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

ADDRESSES. A written summary ofeach meeting will be made apart ofthe Administrative Record.

IV Procedural Determinations

Executive Order12866

This rule is exempted from review by the Office o[Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)..

ExecutiveOrder12778

The Department ofthe Interior has conducted the reviews required-by section-2 ofExecutive 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 ofState-regulatory program s- and program-amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated-by

a specificState;.not by OSM. Under -sections503 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 bebased 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.
NationalEnvironmental PolicyAct
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) ofthe National Environmental Policy Act_(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork ReductionAct
-This-.rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approvalby OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 etseq.). RegulatoryFlexibility 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 isbased 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 thisrule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM willbe implemented by the State.In making the determination asto whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions-forthe correspondingFederal regulations.
List ofSubjects in 30 CFRPart914

Intergovernmental relations. Surface mining, Underground,mining.

Dated: July 1, 1994. Robert J.Biggi, ActingAssistantDirector, EasternSupport Center. 

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

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part52 [AZ16-1-6820; FRL-4884-5]

Clean AirAct Limited Approval/ Disapproval and Promulgation of PM o Implementation Plan forArizona

AGENCY* Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY, The EPA.proposes limited 

### approval/disapproval: ofthe State implementation: plan ($IP),submitted'by the State ofArizona for thepurpose of bringing about the-attainment ofthe 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 bereceived 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 ofthe 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 ononattamment areas

are set out in subparts 1.and4 oftitle Iof the Act, The EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA s preliminary views on how EPA intends
to review SIP's and SIPrevisions submitted under-title Iofthe 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 PMi0 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 thearea 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

aspracticable 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 thatthe control requirements applicable to:malor stationary sources ofPM1oalsoapply to major stationary sources ofPM1 o precursors except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly
to PM 1 olevelk-which.exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c). 188, and 189 ofthe-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 wererequired to submit a permit program forthe construction and operation ofnew 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 orEPA, upon
a determination byEPA 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) ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA isproposing 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 ofthe Act. The most serious deficiency ofthe SIP revision is that it only addresses the Hayden portion ofthe nonattainment

area. The Hayden/Miami nonattamment

area consists oftwo distinct airbasins which are separated by the Pinal and Mescal Mountain ranges. These two air basins are affected by different sources ofPM,0 

### and aseparate control strategy is required for eachbasin. Therefore, while the submittal does not fully meet the specific provisions ofpart D,for example, a complete emission inventory that addresses the entire nonattainment
area, a description ofthe monitoring network for the entire nonattainment
area, and a demonstration ofattainment that includes the Miami portion ofthe nonattainment area, it does contain

some provisions which adequately address PM, 0 

### air quality in the Hayden portion ofthe nonattainment area. The operating permit issued to ASARCO, Inc., which isthe 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 goalsof 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. AnalysisofStateSubmission
The EPA is proposing to grant a limited disapproval for the SIP submittal for not meeting the specific requirements ofsections 110(a)(2)(B), 172(c)(1), and 172(c)(3) ofthe 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) ofthe Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.' Section 110(1) ofthe 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 ofreceiving 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 ofthe submission.

The State ofArizona 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 theGovernor'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) ofthe Act requires that plan provisionsfor nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions ofsection I10(a)(2). after November 15, 1991, in accordance 

### with thecompleteness criteria set out at 40 CFRpart 51, appendix V (1991), as 

### amended by 57FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). EPA determined that the 

### submittal was complete, butdid not make a formal finding ofcompleteness. By operation oflaw the submittal was deemed complete as ofMay 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) ofthe Act requires that nonattainment plan provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources ofrelevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory ofallowable emissions in the

area. Because the submission ofsuch 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 forbase 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 smelterbuilding fugitives, and copper ore). These are the primary

sources ofPM,0 

### in the Hayden portion ofthe nonattainment area, contributing

over 90 percent ofthe 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 ofPM10 

### 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 ofthe attainment demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) ofthe Clean AirAct (ACT).2 

### For further details

2The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior to the enactment oftheClean Air Continued 

### 36117

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

see theTechnical Support Document (TSD)"

3. RACM (Including-RACT)

As noted,,the-initial.moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM (includingRACT) are implemented.no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(4) and: 189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains adetailed. discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe 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 ofthe Clean.Air Act Amendments of 1990. Implementation ofRACM 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 notimplementing all qf the RACM measures identified in Appendices.CL.C2..and C3 ofthe General Preamble. The basic argument against implementation-offurther RACM. was.that the,SIP demonstrated attainment ofthe 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,avalid argument in favor of not adopting further RACM. The control measures thatare being implemented in,the Hayden area are consistent with theguidance issued by EPA regarding fugitive dust in its General Preamble. Furthermore, the Hayden area has.not experienced any violations ofthe 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 DifferencesAmong ReceptorAnd DispersionModels,EPA, March 1987 As a result, five sources were identified

as contributing to the PM1 11 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 -levelsinjig/ levels injigl 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,ofimplementing RACM by December 10,. 1993. According to the SIP control ofithese sources will result in an estimatedemission reduction of 292 tons per year ofPM o.A more detailed discussiomn ofthe individual

source contributions, their associated control measures (including available control technology) and an explanation

as to why certain available control

measures were notimplemented, can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).

