41856 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

effectiveness of such rule or action. This

action may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(122), (123), and

(124) to read as follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(122) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

17, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 17, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions to

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan,

pertaining to volatile organic compound

regulations in Maryland’s air quality

regulations, COMAR 26.11.

(B) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.01.01B(20-I) and new COMAR

26.11.24.01B(9–I), definition of the term

‘‘motor vehicle,’’ adopted by the

Secretary of the Environment on April

7, 1995, and effective on May 8, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 17, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.01.01B(20-I) and COMAR

26.11.24.01B(9-I), definition of the term

‘‘motor vehicle.’’

(123) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

12, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 12, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions and

deletions to Maryland’s State

Implementation Plan, pertaining to

volatile organic compound regulations

in Maryland’s air quality regulations,

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.

(B) Deletion of old COMAR

26.11.19.09 Volatile Organic Compound

Metal Cleaning (entire regulation).

(C) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09 Control of VOC Emissions

from Cold and Vapor Degreasing,

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on May 12, 1995, and

effective on June 5, 1995, including the

following:

(1) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.A Definitions.

(2) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.B Terms Defined, including

definitions for the terms ‘‘cold

degreasing,’’ ‘‘degreasing material,’’

‘‘grease,’’ ‘‘halogenated substance,’’

‘‘vapor degreasing,’’ and ‘‘VOC

degreasing material.’’

(3) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.C Applicability.

(4) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.D Requirements.

(5) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.E Specifications for Cold

Degreasing and Requirements for Vapor

Degreasing.

(6) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.09.F. Records.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 12, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.09 Control of VOC

Emissions from Cold and Vapor

Degreasing.

(124) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

12, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 12, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions to

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan,

pertaining to volatile organic compound

regulations in Maryland’s air quality

regulations, Code of Maryland

Administrative Regulations (COMAR)

26.11.

(B) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23 Control of VOC Emissions

from Vehicle Refinishing, adopted by

the Secretary of the Environment on

May 1, 1995, and effective on May 22,

1995, including the following:

(1) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23A Definitions, including

definitions for the terms ‘‘base coat/

clear coat system,’’ ‘‘controlled air spray

system,’’ ‘‘mobile equipment,’’

‘‘multistage coating equipment,’’

‘‘precoat,’’ ‘‘pretreatment,’’ ‘‘primer

sealer,’’ ‘‘primer surfacer,’’ ‘‘specialty

coating,’’ ‘‘topcoat,’’ and ‘‘vehicle

refinishing.’’

(2) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23B. Applicability and

Exemptions.

(3) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23C. Coating Standards and

General Conditions.

(4) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23D. Calculations.

(5) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23E. Requirements for

Specialty Coatings.

(6) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23F. Coating Application

Equipment Requirements.

(7) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23G. Cleanup and Surface

Preparation Requirements

(8) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.23H. Monitoring and Records.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 12, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.23 Vehicle

Refinishing.

[FR Doc. 97–20471 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 69–0012; FRL–5867–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—

Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and

disapproving in part the final Plan for

Attainment of the 24-hour PM–10

Standard—Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area, (May 1997)

(microscale plan) submitted by the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality on May 7, 1997. The microscale

plan evaluates attainment of the 24-hour

particulate matter (PM–10) national

ambient air quality standard at four

monitoring locations in the Maricopa

County (Phoenix), Arizona, PM–10

nonattainment area. EPA is approving

the attainment and reasonable further

progress demonstrations for two of these

sites (Salt River and Maryvale) and

disapproving them for two other sites

(West Chandler and Gilbert). EPA is also

approving the reasonably available

control measure/best available control

measure demonstrations in the

microscale plan for some significant

source categories of PM–10 but

disapproving them for others.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41857

1There are two PM–10 NAAQS, a 24-hour

standard and an annual standard. 40 CFR 50.6.

2The fifth monitoring site, East Chandler, was

dropped from the microscale plan because of a lack

of sufficient inventory data to evaluate exceedances

at that site. 62 FR 31029, ftn 10.

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California 94105. (415)

744–1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Portions of Maricopa County are

designated nonattainment for the PM–

10 national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) 1 and were

originally classified as ‘‘moderate’’

pursuant to section 188(a) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA or Act). 56 FR 11101

(March 15, 1991). The State of Arizona

developed and submitted to EPA a PM–

10 State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision intended to address the CAA

requirements for moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas. These moderate

area requirements are described in the

notice of proposed rulemaking for this

action (henceforth ‘‘the proposal’’). 62

FR 31026 (June 6, 1997). EPA approved

this SIP revision on April 10, 1995. 59

FR 38402. This approval was

subsequently vacated by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals in Ober v. EPA,

84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996). In vacating

EPA’s approval of the plan, the court

found that the State had failed to

address the 24-hour PM–10 standard in

its moderate area plan and ordered EPA

to require the State to submit moderate

area reasonably available control

measure (RACM), attainment and

reasonable further progress (RFP)

demonstrations for that standard. 84

F.d. at 311.

Just before the court issued its order,

EPA found that the Maricopa area failed

to attain the PM–10 standards by the

statutory deadline for moderate areas of

December 31, 1994. See 61 FR 21372

(May 10, 1996). As a result, the area was

reclassified to ‘‘serious.’’ The State is

now required to develop and submit a

new PM–10 plan meeting the CAA

requirements for serious PM–10

nonattainment areas by December 10,

1997. Statutory requirements for serious

area PM–10 requirements are described

in the proposal at 62 FR 31026–31027.

In order to comply with the court’s

order without diverting resources from

the serious area plan effort, EPA, in

consultation with the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) and the Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department

(MCESD), decided that the State would

incorporate the moderate area plan

elements for the 24-hour standard into

the serious area plan, but would split

that planning effort into two related

parts. Accordingly, EPA required

submittal of a limited, locally-targeted

plan (known as the microscale plan)

meeting both the moderate and serious

area requirements for the 24-hour

standard by May 9, 1997 and a full

regional plan meeting those

requirements for both the 24-hour and

annual standards by December 10, 1997.

Thus, the microscale and regional plans

taken together would satisfy both the

moderate area requirements mandated

by the court and the serious area

planning requirements for both

standards.

The submittal deadlines and

requirements applicable to the

microscale plan are contained in letters

dated September 18, 1996 and March 5,

1997 from Felicia Marcus, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region IX, to

Russell Rhoades, Director, ADEQ

(Marcus letter). In brief, the microscale

plan was to address the 24-hour

standard violations at five specific

monitors in the metropolitan Phoenix

area and meet the statutory RACM, best

available control measures (BACM),

attainment, and RFP requirements for

moderate and serious PM–10 areas.

Finally, the plan was to contain the air

quality modeling and emissions

inventory information necessary to

support the required demonstrations

and meet the generally applicable SIP

requirements for reasonable notice and

public hearing under section 110(l);

necessary assurances that the

implementing agencies have adequate

personnel, funding and authority

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

and 40 CFR 51.280; and the description

of enforcement methods as required by

40 CFR 51.111. A complete discussion

of the EPA’s rationale and requirements

for the microscale plan can be found in

the proposal at 62 FR 31027–31029.

