Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 126/Friday, June 29, 2001/Proposed Rules

burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
ListofSubjects in40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401 etseq. Dated: May8,2001. Norman Neidergang, ActingRegional Administrator, Region5. [FRDoc. 01-16437 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [AZ105-0040; FRL-7005-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; ArizonaMaricopa Nonattainment Area; PM-10
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act),

as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), a general permit rule that provides for the expeditious implementation ofbest management practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate matter (PM-10)from agricultural sources in the Maricopa County (Phoenix)PM-10 nonattainment

area. EPA isproposing to approve the general permit rule as meeting the "reasonably available control measure" (RACM)requirements ofthe Act. DATES: Written comments will be accepted until July 30, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (induplicate, ifpossible) to: John Ungvarsky, EPARegion 9, 75 Hawthorne Street (AIR2), San Francisco, CA 94105 orungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

A copy ofdocket, containing material relevant to EPA's proposed action, is available for review at: EPARegion 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Interested persons may make an appointment with John Ungvarsky toinspect the docket at EPA's San Francisco office on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4p.m.

A copy ofdocket is also available to review at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. (602) 207-2217.

Electronic Availability.Thisdocument is also available as an electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http:// www.epa.gov/regiono9/air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky at (415) 744-1286 or ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

A. AirQualityStatus

Portions ofMaricopa County I are designated nonattainment for the PM10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 2and were originally classified as "moderate" pursuant to section 188(a) ofthe CAA. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). OnMay 10, 1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa County PM-10 nonattainment area to "serious" under CAA section 188(b)(2). 61 FR 21372. Having been reclassified, Phoenix isrequired tomeet the serious

area requirements in CAA section 189(b).

While the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area is currently classified as serious, today's proposed actionrelates only to the moderate area statutory requirements for RACM. However, as discussed further below, Arizona developed state legislation and

ageneral permit rule applicable to agricultural sources ofPM-10 when the

area had already been reclassified to serious. Therefore the State's focus was

onthe serious area statutory requirements for "best available control measures" (BACM). RACM, aswill be
seen, is generally considered to be a subset ofBACM. As a result, in order to evaluate whether the general permit rule
meets the RACM requirements for the purpose ofthis rulemaking, itwas necessary for EPAto refer to portions of the State's serious area state implementation plan (SIP) submittals. Thus, while the Agency is not proposing action atthis time onthose submittals

1"Maricopa," "Maricopa County" and "Phoenix"

are used interchangeably throughout this proposal
to refer to the nonattainment area.

2There are two PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour
standard and an annual standard. 40 CFR 50.6. EPA promulgated these NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for total suspended particulate with new standards applying only to particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10).At that time, EPA established two PM-10 standards. The annual PM-10 standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic average ofthe 24-hour samples fora period ofone year does not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (g/M 3).The 24-hour PM-10 standard of150 pg/m 3 is attained if samples taken for 24-hour periods have no more than oneexpected exceedance per year, averaged

over 3 years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40CFR part 50, appendix K. as theyrelate to the Act's serious area statutory requirements, those requirements andthe State's submittals developed to meetthem are discussed here. The relevant portions ofthe State's serious area submittals are citedbelow and are included in the docketfor this proposed action.

B. CAA Planning Requirementsand EPA Guidance

The air quality planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas are set outin subparts 1 and4 oftitle I ofthe Clean Air Act. Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas were required to submit, among other things, by November 15, 1991 provisions to assure thatRACM (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993. CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C). Since that deadline has passed,EPA has concluded thatthe required RACM/RACT mustbe implemented "as soon as possible." Delaneyv.EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this requirement to be "as soon as practicable." See 55 FR41204, 41210 (October 1, 1990) and 63 FR 28898, 28900 (May 27, 1998).

EPA has issued a "General Preamble" 3 describing EPA's preliminary views on howthe Agency intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title Iofthe Act, including those state submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP provisions. The methodology for determining RACM/ RACT is described in detail in the General Preamble. 57 FR 13498, 13540- 13541. In short and as pertinent here, EPA suggests starting to define RACM with the list ofavailable control

measures for fugitive dust in Appendix C1 to the General Preamble and adding
to this list any additional control

measures proposed and documented in public comments. Any measures that apply to emission sources ofPM-10 and that are de minimis and any measures that are unreasonable fortechnology

reasons or because ofthe cost ofthe control in the area canthen be culled fromthe list. In addition, potential RACM maybe culled from the listifa

measure cannot be implemented on a schedule thatwould advance the date

3See "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble forthe Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of1990," (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

### 34598

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 34598 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 126/Friday, June 29, 2001/Proposed Rules

for attainment in the area. 57 13498, 13560; 57 FR 18070, 18072 (April 28, 1992).