The EPAhas.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 ofPM 1 0
sources in.the Hayden area and the State addresses each.ofthem in the SIP revision. The implementation of Arizona's parta lparticulate matternonattainment plan!control strategy will resultm the attainment ofthe PM,o NAAQS;by December 31,1994.. By this. document EPA is proposing to approve

Act Amendmients'enthe form of the 1987 PM-7O SIPDevelopment 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 asexpeditiously as practicable but no,later than December 31, 1994 (See section 189(a)(1)(B) ofthe 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 owill be attained by 1990 in Hayden and

document providesageneral 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 (see40 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 ofthe 24-hour PM,, NAAQS. The annual design concentration.of31.6 ig/m 3 predicted forthe same year demonstrates attainment ofthe annual PM 1oNAAQS 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/im 3 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 ofthe 24 hour NAAQS in the Hayden area is approved as isthe,SIP's. demonstration ofattainment ofthe 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 ofPMt0 precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 ,rlevels in

excess ofthe NAAQS in that area (see. section 189(e) ofthe Act)'.

An analysis ofair quality and emissions data for the Hayden portion ofthe nonattamment area indicates that exceedances ofthe 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 ofSO, 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, levelsin excess of the NAAQS. Theconsequences ofthis finding are that the PManonattainment

area control requirements will not apply
to.

the sourcesof PMo- precursors. Further discussion ofthe analyses andi supporting rationale for EPA s finding

are contained in the Technical Support Document. Notethat while EPA is making ageneral finding for this area, today s finding is based on the current character ofthe area including, for example, the existing mix ofsources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth could changethe significance of.precursors in the area. The EPA intendsto issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance ofprecursor 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 tobe achieved every 3 years until the area isredesignated 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 Dormay reasonably be required by the Admciimstrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS bythe applicable date.

In determining RFP for this initial moderate area.EPA hasreviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the-area and assessed whether annual incremental reductions different from those provided in the SIP shouldbe required in order to ensure attainment ofthe PMo. NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). 

### Since Arizona has notrecorded a violation ofthe PMO, NAAQS in the Hayden since 1990, EPA feels that the. StateofArizona has satisfied the RFP requirement forthe 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 57FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIPrevisions were stated in a September 23, 197 memorandum (with attachments) from J.Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Airand Radiation, et a.(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain a program that provides for enforcement ofthe control

measures and otherelements. 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 tothe types ofactivities 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.thatthe affected activities are subject to the applicable control measures,

Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, theSIP requires thatall 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 inthe,supporting technical information. In addition, the SIP setsouta compliance schedule for the ASARCO smelting,facility that includes.enforceable deadlines by which the source mustimplement the appropriate control measures. The compliance schedule m described in

moredetail in thesupportingtechnical information. Compliance for certain measures, such asthe limitation of process emissions from the crushing facility and the control ofemissions from unpaved roadsmust be determined in accordance with appropriate test methods, The SIP provides that compliance with the operating permit
process emission conditions applicable
to theASARCO 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 ControlofOpenFugitiveDust 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 ofEnvironmental 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) ofthe 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 orEPA, 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 thecontingency 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 tosubmit a contingency plan.

IlL Implications ofThis Action

The EPAis proposing to, grant a limited approval/disapproval for the,SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona on October 16, 1989for the Hayden/Miami moderate PM1 0 nonattainment area., Iffinalized, 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 (seegenerally 57 FR 13566- 13567). As provided under section 179(a) ofthe Act, the State ofArizona would have up to 18 months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the deficiencies thatare the sublect ofthe disapproval before EPA is required to impose eitherthe highway funding sanction orthe requirement toprovide two-to-one new source review offsets. If the State hasnot 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. IfEPA ultimately disapproves all or part ofthe SIP submittal forthe Hayden/Miami nonattainment area and the State of Arizona fails to correct the deficiency within 18months ofsuch 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 forEPA to impose a Federal implementation plan as providedunder section 110(c)(1) ofthe Act.


### IV Request forPublic Comments

TheEPA is requesting comments on all aspects oftoday's proposal including EPA's proposed decision to impose the two to onenew sourcereview 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 addressingthe adequacy ofthe State's modeling and the accuracy ofthe 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" Ithas not been submitted to OMB for review in accordance with section 6 ofE.O 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility



### Underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5U.S.C. 600 etseq., EPA mustprepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or finalrule on small entities. 5U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I,part D ofthe CAA do not create anynew requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because theFederal SIP-approval does
not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does nothave a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature ofthe Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofState action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. 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 fornot addressing the Miami portion ofthe nonattainment area affects only one source, CyprusMiami Mining Corp. Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. isnot a small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

ListofSubjects 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. [FRDoc. 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 QualityImplementation Plans; Approvalofthe Employee Commute Options Program Submitted by the State ofConnecticut Pursuant toTitle I,Section 182(d)(1)(B) AGENCY, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: TheEPA proposes to approve 

### the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted bythe State of Connecticut for the purpose of establishing an Employee Commute Options Program (Program).-Connecticut submitted this SIPrevision 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 ormore employees
must develop compliance plans which convincingly demonstrate an increase in the average passenger occupancy (APO) of commutetrips by theiremployees by

no less than 25% above the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) ofthe nonattainment area. This action is being taken under Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. The rationale forthe approval is included in this notice; additional information is available atthe 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 ofthe 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 ofAir Management, Department ofEnvironmental 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 arevision to its State Implementation Plan.(SIP) for air quality. The-revision is designed to satisfy the requirements ofSection 182(d)(1)(B) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA).

I. Background

Section 182(d)(1)(B) ofthe CAA requires that states, in which all or part ofa 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 ofsingle occupant vehicles for work-related trips, 

### 36120