II. Summary of the Proposal

ADEQ submitted the Plan for

Attainment of the 24-hour PM–10

Standard—Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area (May, 1997) (plan

or microscale plan) to EPA on May 9,

1997. EPA proposed to approve in part

and disapprove in part this plan on June

6, 1997 (62 FR 31025). EPA’s evaluation

of the microscale plan and its proposed

action on that plan are summarized

here; a complete discussion can be

found in the proposal and in the

technical support document (TSD) for

this rulemaking.

The microscale plan addresses

exceedances of the 24-hour PM–10

NAAQS at the Salt River, Maryvale,

Gilbert, and West Chandler PM–10

monitoring sites in the metropolitan

Phoenix area.2 The plan showed that 24-

hour exceedances at the Salt River site

were primarily due to fugitive dust from

earth moving, industrial haul roads,

unpaved parking lots, and unpaved

roads; at the Maryvale site, from

disturbed cleared area; at the Gilbert site

from agricultural field aprons and

unpaved parking lots; and at the West

Chandler site, from agricultural fields,

agricultural field aprons, vacant lots,

and disturbed cleared areas. Plan, pp.

17–19 and 62 FR 31031–31032. The

plan addressed attainment at these

localized sites by identifying RACM and

BACM appropriate for controlling these

types of fugitive dust sources. However,

the localized nature of the microscale

plan precluded a determination

regarding the extent to which the

identified RACM and BACM should be

implemented to address emissions over

a larger geographic area, as well as an

assessment of the overall effectiveness

of these measures when applied

throughout the nonattainment area as a

whole. These determinations will be

addressed by the State in the full

regional plan. Plan, pp. 21–22 and 62

FR 31031–31032.

In Maricopa County, most fugitive

dust sources are subject to MCESD’s

Rule 310 (Open Sources of Fugitive

Dust). MCESD committed in the

microscale plan to a number of

improvements to the implementation of

Rule 310. These improvements are

described in the plan (pp. 32–36) and

discussed in EPA’s proposed action on

the plan, 62 FR 31032–31034. These

improvements were primarily targeted

at sources subject to permitting (such as,

earth moving, disturbed cleared roads,

and industrial haul roads) under

MCESD’s rules. For non-permitted

sources (such as vacant lots, agricultural

sources, unpaved parking lots, and

unpaved roads), the microscale plan did

not provide for proactive

implementation of controls. 62 FR

31034. In total, the plan contained

sufficient controls to show attainment at

the Salt River and Maryvale sites but

also showed that additional controls

were needed before attainment could be

demonstrated at the West Chandler and

Gilbert sites. Plan, pp. 37–40 and 62 FR

31025.

Based on its evaluation of the

microscale plan, EPA proposed to

approve the provisions for

implementing RACM and BACM for the

significant source categories of

disturbed cleared areas, earth moving,
41858 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

3This guidance is referred to as the Addendum

and is found in ‘‘State Implementation Plans for

Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 Nonattainment

Areas Generally; Addendum to the General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998

(August 16, 1994)

4Regional implementation assured that the air

quality benefits associated with the controls

identified at a microscale site were realized over the

much larger nonattainment area and not just

narrowly at the particular microscale site. The

regional implementation approach was taken

because EPA believed that these regional air quality

benefits would outweigh any benefits that would

have accrued from a full BACM analysis resulting

in implementation of controls at the microscale

sites alone. The Agency believes that this preferable

approach warrants the brief six month deferment of

the full BACM analysis to the full regional plan.

5An example will illustrate the importance of

this regional information in determining BACM: the

microscale plan may have shown that it is

economically feasible to pave all unpaved roads

within a small microscale domain, but a regional

analysis may very well show that it is economically

infeasible to do so within the almost 2,900 square

miles of the Maricopa County PM–10

nonattainment area.

and industrial haul roads and

disapprove the provisions for

implementing RACM and BACM for the

significant source categories of

agricultural fields, agricultural aprons,

vacant lands, unpaved parking lots, and

unpaved roads. EPA also proposed to

approve the attainment and RFP

demonstrations at the Salt River and

Maryvale sites and disapprove these

demonstrations at the West Chandler

and Gilbert sites. Finally, EPA proposed

to find that the plan met the the

generally applicable SIP requirements

for reasonable notice and public hearing

under section 110(l); necessary

assurances that the implementing

agencies have adequate personnel,

funding and authority under section

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and

the description of enforcement methods

as required by 40 CFR 51.111. 62 FR

31035–31036.

III. Response to Public Comments on

the Proposal

EPA received comments on its

proposal from the Arizona Center for

Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) and

the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality. A summary of

the most pertinent comments and EPA’s

responses to those comments follow. A

complete summary of all the comments

received and EPA’s responses to those

comments can be found in the TSD.

In its June 9, 1997 comment letter,

ACLPI incorporated by reference its

April 28, 1997 comments to ADEQ. EPA

responds to both sets of comments

below.

Comment: While ACLPI agrees with

EPA’s proposal to approve the various

control measures in the microscale plan

for inclusion in the SIP, it does not

agree that these measures have been

shown to constitute BACM for all the

source categories addressed and notes

that the State indicated in the draft

microscale plan that an evaluation of

BACM was being deferred to the full

serious plan. ACLPI asserts that the final

microscale plan does not contain a

complete BACM analysis meeting all the

requirements of EPA’s PM–10 serious

area guidance 3 nor does the plan

contain any explanation of why

measures were rejected.

Response: EPA’s findings regarding

the States’ compliance with the RACM

and BACM requirements in the context

of the microscale plan recognize that

this plan is limited in nature and, thus,

is only a part of—is in essence a down

payment on—the full serious area PM–

10 plan contemplated by section 189(b)

of the Act and relevant Agency

guidance. Consequently, EPA agrees

that these measures have not been

shown to constitute complete BACM for

the eight significant source categories in

the microscale plan and that the plan

does not contain a complete BACM

analysis meeting the requirements of the

Addendum. EPA acknowledged the

limited nature of these determinations

when it stated, in its proposed action on

the microscale plan, that the proposed

findings on RACM and BACM

implementation are ‘‘applicable only to

the microscale plan and thus * * * will

not constitute EPA’s final decision as to

the State’s full compliance with CAA

section 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for

RACM and BACM for the eight source

categories.’’ 62 FR 31035. EPA further

stated in its proposal, ‘‘[t]he subject of

this proposed action is the microscale

plan only; the full regional plan is not

due until late 1997[; therefore,] it is

* * * premature to determine if the

microscale plan, in and of itself, fully

complies with the Clean Air Act

requirements for moderate and serious

PM–10 nonattainment areas.’’ 62 FR

31036. The proposal goes on to

conclude that the State ‘‘will need to reevaluate appropriate RACM and BACM

for these sources in the full regional

plan.’’ 62 FR 31035.