PM-10 nonattainment areas reclassified as serious under section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAAare required to submit, within 18 months ofthe area's reclassification, SIP revisions providing for the implementation ofBACM no later than four years from the date of reclassification. The SIP must also provide for attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2001. See CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b). If certain conditions are met,EPA may extend this attainment deadline to no later than December 31, 2006. One of these conditions isthat the serious area plan must include the "most stringent measures" (MSM)included in theplan ofany state or achieved in practice in any state that can feasibly be implemented in the area. CAA section 188(e).

On August 16, 1994, EPA issued an Addendum to the General Preamble that describes the Agency's preliminary views on the CAA provisions for serious

area PM-10 nonattainment SIPs. 59 FR 41998. The Addendum provides thatfor moderate PM-10 areas reclassified as serious, the RACM requirements are carried over and elevated to a higher level ofstringency, i.e., BACM. 59 FR 41998,42009.

Moderate and serious area plans are alsorequired to meet the generally applicable SIP requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2), 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 ofenforcement methods

asrequired by40 CFR 51.111, and EPA guidance implementing these provisions.

C.RecentHistoryofPM-I0 Planningin thePhoenixArea

On August 3, 1998, EPA promulgated under the authority ofCAA section 110(c)(1) a federal implementation plan (FIP)to address the CAA's moderate

area PM-10 requirements for the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area. 63 FR 41326 (August 3, 1998). EPA's PM10 FIP for the Phoenix area was the result ofover six years ofplanning and litigation regarding the control ofPM10 emissions in the Phoenix area. For a detailed discussion ofthat history, the reader isreferred to EPA's proposed rulemaking for theFIP at 63 FR 15920, 15924-15926 (April 1, 1998).

In the FIP, EPApromulgated, among otherthings, a demonstration that RACM will be implemented in the Phoenix area as soon aspracticable. As part ofits RACM demonstration, EPA promulgated an enforceable commitment, codified at40 CFR 52.127, to ensure thatRACM for agricultural

sources would be expeditiously adopted andimplemented. See 63 FR 41326, 41350.

In May 1998, Arizona Governor Hull signed into law Senate Bill 1427 (SB 1427) which revised title 49 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)by adding section49-457. This legislation established an Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) Committee 4that was required to adopt by rule byJune 10, 2000, an agricultural general permit specifying BMPs for regulated agricultural activities 5to reduce PM-10 emissions in the Maricopa PM-10 nonattainment area. ARS 49-457.A-F. Subsection M ofARS 49-457 provided for the initiation of BMP implementation through the
commencement ofan education program by June 10, 2000. On September 4, 1998, the State submitted ARS 49-457 to EPA for inclusion in the Arizona SIP as meeting the RACM requirements ofCAA section 189(a)(1)(C) andrequested thatthe Agency approve thatlegislation in place oftheFIP commitment in 40 CFR 52.127. On June 29, 1999, EPA approved ARS 49-457 as meeting the RACM requirements ofthe CAA and withdrew the FIP commitment. 64 FR 34726.

Pursuant to section 189(b)(2), on February 16, 2000, the State submitted

as arevision to the PM-10 SIP the "Revised Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 1999 Serious Area Particulate Planfor PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area" (1999 serious area plan). Among other things, this plan provides for attainment

4TheCommittee is composed offive local farmers, the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Director ofthe Arizona Department ofAgriculture, the State Conservationist forthe United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) state office, theDean of the University of Arizona's College of Agriculture, and a soil scientist from the University of Arizona.

5Subsection N.1 ofARS 49-457 defines "agricultural general permit" to mean: "best management practices that: (a) reduce PM-10 particulate emissions from tillage practices and from harvesting on a commercial farm.[;] (b)reduce PM-10 particulate emissions from those areas ofa commercial farm that are notnormally in crop production. [] (c) reduce PM-10 particulate emissions from those areas ofa commercial farm that arenormally incrop production including prior to plant emergence and when the land is not in crop production."

"Regulated agricultural activities" aredefined as "commercial farming practices that may produce PM-10 particulate emissions within the Maricopa PM-10 particulate nonattainment area." ARS 49- 457.N.4. ofboth the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006 and relies on ARS49-457 for the purpose of addressing the CAA's BACM and MSM requirements for agricultural sources.

