source must implement the

appropriate control measures. The

compliance schedule m described in

more detail in the supporting technical

information. Compliance for certain

measures, such asthe limitation of

process emissions from the crushing

facility and the control of emissions

from unpaved roads must be determined

in accordance with appropriate test

methods, The SIP provides that

compliance with the operating permit

process emission conditions applicable

to the ASARCO facility will be

determined in accordance with EPA

approved test methods as contained in

the Arizona Testing Manual. For the

control of unpaved road emissions

compliance will be determined based on

test methods contained in the EPA

document Control of Open Fugitive Dust

Sources (EPA-45013-88-008). The EPA

believes these test methods are

appropriate for determining compliance.

The attached Technical Support

Document (TSD) contains further

information on enforceability

requirements including: enforceable

emission limitations; a description of

the rules. contained in the SIP and the

source types subject to them; and,

reporting and recordkeeping

reqiurements.

The State of Arizona has given the

State Department of Environmental

Quality the necessary legal authority to

ensure that the measures contained in

the SIP are adequately enforced.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in. section 172(c)9) of the

Act, all moderate nonattainment area

SIPs that demonstrate attamment must

include contingency measures, See

generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These

measures must be submitted by

November 15, 1993 for the initial

moderate nonattainment areas.

Contingency measures should consist of

other available measures that are not

part of thearea s control strategy These

measures must take effect without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to make RFP or attain the

PM 0 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline.

However, as noted the States are not

-required to submit the contingency plan

in section 172(c)(91, until November 15,

1993 (see 57 FR 13543 (April 16, 1992)).

Consequently Arizona will have until

November 15, 1993 to submit a

contingency plan.

IlL Implications of This Action

The EPA is proposing to, grant a

limited approval/disapproval for the, SIP

revision submitted by the State of

Arizona on October 16, 1989 for the

Hayden/Miami moderate PM10

nonattainment area., If finalized, this

disapproval would constitute a

disapproval under section 179(a)12. of

36119,
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 135 / Friday July 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules

the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-

13567). As provided under section

179(a) of the Act, the State of Arizona

would have up to 18 months after a final

SIP disapproval to correct the

deficiencies that are the sublect of the

disapproval before EPA is required to

impose either the highway funding

sanction or the requirement to provide

two-to-one new source review offsets. If

the State has not corrected its deficiency

within 6 months thereafter, EPA must

impose the second sanction. Any

sanction EPA imposes must remain in

place until EPA determines that the

State has come into compliance. If EPA

ultimately disapproves all or part of the

SIP submittal for the Hayden/Miami

nonattainment area and the State of

Arizona fails to correct the deficiency

within 18 months of such disapprovals,

EPA anticipates that the first sanction it

would impose would be the two to one

offset requirement. Note also that any

final disapproval would trigger the

requirement for EPA to impose a

Federal implementation plan as

provided under section 110(c)(1) of the

Act.

IV Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of today's proposal including

EPA's proposed decision to impose the

two to one new source review offset

requirement as the first sanction should

EPA ultimately disapprove this

submittal in whole or in part and the

State fail to timely remedy the

deficiency. EPA is particularly

interested in comments addressing the

adequacy of the State's modeling and

the accuracy of the State's emissions

inventory. As indicated at the outset of

this document, EPA will consider any

comments received by August 15, 1994.

V Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, this

action is not "significant" It has not

been submitted to OMB for review in

accordance with section 6 of E.O 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

The disapproval action taken against

Arizona's SIP submittal for not

addressing the Miami portion of the

nonattainment area affects only one

source, Cyprus Miami Mining Corp.

Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. is not a

small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this disapproval action does not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: April 15, 1994.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-17300 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52

[CT15-1-6080; A-1-FRL-5013-"]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Approval of the Employee Commute

Options Program Submitted by the

State of Connecticut Pursuant to Title

I, Section 182(d)(1)(B)

AGENCY, Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Connecticut for the purpose of

establishing an Employee Commute

Options Program (Program).-Connecticut

submitted this SIP revision to satisfy the

requirement in Section 182(d)(1)(B) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) that, for severe

ozone nonattainment areas, states

establish programs under which

employers with 100 or more employees

must develop compliance plans which

convincingly demonstrate an increase in

the average passenger occupancy (APO)

of commute trips by their employees by

no less than 25% above the average

vehicle occupancy (AVO) of the

nonattainment area. This action is being

taken under Section 110 of the Clean

Air Act. The rationale for the approval

is included in this notice; additional

information is available at the address

indicated below

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

August 15, 1994. Public comments on

this document are requested and will be

considered before taking final action on

this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg.

(AAA), Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

state's submittal and EPA's technical

support document are available for

inspection dunng normal business

hours, by appointment at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Jerry

Kurtzweg, ANR-443, 401 M Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20460; the Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region I, One Congress Street,

loth floor, Boston, MA 02203; and the

Bureau of Air Management, Department

of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm

Street, Hartford, CT 06106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel J. Brown, (617) 565-9048, of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

in Boston, MA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 12, February 1, and July 27

1993, the Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP)

submitted a revision to its State

Implementation Plan.(SIP) for air

quality. The-revision is designed to

satisfy the requirements of Section

182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA).

I. Background

Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the CAA

requires that states, in which all or part

of a severe ozone nonattainment area is

located, must submit a SIP revision

requiring employers in such areas to

reduce work related trips and miles

travelled by employees. Such employee

commute option (ECO) programs are

required to minimize the use of single

occupant vehicles for work-related trips,

36120