The Addendum defines BACM,

among other things, as the maximum

degree of emission reduction

achievable, considering energy,

economic and environmental impacts

and outlines a multi-step process for

identifying BACM. Addendum at

42010–42014. The steps are (1)

development of a detailed emission

inventory of PM-10 sources and source

categories, (2) air quality modeling

evaluating the impact on PM–10

concentrations of the various sources

and source categories to determine

which are significant, and (3)

identifying potential BACM controls for

significant source categories including

their technological feasibility, costs, and

energy and environmental impacts.

Although detailed information was

developed in the microscale plan

regarding factors such as the number

and type of emissions sources and their

emissions, this information was

gathered only for the limited geographic

area around the monitors addressed by

the microscale plan. However, EPA and

the State agreed that any identified

BACM controls resulting from the

microscale plan would be implemented

regionally, that is, throughout the entire

nonattainment area. Marcus letter. As a

technological and planning matter, it is

more logical to address the third step of

the BACM analysis (as outlined in the

Addendum) by assessing the effects of

control implementation on the regional

scale rather than the localized one

considered by the microscale plan.4 In

other words, while significant sources of

PM–10 and candidate BACM for those

sources could be identified within the

scope of the microscale plan, the final

determination about whether such

controls represent the maximum degree

of emission reductions achievable given

economic, energy and environmental

considerations depends on the type of

information being developed for the

regional plan due in December.5

Therefore, it is reasonable for the State

to undertake the full BACM analysis in

the context of the regional plan and for

EPA to defer its assessment of the

State’s compliance with the

requirements accordingly.

This is not to say that some parts of

the BACM analysis were not appropriate

for the microscale plan. In fact, the State

performed the BACM analysis required

by the Addendum except for the final

detailed evaluation of economic, energy,

and environmental considerations to

determine if the measures represented

the maximum degree of control. It

developed an emission inventory

around each monitor and evaluated the

impact of each source category on

ambient concentrations. It also

identified candidate BACM controls for

most significant source categories (Plan,

Appendix B, pp. 4–8—4–9) by

reviewing EPA’s fugitive dust guidance

documents and PM–10 controls

programs in other areas including the

South Coast (Los Angeles) Air Quality

Management District and the Coachella

Valley (Palm Springs), California. Plan,

Appendix B, p. 3–1. Based on the

documentation of this effort in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41859

6 ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document and

Technical Information Document for Best Available

Control Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004, September

1992 (Fugitive Dust BACM TID). This document is

one of several guidance documents that EPA was

required to develop on RACM and BACM for

certain PM–10 source categories pursuant to CAA

section 190.

7The modeling analysis indicated that the needed

control was stabilization or crusting of disturbed

surface areas at all times including weekends. The

analysis did not depend on a particular control

technique for achieving this stabilization. Plan, p.

27.

microscale plan, EPA has determined,

given the inherent limitations of the

microscale approach, that the plan’s

BACM analysis is consistent where

relevant with the guidance in the

Addendum. 62 FR 31031–31032.

Comment: ACLPI disagrees with

EPA’s assertions that some of the dust

control strategies in the microscale plan

constitute BACM because they represent

an improvement over existing RACM.

ACLPI argues that a control measure is

not BACM merely because it is more

effective than an existing measure or

merely because it emphasizes

prevention; rather BACM is the

maximum degree of emission reduction

achievable, considering energy,

economic and environmental impacts.

Response: As discussed immediately

above, a full BACM analysis as

contemplated by the Addendum was

not possible, for the limited purposes of

the microscale plan, in the microscale

plan; therefore, it was not possible to

determine if any particular candidate

BACM represented the ‘‘maximum

degree of emission reduction

achievable, considering energy,

economic and environmental impacts.’’

The Addendum, however, recognizes

that the source categories for PM–10 are

varied and, consequently, does not limit

its description of BACM to this

definition. In the Addendum, BACM

can ‘‘include, though it is not limited to,

expanded use of some of the same types

of control measures as those included as

RACM in the moderate area SIP.’’

Addendum at 42013. This is necessarily

the case because the universe of control

measures available to States to address

certain PM–10 sources, such as fugitive

dust, is limited. The technical guidance

on control of fugitive dust sources 6

makes this point: ‘‘When a fugitive dust

source has been controlled under a

RACM strategy, the implementation of

BACM will generally involve additive

measures that consist of a more

extensive application of fugitive dust

control measures imposed under

RACM.’’ Fugitive Dust BACM TID, p. 1–

6.

EPA also states in the Addendum a

preference that BACM include pollution

preventive measures and measures that

provide for long-term sustained progress

toward attainment rather than quick,

temporary controls. Addendum at

42013. With respect to this criterion,

EPA’s fugitive dust guidance states:

‘‘The reduction of source extent and the

incorporation of process modifications

or adjusted work practices which reduce

the amount of exposed dust-producing

material constitute preventive [best

available control] measures for control

of fugitive dust emissions.’’ Fugitive

Dust BACM TID, p. 1–6.

Given that both the Addendum and

the Fugitive Dust BACM TID provide

that adoption of control measures that

go beyond or expand the use of adopted

RACM and that emphasize prevention

constitute BACM for fugitive dust

sources especially, it is appropriate for

EPA to assess the BACM analysis in the

microscale plan in terms of these

criteria, as well as to conclude that the

microscale plan’s BACM demonstration,

within the narrow scope of that plan, is

acceptable. These criteria are discussed

in greater detail in the proposal and

TSD (62 FR 31029 and TSD, p. 21) and

are, as noted, fully consistent with the

Addendum. Finally, EPA notes that,

given the limited set of measures

available for control of PM–10 fugitive

dust sources, the BACM selected for

implementation after the complete

BACM analysis required by the

Addendum is performed for the regional

plan may be the same as those identified

in the microscale plan.

Comment: ACLPI asserts that EPA

must disapprove the BACM

demonstration for all source categories

in the microscale plan, not just the five

that EPA proposed and that such a

disapproval would not impose any

severe or unexpected burdens on the

State since the State is already planning

to do a full BACM analysis after

submission of the microscale plan.

ACLPI asserts that EPA’s approval of the

state’s ‘‘thin or nonexistent’’ analysis as

a BACM demonstration would create a

serious risk of weakening the entire

particulate matter program because

other states may well cite EPA’s action

here as evidence of what constitutes

BACM for these sources when in fact

there are much more effective measures

in practice.

Response: EPA has found that the

microscale plan contains adequate

BACM demonstrations for three source

categories and inadequate BACM

demonstrations for five categories and

has fully documented its determinations

in the proposal and supporting TSD. 62

FR 31031–31035 and TSD, pp. 24–34.

EPA based its determination on Clean

Air Act requirements, the Addendum,

the requirements for the microscale plan

laid out in the Marcus letters, the

inherent limitations of the microscale

approach, and the information

presented in the microscale plan.