On April 13, 2000, EPA proposed to approve the 1999 serious area plan as it relates to the annual PM-10 standard and to grant the State's request to extend the attainment date for the annual standard to December 31, 2006. 65 FR 19964. EPAtook no action onthe serious area plan's provisions for the 24- hour standard because the attainment demonstration relies on BMPs thathad
notyetbeen quantified by the State. 65 FR at 19970.

II. Arizona's AgriculturalGeneral Permit

As directed by ARS 49-457, the Agricultural BMP Committee adopted the agricultural general permit and associated definitions, effective May 12, 2000, at Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-610, "Definitions forR18- 2-611," and 611, "Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa PM10 Nonattainment Area" (collectively, general permit rule). OnJuly 11, 2000, the State submitted AAC R18-2-610 and 611 to EPA as a revision tothe Arizona SIP.6

In addition to fulfillingthe commitment in ARS49-457 approved by EPA as part ofthe moderate area PM-10 plan, this submittal was intended to partially satisfy the CAA's serious area PM-10 requirements; the State indicated that documentation for the remaining portions ofthe serious

area SIP revision package would be submitted at a later date. 7 On April 26, 2001, the State submitted this additional documentation aspart ofa draft revision
to the 1999 serious area plan and requested parallel processing, a procedure adopted byEPA to expedite review ofa state plan. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3.1. The State formally submitted the final revision to EPA on June 13, 2001. This submittal includes an attainment demonstration for the 24-hour standard, BACM and MSM demonstrations, description ofthe public education initiative for the general permit, and a demonstration thatthe CAA section 110 general requirements have been met. 8

6This submittal was deemed complete by operation oflaw on January 11, 2001 pursuantto
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).

7"Maricopa County, PM1 0 StateImplementation Plan Revision: Agricultural BestManagement Practices," Richard W. Tobin II, ADEQ, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, July 11, 2000.

8"Submittal ofState Implementation Plan revision for the Agricultural BestManagement
Continued 

### 34599

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 34599 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 126/Friday, June 29, 2001/Proposed Rules

In this action, EPAis proposing only
to approve the general permit rule as meeting the CAA's RACM requirements. For this purpose, the Agency reviewed the portions ofthe June 13, 2001 submittal relating tothe BACM and MSM demonstrations, public education initiative and CAA section 110 requirements. EPA will formally evaluate the general permit rule in relation tothe BACM and MSM requirements in the context ofa future rulemaking on the 1999 serious area plan.

AAC R18-2-611 includes thirty-four BMPs identified by the BMP Committee

as feasible, effective, and common sense practices that will reduce PM-10 emissions while minimizing negative economic impacts on local agriculture.

A BMPis defined in AAC R18-2-610

as "a technique verified by scientific research, that on a case-by-case basis is practical, economically feasible and effective in reducing PM-10 particulate emissions from a regulated agricultural activity."

AAC R18-2-611 requires a commercial farmer 9to implement by December 31, 2001 at least one BMP to control PM-10 for three categories of emission sources: tillage and harvest, non-cropland, and cropland. 10

To reduce PM-10 emissions during tillage and harvest activities, a commercial farmer shall implement at least one offollowing BMPs: Chemical irrigation; combining tractor operations; equipment modification; limited activity during high-wind event; multiyear crop; planting based on soil moisture; reduced harvest activity; reduced tillage system; tillagebased on soil moisture; or timing oftillage operation.

To reduce PM-10 emissions from non-cropland, a commercial farmer shall implement at least one of following BMPs: access restriction;

program in the Maricopa County, PM10 Nonattainment Area" from Jacqueline E. Schafer, ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii,EPA, June 13, 2001.

9R18-2-610 defines commercial farmer "an individual, entity, orjoint operation in general control of10 ormore continuous acres of land used for agricultural purposes within the boundary ofthe Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment area."

10R18-2-610 defines tillage and harvest as "any
mechanical practice that physically disturbs cropland orcrops on a commercial farm." R18-2- 610 defines non-cropland as "any commercial farm land that: is no longer used foragricultural production; is no longer suitable for production of
crops; is subject to arestrictive easement ofcontract that prohibits use forthe production ofcrops; or includes aprivate farmroad, ditch, ditchbank, equipment yard, storage yard, orwell head." R18- 2-610 defines cropland as "land on a commercial farm that: is within the time frame offinal harvest
to plantemergence; has been tilled in aprior year and is suitable for crop production, butis currently fallow; is a turn-row." aggregate cover; artificial wind barrier; critical area planting; manure application; reduced vehicle speed; synthetic particulate suppressant; trackout control system; tree, shrub, or windbreak planting; orwatering.