ACLPI’s concern about risking the

entire particulate matter program

because other states may cite to this

action is unfounded. First, EPA has

made it clear that its findings are

limited to the microscale plan and that

‘‘the State will need to re-evaluate

appropriate RACM and BACM for these

sources in the full regional plan.’’ 62 FR

31035. Second, as noted by ACLPI in its

comments, the final determination of

BACM is based, per EPA guidance, on

a showing that a selected control is the

‘‘maximum degree of emission

reduction achievable, considering

energy, economic and environmental

impacts.’’ Addendum at 42010. Since

determining BACM for significant

source categories like those in the

microscale plan is necessarily based on

area-specific information regarding

energy, economics, and environmental

impacts, each serious PM–10 area must

perform its own BACM analysis. While

other areas may review the microscale

plan to identify candidate BACM

measures, they cannot assume that

something is or is not BACM simply

because it has been determined to be so

in the microscale plan.

Comment: ACLPI comments that the

plan does not clearly identify which

control strategies will be required in a

given situation, noting that Rule 310

and the dust control plan form list

various control options, some of which

may constitute BACM but there is no

assurance that the BACM option will be

chosen by the source in any given

situation. On the same theme, ACLPI

notes that while the attainment

demonstration at the Salt River site

assumed watering to the depth of the

cut, the plan does not clearly require

this strategy in every situation. ACLPI

asserts that EPA should condition its

approval of the attainment

demonstration at the Salt River site on

the County providing a clear

commitment to requiring this strategy.

Response: While the dust control plan

checklist covers a broad range of dust

generating activities, it narrowly limits

the control options available for any

particular activity. For example, the

BACM identified in the microscale plan

for disturbed cleared areas is

stabilization of the surface at all times

including weekends.7 This BACM is

reflected on the checklist in the category

‘‘temporary stabilization’’ which

requires stabilization of disturbed

cleared areas (including weekends and
41860 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

8The equivalency of these two measures is shown

in Table 4–1 (Plan, p. 22) in the microscale plan

which gives the control efficiency of chemical

stabilization at 82–97 percent and that of watering

to maintain a crust at 90 percent.

9This limitation on control options is also true for

the other two source categories for which EPA is

approving the RACM/BACM demonstration:

industrial haul roads (3 options, stabilize with

gravel, dust suppressant or water) and earthmoving

(2 options, water to the depth of the cut or water

to eliminate or minimize visible emissions). Plan,

p. 34.

10These inspectors are the ones who inspect

stationary sources that may have Rule 310 sources,

such as earth moving, located on them (like many

of the stationary sources surrounding the Salt River

monitor) and respond to complaints. Letter, Joy A.

Bell, MCESD, to Frances Wicher, EPA, July 2, 1997

(July 2 Bell letter).

11The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

adopted on May 14, 1997 a resolution committing

to implement improvements to the administration

of the fugitive dust control program and to foster

interagency cooperation to address fugitive dust.

The microscale plan included the draft resolution,

and ADEQ transmitted the adopted resolution to

EPA on May 27, 1997. See letter from Nancy Wrona,

ADEQ, to John Kennedy, EPA.

12EPA considers an on-site visit to a facility an

inspection only if it meets EPA’s Level II inspection

requirements. In short, Level II inspections require

an assessment of the compliance status of all units

within a source that are subject to SIP, New Source

Performance Standards, or National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant regulation.

‘‘Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy,’’ March

1991, (Revised CMS) p. 3.

13EPA again notes that the MCESD committed to

use these inspection resources as needed to

implement Rule 310. The County also committed to

revising its standard operating procedures for

stationary source inspections to include Rule 310

compliance checks. Plan, Appendix E, Bell letter.

holidays) using one of two equivalent

control techniques—water to form a

crust or application of chemical

stabilizers to form a crust.8, 9 Plan, p. 34.

For the Salt River site, ACLPI’s

comment illustrates the importance of

regional evaluation in the final

determination of BACM. While wetting

to the depth of the cut was appropriate

for the cutting operation at the Salt

River site, it may not always be

appropriate at cutting operations

elsewhere in the nonattainment area.

For example, soil types vary throughout

the Maricopa area and in some places a

coleche layer or patch may be present.

A coleche layer is impermeable to water

and thus watering to the depth of the

cut is not feasible when a coleche layer

is encountered during cutting

operations. Plan, Appendix G, p. 2.

Since dust control is still needed where

water to the depth of the cut is

impracticable, the provision of a second

equivalent control option—in this case,

watering as necessary to prevent or

minimize visible emissions—is

reasonable and necessary. Since the

checklist already requires application of

at least one of these two options, EPA

does not believe that it need condition

its approval of the attainment

demonstration at the Salt River monitor

on the County providing a clear

commitment to require watering to the

depth of the cut in every situation.

Comment: Stating that the Clean Air

Act requires that the SIP assure

adequate resources for enforcement and

that the attainment demonstrations in

the microscale plan depend on adequate

enforcement of Rule 310, ACLPI asserts

that the County continues to operate

this program with ‘‘grossly’’ inadequate

staffing levels. ACLPI notes that the

plan indicates that the County is

dedicating only 1.75 FTEs to the dust

control program and asserts that other

county inspectors are ‘‘available’’ to

perform field observations and respond

to complaints, but apparently only

when their other duties allow and that

the County does not quantify or even

estimate how much time these other

inspectors will spend on Rule 310

enforcement. ACLPI asserts that,

because there is no commitment to

assign any specified level of staffing

from this group, EPA must assume for

SIP purposes that it will be zero.

Response: The microscale plan does

not indicate that the County is

dedicating only 1.75 FTE to

implementing Rule 310. The plan

clearly indicates that 1.75 FTE is the

number of staff that are assigned full

time to Rule 310 implementation and

that there are a number of other

personnel who work on Rule 310

implementation as part of their

responsibilities and as needed. These

other personnel include the public

involvement coordinator, the small

business assistance program, and 19

other inspectors, aides, engineers and

supervisors.10 Plan, Appendix E, Letter,

Joy Bell, MCESD, to Joe Gibbs, ADEQ,

May 6, 1997 (Bell letter).11 It should also

be noted that the County’s commitment

to use these other resources to

implement Rule 310 is not ‘‘when

available’’ as ACLPI asserts but ‘‘as

needed.’’ Plan, Appendix E, Bell letter.

The Cities are also contributing

resources to improving implementation

of Rule 310 through the regional

coordination effort. Plan, Appendix E,

‘‘Resolutions Adopted by Various Cities

and Towns within Maricopa County’’

(city resolutions).

EPA does not believe that it must be

assumed for SIP purposes that the

resources from these other inspectors

must be zero simply because the County

did not quantify or even estimate how

much time these other inspectors will

spend on Rule 310 enforcement.

Inspectors inspect facilities, and most

facilities have multiple, distinct

emission points. Each point is

potentially subject to a different rule or

regulation. Because of this, inspectors

are trained to be able to inspect facilities

for compliance with a number of rules.12

Because an inspector may do

inspections for compliance with

multiple rules on a single site visit, it is

difficult, if not impossible, to tease out

just how much time is or will be spent

inspecting for compliance with a

particular rule. Thus, the lack of a

specific numerical FTE commitment to

Rule 310 implementation for the 19

inspectors, aides, engineers, and

supervisors does not bar considering

their availability in determining if the

plan provides for adequate resources.13

Most importantly, MCESD’s

commitments to improving Rule 310

implementation go well beyond just

adding staff. The commitments include

upgrading the Rule’s implementation

guidelines, educating the regulated

community about its responsibilities

under the Rule, revising its inspection

procedures, providing a small business

assistance program, and coordinating

with the Cities and towns of Maricopa

County. To judge the adequacy of the

resources to carry out the microscale

plan’s control strategy, EPA evaluated

this entire set of commitments as well

as the information contained in the plan

about the nature and extent of sources

contributing to the 24-hour PM–10

standard exceedances and the controls

needed to eliminate these exceedances.

This evaluation (which is discussed

extensively in the proposal and the

TSD) led EPA to two conclusions: One,

that the microscale plan provided the

necessary assurances that adequate

resources are available to implement

Rule 310 for permitted sources, and two,

that the plan did not provide the

required assurances that controls will be

implemented by Maricopa County on

non-permitted sources. As a result of

these conclusions, EPA is approving the

RACM/BACM demonstration for

permitted source categories and

disapproving the demonstrations for the

non-permitted source categories.

Comment: In its April 28, 1997

comments ACLPI notes that in addition

to inspecting 1,200 to 1,600 new

permittees every year, these inspectors

must respond to complaints and

monitor compliance by previously

permitted facilities and that it seems

impossible that the County will be able

to inspect each new permittee once per

year unless the inspectors neglect other

facilities. ACLPI notes further that once

per year inspection is grossly

inadequate in many cases—particularly

where a source has a chronic problem
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41861

14 ‘‘Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy,’’

March 1991, Appendix 5. In California, most air

pollution control districts inspect all their minor

sources at least once every two (e.g., Ventura

County) to four years (South Coast). See FY 1995–

97 Compliance Operating Plans.

and requires repeated visits. Finally,

ACLPI states that the County does not

explain how it expects to identify

unpermitted sources that fail to selfreport.

Response: MCESD has committed to

inspecting all sites of 10 acres and larger

(Plan, Appendix E, Bell letter) and

targets smaller sources based on past

history of the contractor and/or

developer and field observations. Plan,

p. 12. Resources in the plan are

adequate for this level of inspection as

committed to by MCESD. Between June

1, 1996 and May 31, 1997, the County

inspected 43 percent of sources 10 acres

or greater. July 2 Bell letter. This was

the inspection rate with only 0.75 FTE

dedicated to the program. With the

additional FTE allocated to the program,

the County should easily meet its

commitment. Plan, Appendix E, Bell

letter. The County is upgrading and

integrating its database to be better able

to identify problem sources. Plan,

Appendix E, Bell letter. In addition, the

cooperative program with Cities that

includes better training of City

inspectors on Rule 310 requirements

should also help identify and target

problem sources. Plan, Appendix E, city

resolutions.

Focusing resources on and targeting

annual inspections to larger sources

(with their inherent ability to be more

polluting) are consistent with EPA’s

inspection guidance which calls for

inspecting large sources annually but

does not specify an inspection

frequency for smaller sources.14

The County addressed its method for

identifying unpermitted sources in the

microscale plan and agreed to provide

an annual summary of notices of

violations and citations for failure to

obtain earthmoving permits. Plan,

Appendix G, p. 18.

Comment: In its April 28, 1997

comments, ACLPI enclosed excerpts of

EPA’s July, 1992 audit of the County’s

Air Quality Program. ACLPI states that

among other things, the audit found that

the County failed to inspect many

facilities on an annual basis, that

enforcement and penalties were grossly

inadequate, and that there was no

program to identify unpermitted

facilities. ACLPI also enclosed a copy of

the 1996 internal County Audit finding

that the Air Pollution program was

seriously understaffed, and that the

County had no process in place to verify

the accuracy of emissions survey

information submitted by sources.

ACLPI asserts that in light of these

findings, the County cannot adequately

expand Rule 310 enforcement by adding

just one FTE.

Response: The County has made a

number of changes to its program to

address EPA’s and the County auditor’s

findings. As noted in the microscale

plan, MCESD has added five inspectors

since January, 1996 (Plan, Appendix G,

p. 26) and has moved to improve its

database tracking systems to address

problems in verifying the accuracy of

emission survey information submitted

by sources. (See, in general,

Memorandum, Al Brown, Director,

MCESD, to Ross Tate, Lead Auditor,

Internal Audit Department, ‘‘Maricopa

County Environmental Services

Department’s Response to the June 1996

Performance Audit,’’ July 12, 1996,

reproduced in the Plan, Appendix G).

EPA evaluated MCESD’s enforcement

policy for the proposal and found that

it is adequate to meet the requirements

of 40 CFR 51.111(a) and CAA section

110(a)(2)(C). 62 FR 31036.

Comment: ACLPI also takes issue

with EPA’s assertion that the state need

not control source categories that

contribute less than 5 μg/m3 to a

location of expected 24-hour

exceedance. ACLPI claims that there is

absolutely no authority in the Act for

EPA to exempt such sources and that

such an exemption is contrary to the

Act’s emphasis on timely attainment

and protection of health. Control of a

source category contributing 5 μg/m3,

could make a difference between

attainment and nonattainment. ACLPI

gives, as an example of its position, a

site with ambient 24-hour levels in the

155 to 158 μg/m3 range and states that

with a 80 percent control effectiveness

of a source category contributing 5 μg/

m3, the site would become attainment.

Based on this example, ACLPI

concludes that it is wholly irrational for

EPA to assert that such a source

category is invariably de minimis.

Further, ACLPI asserts that since PM–10

is a nonthreshold pollutant and thus

adverse health effects increase on a

linear scale with increased

concentration, any reductions in PM–10

levels will have direct public health

benefits.

ACLPI claims that EPA does not

explain where the de minimis principle

comes into play in its proposed

approval of the microscale plan and

asks EPA to provide such an

explanation in response to its

comments.

Response: Contrary to what the

comment implies, EPA has not taken the

position in this rulemaking—nor does

the Agency’s PM–10 serious area

guidance take the position—that the

State need not control insignificant

source categories if such controls are

needed for attainment. Rather, EPA’s

position is that the level of control on

such insignificant sources need only be

at the level required to demonstrate

reasonable further progress and

expeditious attainment. Addendum at

42011. This level may not be at RACM,

or if applicable, BACM levels. In other

words, the de minimis policy is invoked

only for determining which source

categories need RACM and/or BACM

and not for determining which source

categories need controls for attainment.

For serious PM–10 nonattainment areas

such as the Maricopa County area, the

CAA requires the plan to include not

only BACM but also a demonstration of

attainment by the statutory deadline or

the most expeditious alternative

deadline practicable. Sections 189(b)(2)

and 189(b)(1)(A). EPA’s de minimis

exemption for BACM does not interfere

with this latter requirement for

expeditious attainment and thus does

not defeat the Act’s requirement for

timely attainment and protection of

health.