To reduce PM-10 emissions from cropland, a commercial farmer shall implement at least one offollowing BMPs: artificial windbarrier; cover crop; cross-wind ridges; cross-wind strip-cropping; cross-wind vegetative strips; manure application; mulching; multi-year crop; permanent cover; planting based on soil moisture; residue management; sequential cropping; surface roughening; ortree, shrub, or windbreak planting.

A commercial farmer is required to maintain a record demonstrating compliance with the general permit. A commercial farmer not in compliance with the general permit is subject to a series ofcompliance actions described in ARS 49-457.1-K.

The BMP Committee began implementing the general permit rule in June 2000 bymeans ofan extensive educational outreach program informing
growers about the BMPs. In addition, the BMP Committee developed aGuide
to Agricultural PM-10 Best Management Practices " to provide information and guidance onhow to effectively implement BMPs. The guide represents

a significant step in helping growers reduce PM-10 emissions from farmlands located within the Maricopa County PM-10 nonattainment area.

The BMP Committee developed an Agricultural BMP General Permit Education Program toinform and educate thepublic and growers about the forthcoming general permit. As of July 2000 nine public presentations had been given in addition tothe twentytwo public meetings held bythe BMP Committee. 12Informational public workshops for growers were held on February 20, 2001 andMarch 1, 2001.13 The workshops focused on thepurpose oftherule, the individual BMPs, recordkeeping requirements, and compliance options. In addition, ADEQ plans to hold an annual workshop to

""Guide to Agricultural PM-10 Best Management Practices, Maricopa County, Arizona PM-10 Nonattainment Area," Governor's Agricultural BMP Committee, First edition, February, 2001.

12See Enclosure 3, "Final Revised Background Information," BACM-Recommendations from Governor's Agricultural BMP Committee, pages 31- 33 ofJune 13, 2001, Submittal of State Implementation Plan revision for the Agricultural Best Management Practices program inthe Maricopa Count PM-10 Nonattainment Area.

13Ibid. educate growers, inspectors, and interested stakeholders.

In addition to the guide referenced above, the BMP Committee developed a brochure to inform the public and growers about PM-10 and the BMPs. 14

III.SIP Approval Criteria

Once a SIP submittal is deemed complete, EPAmust next determine if the submittal is approvable as arevision
to the SIP. EPA must first determine whether the general permit rule meets the RACM requirements ofCAA section 189(a)(1)(C) andEPA guidance interpreting thatprovision. EPAmust also determine thatthe rule meets the general SIP requirements described in section I.B. above.

Finally, in order forEPA to approve the SIP revision, EPA must determine thatthe SIP submittal complies with CAA section 110(1). Section 110(1) states thatthe "Administrator shall not approve a revision ofa plan ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment andreasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the Clean Air] Act."

IV.Evaluation oftheAgricultural GeneralPermitRule

A. RACMRequirements

CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), as interpreted by EPAunder the current circumstances, requires that a moderate

area plan provide for the implementation ofRACM as soon as practicable. Arizona's requirements regarding the timing ofthe implementation ofthe BMPs are contained in ARS 49-457. Since EPA has already approved this legislation as meeting the "as expeditiously as practicable" test andthe general permit rule was adopted in compliance with the statute, EPA need notrevisit the timing issue in this rulemaking. See 64 FR 34726.15

Therefore EPA need only determine whether the BMPs in the general permit rule meetthe level of control required by CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). As discussed above, for this evaluation, EPAlooked to the State's BACM and MSM analyses in the June 13, 2001 submittal.16

In September 1998, the Agricultural BMP Committee was established for the purpose ofdeveloping an agricultural general permit specifying BMPs. 17The

14"How Agriculture is Improving Maricopa County's AirQuality," Governor's Agricultural BMP Committee, March, 2001.

15ACC R18-2-611 reiterates the compliance deadlines contained inARS 49-457.

16

See reference in footnote 8.

17See reference in footnote 12, pages 9-26. 

### 34600

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 34600 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 126/Friday, June 29, 2001/Proposed Rules

established an Ad-hoc Technical Group to develop a comprehensive list of potential BMPs for regulated sources in the Maricopa nonattainment area. Participants included the USDA NRCS, USDA Agricultural Research Service, University ofArizona College of Agriculture, ADEQ, University of Arizona College ofAgriculture and Cooperative Extension, Western Growers Association, Arizona Cotton Growers Association, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, and EPA.