ACLPI’s example is somewhat

puzzling because it appears to assume

that the 155 to 158 μg/m3 level is made

up of 30 plus source categories each

contributing no more than 5 μg/m3 (31

sources each contributing 5 μg/m3=155

μg/m3). This case is very unlikely; what

is more likely is that there would be one

or more significant source categories in

addition to a number of insignificant

ones that make up the 155–158 μg/m3

level. Adequate controls on these

significant sources would reduce

ambient concentrations below the

standard. Even if this were not the case,

a state still is required to demonstrate

attainment and thus would need to

control at least some of the de minimis

sources.

EPA did provide a thorough

explanation of how the de minimis

principle affected its proposed action on

the microscale plan. First, EPA fully

discusses its de minimis policy and the

rationale and legal authority for that

policy in the Addendum at 42011. This

policy states that BACM are required for

all categories of sources in serious areas

unless the State adequately

demonstrates that a particular source

category does not contribute

significantly to nonattainment of the

PM–10 NAAQS and that a source

category will be presumed to contribute

significantly to a violation of the 24-

hour NAAQS if its PM–10 impact at the

location of the expected violations

would exceed 5 μg/m3. EPA referenced
41862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

15Except for paved roads and paved parking

areas, all these source categories are already subject

to controls and in most cases are permitted by

MCESD. Improvements to the overall permitting,

inspection, and enforcement program at the County

should improve implementation of the controls on

these sources.

16Unpaved roads is a significant source category

at the Salt River monitor and is thus a significant

source category subject to RACM and BACM

requirements even thought it was found to be an

insignificant source category at the other three

monitors. EPA is disapproving the plan’s provisions

for implementing RACM/BACM for this source

category. The recently complete regional emission

inventory shows that paved roads are very likely to

be a significant source category in the regional plan.

1994 Regional PM–10 Emission Inventory for the

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (Draft Final

Report), Maricopa Association of Governments,

May 1997, p. 2–2.

17 61 FR 65638 (December 13, 1996). The final

notice revising the particulate matter standards was

signed by the Administrator on July 16, 1997.

18These rules were originally approved by EPA

as part of the approval of the Maricopa moderate

area plan in 1995. 60 FR 18009. While not at issue

in the litigation regarding that plan, EPA’s approval

of these rules was also incidently vacated by the

Ober decision; therefore, EPA must restore its

approval of these rules.

this discussion in the proposal in the

section describing the requirement for

BACM. 62 FR 31028. Secondly, EPA

proposed, solely for the purposes of

evaluating the microscale plan, to use

the 5 μg/m3 action level to determine

which source categories required

RACM. 62 FR 31027.

The State generated tables that listed

each contributing source category at

each monitor and that source’s ambient

impact at the monitor and at the point

of maximum concentration. Plan, Tables

3–2 to 3–5, pp. 17–19 and Appendix A,

Tables 5–2 to 5–7 pp. 5–4—5–9 and

Table 7–3, p. 7–20. Based on the State’s

documentation, EPA determined and

thoroughly documented which source

categories were significant and thus

required the application of RACM and

BACM. 62 FR 31031 and TSD at pp. 24–

27. Except for some source categories at

the Salt River monitor (TSD, p. 25), EPA

did not also list the insignificant sources

at each monitor since this information

can be easily determined from the cited

tables in the microscale plan and in the

TSD (Tables II–3 through II–6, pp. 15–

18). EPA has revised the TSD to

specifically state which source

categories EPA found insignificant.

These following source categories were

found to be insignificant: for the Salt

River monitor, industrial yards, surface

mining, other industrial activities,

paved roads, trackout, and paved

parking lots;15 for the Maryvale monitor,

paved roads and unpaved roads;16 for

the Gilbert monitor, paved roads and

unpaved roads; and for the West

Chandler monitor, paved and unpaved

roads. It should be noted that even

complete elimination of emissions from

these insignificant sources would not

have resulted in attainment at any of the

monitors.

EPA has not made a finding that PM–

10 is a nonthreshold pollutant; that is,

that there is a direct linear relationship

between PM–10 reductions and health

benefits to the public. Although the

PM–10 NAAQS is set—indeed is

required under CAA section 109(b) to be

set—at levels that provide an adequate

safety margin with respect to overall

public health, some degree of risk

remains at levels below the NAAQS. As

described extensively in the recent

proposal to revise the particulate matter

NAAQS,17 the overall consistency and

coherence of the epidemiological

evidence strongly suggests a likely

causal role of ambient particulate matter

in contributing to adverse health effects

(61 FR 65648 and 65653); however, at

the same time, EPA cautioned that

seeking to derive quantitative health

risk estimates from this evidence

includes significant uncertainties (61 FR

65649 and 65653). These uncertainties

are greater with respect to attempts to

estimate health risks associated with the

coarse fraction of particulate matter, that

is, particulate with diameters between

2.5 and 10 microns (61 FR 65649).

Fugitive dust is primarily coarse

fraction PM–10 and, as demonstrated in

the microscale plan, fugitive dust is the

primary cause of 24-hour PM–10

exceedances in the Maricopa County

area. Thus, ACLPI’s claim that PM–10 is

a nonthreshold pollutant is unsupported

by the current scientific evidence.

IV. Final Actions

A. Final Approvals and Disapprovals

For the reasons discussed above and

in the proposal, EPA is approving:

(1) Under sections 172(c)(1),

189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B), the

provisions for implementing RACM and

BACM for the significant source

categories of disturbed cleared areas,

earth moving, and industrial haul roads;

and

(2) Under sections 189(a)(1)(B),

189(b)(1)(A), and 189(c), the attainment

and RFP demonstrations for the

Maryvale and Salt River sites.

EPA is also approving the following

as elements of the Arizona PM–10 State

Implementation Plan for the Maricopa

area:

(1) The resolution by the County of

Maricopa to improve the administration

of Maricopa County’s fugitive dust

control program and to foster

interagency cooperation (adopted May

14, 1997);

(2) The resolutions of intent to work

cooperatively with Maricopa County to

control the generation of fugitive dust

pollution adopted by the Cities of

Phoenix (April 9, 1997), Tempe (March

27, 1997), Chandler (March 27, 1997),

Glendale (March 25, 1997), Scottsdale

(March 31, 1997), and Mesa (April 23,

1997) and the Town of Gilbert (April 15,

1997); and

(3) MCESD’s Rule 310 (Open Fugitive

Dust Sources), Rule 311 (Particulate

Matter from Process Industries) and

Rule 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral Mining

and Processing).18

EPA is finding that the microscale

plan: (1) provides the necessary

assurances that the state and local

agencies have adequate personnel,

funding and authority under state law to

carry out the submitted microscale plan;

and (2) includes an adequate

enforcement program, as required by

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and

110(a)(2)(C).

For the reasons discussed above and

in the proposal, EPA is disapproving:

(1) Under sections 172(c)(1),

189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B), the

provisions for implementing RACM and

BACM for the significant source

categories of agricultural fields,

agricultural aprons, vacant lands,

unpaved parking lots, and unpaved

roads; and

(2) Under sections 189(a)(1)(B),

189(b)(1)(A), and 189(c)(1), the

attainment and RFP demonstrations at

the West Chandler and Gilbert sites.

These approvals, disapprovals, and

findings are applicable only to the

microscale plan and thus, do not

constitute EPA’s final decision as to the

State’s full compliance with the

requirements of CAA sections

189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B) for RACM

and BACM for the eight source

categories and CAA sections

189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and 189(c)(1)

for attainment and RFP demonstrations

at the Salt River, Maryvale, Gilbert and

West Chandler monitoring sites. The

State will need to re-evaluate

appropriate RACM and BACM for these

sources in the full regional plan and,

because regional factors may influence

attainment at these sites, the State will

need to re-evaluate modeling at all four

sites as part of that plan.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for a

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic and

environmental factors and in relation to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41863

19The FIP deadlines each advance 2 months if

EPA fails to act on the microscale plan by July 18,

1997.

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

B. Consequences of the Final

Disapprovals

As noted before, EPA required

submittal of a microscale plan meeting

both the moderate and serious area

requirements for the 24-hour PM–10

standard by May 9, 1997 and a full

regional plan meeting those

requirements for both the 24-hour and

annual standards by December 10, 1997.

The microscale and regional plans taken

together would satisfy both the

moderate area requirements for the 24-

hour standard mandated by the Ninth

Circuit in Ober and the serious area

planning requirements for both

standards. The subject of this final

action is the microscale plan only; the

full regional plan is not due until late

1997. It is, therefore, premature to

determine if the microscale plan, in and

of itself, fully complies with the Clean

Air Act requirements for moderate and

serious PM–10 nonattainment areas.

Such a determination is not possible

until the regional plan is submitted and

reviewed.

Because the microscale plan taken

alone is not intended to fully comply

with the RACM/BACM implementation,

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements

of the Clean Air Act, the final

disapprovals of portions of the

microscale plan do not trigger sanctions

under CAA section 179(a). CAA section

179(a) requires the imposition of one of

the sanctions in section 179(b) within

18 months of a disapproval if EPA

‘‘disapproves a [State] submission * * *

based on the submission’s failure to

meet one or more of the elements

required by [the CAA]’’. Because the

purpose of the microscale plan was to,

in effect, provide a down payment

towards meeting certain requirements of

the Act, EPA is not, at this time,

proposing to find that the State has

failed to meet any of the applicable

elements required by the CAA as

contemplated by section 179(a).

EPA is subject to the terms of a

consent decree approved by the U.S.

District Court for the District of Arizona

on March 25, 1997. Ober v. Browner,

No. CIV 94–1318 PHX PGR. The consent

decree obligates EPA to propose a

federal implementation plan (FIP) for

PM–10 in the Maricopa nonattainment

area by March 20, 1998 and finalize that

FIP by July 18, 1998 19 if the Agency

disapproves all or part of the microscale

plan. Therefore, based on the final

disapprovals described above, EPA has

an obligation to promulgate a regional

moderate area PM–10 FIP that addresses

the statutory requirements for

attainment, RACM and RFP. Under the

consent decree, the scope of this FIP

obligation is reduced to the extent that

EPA approves by July 18, 1998 SIP

provisions meeting the statutory

requirements for RACM, RFP and

attainment for moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas.

EPA believes, as is expressed in CAA

section 101(a), that air pollution control

is primarily the responsibility of states

and local jurisdictions. Therefore, the

Agency will work with the State of

Arizona and the local agencies and

jurisdictions responsible for PM–10

planning and control in Maricopa

County to develop SIP provisions that

can reduce the scope of, or eliminate,

any potential FIP. Considerable work is

already underway or planned in the area

to address the PM–10 problem. As noted

before, the full serious area regional

PM–10 plan is due December 10, 1997.

In addition, the microscale plan

contains two initiatives, MCESD’s

regional program to address controls on

nonpermitted sources and the ADEQ/

MCESD/NRCS agreement to address

fugitive dust from agricultural sources,

that are targeted at significant but

currently uncontrolled sources of PM–

10.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

business, small not-for-profit enterprises

and government entities with

jurisdiction over populations of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air

Act, do not create any new requirements

but simply approve requirements that

the State is already imposing. Similarly,

withdrawal of the FIP contingency

process does not impose any new

requirements. Therefore, because the

federal SIP approval and FIP

withdrawal does not impose any new

requirements, the Administrator

certifies that they do not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal/state relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

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

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

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 2 U.S.C.

1501–1571, signed into law on March

22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary

impact statement to accompany any

proposed or final rule that includes a

federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

that objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

this rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

federal mandate that may result in

estimate costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These

rules may bind State, local, and tribal

governments to perform certain actions

and also require the private sector to

perform certain duties. To the extent

that the rules being approved today will

impose any mandate upon the State,

local, or tribal governments either as the

owner or operator of a source or as a

regulator, or would impose any mandate

upon the private sector, EPA’s action

will impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these

requirements under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. EPA has also determined that

this action does not include a mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to State, local, or
41864 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

tribal governments in the aggregate or to

the private sector. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, imposes no

new Federal requirements, and

withdraws other federal requirements

applicable only to EPA. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

results from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judaical review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by October 3, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. See section

307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: July 18, 1997.

Harry Seraydarian,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in this notice,

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing and reserving

paragraph (c)(73);

b. By revising paragraph (c)(74)(i)(A)

and removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(74)(i)(B);

c. By removing paragraph

(c)(77)(i)(A)(1) and redesignating

paragraph (c)(77)(i)(A)(2) as

(c)(77)(i)(A)(1); and

d. By adding paragraph (c)(88), to read

as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(74) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department new Rule 316,

adopted July 6, 1993, and revised Rule

311, adopted August 2, 1993. Note:

These rules are restored as elements of

the State of Arizona Air Pollution

Control Implementation Plan effective

September 3, 1997.

* * * * *

(88) Plan revisions were submitted on

May 7, 1997 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department.

(1) Rule 310, adopted September 20,

1994.

(2) Resolution To Improve the

Administration of Maricopa County’s

Fugitive Dust Program and to Foster

Interagency Cooperation, adopted May

14, 1997.

(B) The City of Phoenix, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Phoenix City

Council Stating the City’s Intent to Work

Cooperatively with Maricopa County to

Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust

Pollution, adopted April 9, 1997.

(C) The City of Tempe, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Council of the

City of Tempe, Arizona, Stating Its

Intent to Work Cooperatively with

Maricopa County to Control the

Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution,

adopted March 27, 1997.

(D) The Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Mayor and the

Common Council of the Town of

Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona,

Providing for the Town’s Intent to Work

Cooperatively with Maricopa County,

Arizona, to Control the Generation of

Fugitive Dust Pollution, adopted April

15, 1997.

(E) The City of Chandler, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the City Council

of the City of Chandler, Arizona, Stating

the City’s Intent to Work Cooperatively

with Maricopa County to Control the

Generation of Fugitive Dust Pollution,

adopted March 27, 1997.