The Ad-hoc Technical Group reviewed available dust control regulations, literature, and technical documents, and developed a list of conservation practices potentially suitable to agricultural sources in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. The information sources evaluated are listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1.- INFORMATION SOURCES USED To DEVELOP A LIST OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES WITH POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY IN MARICOPA COUNTY

NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule 403 (fugitive dust) Agricultural Handbook. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1997 PM-10 Attainment Demonstration Plan. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension

Mojave Valley research project. University of Washington Columbia Plateau

research project. ENSR Report: Evaluation of Fugitive Dust

Control in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. March 1997. Document Number 0493-015-500. Particulate Control Measure Feasibility Study:

Volumes I and II.Prepared for the Maricopa Association of Governments by Sierra Research. January 1997.

From a review ofthese information
sources, 65 potential practices for further consideration were selected.18 These 65 measures represented abroad spectrum ofpotential BMPs, many of which related to conservation practices used in the western United Statesthat had never been evaluated in the context ofreducing PM-10. This list represented a list ofpotential practices
to be considered in determining what

measures are actually available for implementation in the Phoenix area.

The Agricultural BMP Committee thoroughly reviewed thepotential practices presented by the Ad-hoc Technical Group andidentified 3419 of

18Seereference in footnote 12, pages 15-16.
19The BMP Committee divided the 34 BMPs by applicability to the three source categories: 10 BMPs were applicable to the Tillage and Harvest the 65 BMPs toinclude in the general permit rule that the Committee deemed
to be feasible, effective and common

sensepractices for the Phoenix area which also minimized potential negative impacts onlocal agriculture. Ofthe 31 potential BMPs eliminated, the majority were dropped because they either duplicated another BMP or did
not reduce PM-10. Other reasons for elimination included the impracticability ofaBMP for the Maricopa County Area, lack ofcost effectiveness, orinfeasibility of implementation.20 Examples ofhow potential BMPs were eliminated for these reasons are provided below: (1)NoidentifiablerelationtoPM-I0 emissionreductions. For example, the original list ofpotential BMPs developed bythe Ad-hoc Technical Committee included apotential BMP for Tree/Shrub Pruning. Although the Tree/ Shrub Pruning might qualify as a BMP for some agricultural activities, it would
not reduce PM-10. Therefore, the Tree/ Shrub Pruning was dropped.

(2)Duplication. Many similar BMPs

were combined into a single BMP. For example, the original list ofpotential BMPs included numerous practices that relate to creating abarrier (i.e., Tree/ shrub establishment, windbreak/ shelterbelt establishment, windbreak/ shelterbelt renovation, hedgerow plating, herbaceous wind barriers) to reduce the impact ofwind on disturbed soils. These practices were combined into a single BMP: tree, shrub, or windbreak planting. (3)Impracticability toMaricopa County farmingorimplementation infeasibility.Some ofthe potential BMPs were determined to be impractical or infeasible. For example, the original list included Wildlife Upland Habitat Management. This conservation practice is intended to create, maintain, or enhance habitat suitable to sustaining desired kinds of upland wildlife. 21Although evaluated

as apotential BMP, itwas determined
to be impracticable for Maricopa County given that the agricultural sources in question are not located in an area suitable for upland wildlife.

The general permit rule, as finally adopted by the BMP Committee in May 2000, requires that commercial farmers implement at least one BMP for the Tillage andHarvest, Cropland, andNoncategory; 10 BMPs were applicable to the NonCropland category; and 14 BMPs were applicable to the Cropland category.

20See reference in footnote 12, pages 17-18.

21USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Arizona; Conservation Practice Summary; Air Quality (cropland-irrigated), FOTG Section IV, November, 1998. cropland categories by December 31, 2001. Because ofthe variety, complexity, and uniqueness offarming operations, the BMP Committee concluded that farmers need a variety of BMPs to choose fromin order totailor PM-10 controls to theirindividual circumstances. Further, the BMP Committee acknowledged that there is a limited amount of scientific information available concerning the emission reduction and cost effectiveness ofsome BMPs, especially in relation toMaricopa County. The BMP Committee balanced these limitations with the common

sense recognition thatthe BMPs would reduce wind erosion and the entrainment ofagricultural soils, thereby reducing PM-10. Given the limited scientific information available and the myriad factors that affect farming operations, the BMP Committee concluded that requiring more than one BMP could not be considered technicallyjustified and could cause an unnecessary economic burden to farmers. Instead,the BMP Committee and ADEQcommitted to monitor the effectiveness ofthe BMPs and adjust the program, ifneeded,in the future.