(F) The City of Glendale, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Council of the

City of Chandler, Maricopa County,

Arizona, Stating Its Intent to Work

Cooperatively with Maricopa County to

Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust

Pollution, adopted March 25, 1997.

(G) The City of Scottsdale, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Scottsdale City

Council Stating the City’s Intent to Work

Cooperatively with Maricopa County to

Control the Generation of Fugitive Dust

Pollution, adopted March 31, 1997.

(H) The City of Mesa, Arizona.

(1) A Resolution of the Mesa City

Council Stating the City’s Intent to Work

Cooperatively with Maricopa County to

Control the Generation of Particulate Air

Pollution and Directing City Staff to

Develop a Particulate Pollution Control

Ordinance Supported by Adequate

Staffing Levels to Address Air Quality,

adopted April 23, 1997.

* * * * *

3. Section 52.123 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 52.123 Approval status.

* * * * *

(f) Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area (Phoenix Planning

Area). (1) Plan for Attainment of the 24-

hour PM–10 Standard—Maricopa

County PM–10 Nonattainment Area

(May, 1997) submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on May 7, 1997.

(i) The Administrator approves the

provisions for implementing RACM and

BACM for the significant source

categories of disturbed cleared areas,

earth moving, and industrial haul roads.

(ii) The Administrator approves the

attainment and reasonable further

progress demonstrations for the

Maryvale PM–10 monitoring site and

Salt River PM–10 monitoring site.

(iii) The approvals in paragraphs

(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section are

applicable only to the plan identified in

paragraph (f)(1) of this section and do

not constitute the Administrator’s final

decision as to the State’s full

compliance with the requirements of

Clean Air Act sections 189(a)(1)(C) and

189(b)(1)(B) for RACM and BACM and

sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and

189(c)(1) for attainment and reasonable

further progress.

4. Section 52.124 is amended by

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.124 Part D disapproval.

* * * * *

(b) Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area (Phoenix Planning

Area). (1) Plan for Attainment of the 24-

hour PM–10 Standard—Maricopa

County PM–10 Nonattainment Area

(May, 1997) submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on May 7, 1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41865

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

(i) The Administrator disapproves the

provisions for implementing RACM and

BACM for the significant source

categories of agricultural fields,

agricultural aprons, vacant lands,

unpaved parking lots, and unpaved

roads.

(ii) The Administrator disapproves

the attainment and reasonable further

progress demonstrations for the Gilbert

PM–10 monitoring site and West

Chandler PM–10 monitoring site.

(iii) The disapprovals in paragraphs

(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section are

applicable only to the plan identified in

paragraph (f)(1) of this section and do

not constitute the Administrator’s final

decision as to the State’s full

compliance with the requirements of

Clean Air Act sections 189(a)(1)(C) and

189(b)(1)(B) for RACM and BACM and

sections 189(a)(1)(B), 189(b)(1)(A) and

189(c)(1) for attainment and reasonable

further progress. Therefore such

disapprovals do not constitute state

failures for the purpose of triggering

sanctions under § 179(a) of the Clean

Air Act.

[FR Doc. 97–20470 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 179–0045a; FRL–5863–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. This action

is an administrative change which

revises the definition of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and updates the

Exempt Compound list in rules from the

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District (BAAQMD). The intended effect

of approving this action is to

incorporate changes to the definition of

VOC and to update the Exempt

Compound list in BAAQMD rules to be

consistent with the revised federal and

state VOC definitions.

DATES: This action is effective on

October 3, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

September 3, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and

EPA’s evaluation report for these rules

are available for public inspection at

EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted

rules are available for inspection at the

following locations:

Rulemaking Office (Air–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

CA 94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board, Stationary

Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section,

2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District,

939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(Air–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules with definition revisions

being approved into the California SIP

include the following Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Rules

(BAAQMD): Rule 8–4, General Solvent

and Surface Coating Operations; Rule 8–

11, Metal Container, Closure and Coil

Coating; Rule 8–12, Paper, Fabric, and

Film Coating; Rule 8–13, Light and

Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Assembly

Plants; Rule 8–14, Surface Coating of

Large Appliance and Metal Furniture;

Rule 8–19, Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products;

Rule 8-20, Graphic Arts Printing and

Coating; Rule 8–23, Coating of Flat

Wood Paneling and Wood Flat Stock;

Rule 8–29, Aerospace Assembly and

Component Coating Operations; 8–31,

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and

Products; Rule 8–32, Wood Products;

Rule 8–38, Flexible and Rigid Disc

Manufacturing; Rule 8–43, Surface

Coating of Marine Vessels; Rule 8–45,

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Coating Operations; and 8–50, Polyester

Resin Operations. These rules were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on July 23,

1996.

Background

On June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31633) EPA

published a final rule excluding acetone

from the definition of VOC. On February

7, 1996 (61 FR 4588) EPA published a

final rule excluding perchloroethylene

from the definition of VOC. On May 1,

1996 (61 FR 19231) EPA published a

proposed rule excluding HFC 43–10mee

and HCFC 225ca and cb from the

definition of VOC. These compounds

were determined to have negligible

photochemical reactivity and thus, were

added to the Agency’s list of Exempt

Compounds.

The State of California submitted

many revised rules for incorporation

into its SIP on July 23, 1996, including

the rules being acted on in this

administrative action. This action

addresses EPA’s direct-final action for

BAAQMD Rule 8–4, General Solvent

and Surface Coating Operations; Rule 8–

11, Metal Container, Closure and Coil

Coating; Rule 8–12, Paper, Fabric, and

Film Coating; Rule 8–13, Light and

Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Assembly

Plants; Rule 8–14, Surface Coating of

Large Appliance and Metal Furniture;

Rule 8–19, Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products;

Rule 8–20, Graphic Arts Printing and

Coating; Rule 8–23, Coating of Flat

Wood Paneling and Wood Flat Stock;

Rule 8–29, Aerospace Assembly and

Component Coating Operations; 8–31,

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and

Products; Rule 8–32, Wood Products;

Rule 8–38, Flexible and Rigid Disc

Manufacturing; Rule 8–43, Surface

Coating of Marine Vessels; Rule 8–45,

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Coating Operations; and 8–50, Polyester

Resin Operations. These rules were

adopted by the BAAQMD on December

20, 1995 and were found to be complete

on October 30, 1996, pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V 1 and are

being finalized for approval into the SIP.

This administrative revision adds

acetone, perchloroethylene, HFC 43–

10mee and HCFC 225ca and cb to the

list of compounds which make a

negligible contribution to tropospheric

ozone formulation. Thus, EPA is

finalizing the approval of the revised

definitions to be incorporated into the

California SIP for the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EPA Evaluation and Action

This administrative action is

necessary to make the VOC definition in

BAAQMD rules consistent with federal

and state definitions of VOC. This

action will result in more accurate

assessment of ozone formation

potential, will remove unnecessary

control requirements and will assist

States in avoiding exceedences of the