There are only two PM-10 nonattainment areas in the nation that

are currently requiring agricultural

sources to reduce PM-10 emissions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which includes the agricultural areas ofwestern Riverside County and the Coachella Valley, is implementing Rules 403 and 403.1 to reduce PM-10 emissions from agricultural sources. The Arizona general permit rule represents the only other measure in the country that requires the implementation ofBMPs to reduce PM-10. Because agricultural

sources varyby factors such as regional climate, soil type, growing season, crop type, water availability, andrelation to urban centers, agricultural PM-10 strategies mustbe based onlocal factors. Therefore, while the Committee surveyed measures adoptedin other geographic areas, they are oflimited utilityin determining what measures
are available for Maricopa County area. In order tojustify additional requirements for farming operations in the area beyond those in the general permit rule, a significant influx of
money and additional research would be needed.

The development ofthe general permit rule was a multi-year endeavor involving an array ofexperts in agricultural practices. As noted, Arizona is one ofthe few areas where regulation ofPM-10 emissions from the agricultural sector has evenbeen attempted. Based on the available

### 34601

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 34601 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 126/Friday, June 29, 2001/Proposed Rules

information, EPA believes thatthe general permit rule represents a comprehensive, sensible approach that meets, and in fact far exceeds, the RACM requirements ofCAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and EPA guidance interpreting those requirements.

B. GeneralSIPRequirements

EPA has concluded that the State's June 13, 2001 submittal provides the necessary assurances ofadequate personnel and funding required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280 to carry out the general permit program. 2 2 ADEQintends to fund the
program through resources currently allocated to the State's existing general permit and compliance program. Based

onhistorical data, ADEQ anticipates a decreasing agricultural source population and, therefore, does not see the need for increased funding to administer the program.

For the general permit program, ADEQ intends to inspect commercial farms every two to three years. In addition,ADEQ intends to develop in 2002 a compliance initiative that selects

ageographic area within the nonattainment area for inspections. Based on the results, other initiatives may be developed. Moreover, ADEQ's Air Compliance Section will respond to agricultural related complaints within five working days. ADEQwill also develop a process whereby air inspectors from other agencies will notify ADEQ ifthey observe an alleged violation or receive a complaint, and an ADEQ inspector will conduct a timely investigation.

EPA has also concluded that the general permit rule, as informed by ARS 49-457 and the State's June 13, 2001 submittal, meets therequirements of40 CFR 51.111. This provision requires a description ofenforcement methods, including procedures for monitoring compliance (discussed above), procedures for handling violations, and designation ofagencyresponsibility for enforcement ofimplementation. ARS 49-457.I,J, and K and AAC R18-2- 611.K and L give ADEQ specific authority to address noncompliance with the general permit rule and includes the steps the department will take to enforce the rule. ADEQ's Air Compliance Section routinely updates its database to include general information regarding complaints and enforcement actions which canbe utilized in future years to determine rule effectiveness.

22Seereference in footnote 8, pages 33-35. C. CAA Section 110(1)
In its rulemaking onARS 49-457, EPA concluded that approval ofthe State legislation and withdrawal ofthe FIP commitment would not interfere with the attainment, reasonable further
progress andRACM requirements ofthe CAA. 63 FR 71815, 71817. Since the general permit rule strengthens the SIP by providing specific BMPs in place of the commitment to adopt BMPs in ARS 49-457, EPA'sproposed approval meets the requirements ofCAA section 110(1).

V. Proposed Actions

EPA has evaluated ACC R18-2-610 and 611 and has determined that these rules are consistent with the CAA and EPA policy. Therefore, EPAis proposing
to approve ACCR18-2-610 and 611 under section 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA as meeting the requirements ofsections 110(a) and 189(a)(1)(C).

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision tothe SIP shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors andin relation to relevant statutory andregulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" andtherefore is not subject to review bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. This proposed action merely
approves state law as meeting federal requirements andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis proposed rulewill not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.).Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, onthe relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States,

or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because itmerely
approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, providedthat they meetthe criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use CS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPAhas taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, andprovide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance ofUnanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order.This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter.

Dated:June 22, 2001. KeithTakata, ActingRegional Administrator,RegionIX. [FR Doc. 01-16439 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U 34602

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 34602 2001