### 18010 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

numbers issued under the Paperwork 

### Reduction Act (PRA) forControl ofAir Pollution; Determination ofSignificance 

### forNonroad Sources and Emission Standards forNew Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines At or Above 37 Kilowatts. EFFECTIVE DATE: Thisfinal ruleis effective May 10, 1995. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Hormes, Certification Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, telephone (313)668- 4502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Legal Authority to Amend Part 9

EPA is today amending the table of currently approved information 

### collection request (ICR) control numbers issuedbyOMB forvarious regulations. Today's amendment updates thetable to 

### accurately displaythose information. requirements promulgated under the final rulemaking which appeared in the Federal Register on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306). This display ofthe OMB 

### control number and its subsequent codification in the Code ofFederal Regulations satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.



### The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is "good cause" under section 553(b)(B) oftheAdministrative 

### Procedure Act (5U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to amend thistable without priornotice and comment. Due to the technical
nature ofthe table, further notice and
comment would be unnecessary. For the

same reasons, EPA also finds thatthere is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

B. Burden Statement

The information collection requirements inthis rule have been 

### approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned control number 2060-0287.

This collection ofinformation has an 

### estimated reporting burden averaging 5,800 hours for atypical engine manufacturer. However, thehours spent annually on information collection activities by agiven manufacturer depends upon manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number ofengine families, production changes, emissions defects, and so forth. This estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

### data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection ofinformation.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate orany other aspect ofthis collection ofinformation, including suggestions forreducing thisburden to Chief,Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St. SW (MailCode 2136); Washington, DC20460; and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs; Office ofManagement and Budget; Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer forEPA".

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 3, 1995. 

### Mary D.Nichols, AssistantAdministrator for Airand Radiation.



### For the reasons set outin the preamble, 40 CFRpart 9 is amended as follows:

PART9-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation forpart 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-1 36y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 

### et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345 

### (d)and (e), 1361;E.O. 11735, 38FR 21243, 3CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f,300g, 300g-1, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300i-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 3001-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-76711, 7542, 9601-9657,11023,11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding 

### the new entries to the table toread as follows: §9.1 OMB approvals underthe Paperwork Reduction Act



### 40 CFR citation OMB con- trol No.

Control of Emissions From New

and In-Use Nonroad Engines

89.114-96 through 89.120-96 2060-0287 89.122-96 through 89.127-96 2060-0287 89.129-96

................................. 2060-0287 89.203-96 through 89.207-96

. 2060-0287 89.209-96 through 89.211-96

. 2060-0287 89.304-96 through 89.331-96. 2060-0287 89.404-96 through 89.424-96

. 2060-0287

[FR Doc. 95-8741 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P 40 CFR Part 52.

[AZ31-1-6531; FRL-6173-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; ArizonaPhoenix Nonattainment Area; PMo

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval ofa revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in the Federal Register on July 28, 1994. The revision was submitted to. EPA by Arizona to fulfillthe State's obligation
to revise its SIPto meet the PMIo (particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter) "moderate" area planning requirements ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA orAct). This approval action will incorporate this revision into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect ofapproving this revision is to regulate emissions ofPM1o inthe Phoenix Planning Area (PPA). The revised SIP controls PMo emissions from sources including, but not limited to, paved roads, construction and demolition activities, unpaved parking

areas androads, nonmetallic mineral mining and processing facilities, open burning activities, uncovered haul trucks and farming operations. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval ofthis revision into the Arizona SIP under provisions ofthe CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on May 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe SIP revision

are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies ofthe submitted SIP revisions are available for inspection at the following locations:

Plans Development Section (A-2-2), Air

and Toxics 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.
Arizona Department ofEnvironmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pallarino, (415) 744-1212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18010 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements

On the date ofenactment ofthe 1990 CleanAir Act Amendments, PM,0 areas, including the PPA, meeting the conditions ofsection 107(d) ofthe Act

were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw. Once an areais designated nonattainment, section 188 oftheAct outlines the process for classification ofthe area and establishes the area's attainment date. In accordance with section 188(a), atthe time ofdesignation, all PM1o nonattainment areas were initially classified as "moderate" by operation of law. See 40 CFR 81.303 (1993). A moderate areamay subsequently be reclassified as "serious" ifatany time EPA determines that the area cannot practicably attain the PM1oNAAQS by the applicable attainment date for moderate areas, December 31, 1994. Moreover, a moderate area is reclassified by operation oflaw ifthe

area is notin attainment after the applicable attainment date, which is December 31, 1994 forthe PPA. EPA is required to make a determination and provide public notice regarding whether the area has attained within six months following the attainment date. See Section 188(b), 42 U.S.C. 7513(a).

The air quality planning requirements formoderate PM ononattainment areas
are set out in subparts 1 and 4 oftitle I oftheAct. EPA has issued guidance in its General Preamble describing EPA's views on how the Agency will review SIPs and SIPrevisions submitted under title Iofthe Act, including those containing moderate PMo nonattainment area SIPprovisions. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The General Preamble provides a detailed discussion ofthe EPA's interpretation ofthe Title I requirements.

States with initial moderate PM1o nonattainment areas were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by November 15, 1991:'

1.Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available

IThere are additional submittals associated with moderate PMjo nonattainment plans, such as a permit program forthe construction ofnew and modified major stationary sources and contingency

measures. See sections 189(a) and 172(c)(9). These submittals were required to be submitted in 1992 and 1993, respectively, and are not the subject of today's action which addresses only those plan provisions required to be submitted on November 15, 1991. control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide forattainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration' that attainment by that date is impracticable;

3. Pursuant to section 189(c)(1), for plan revisions demonstrating attainment,quantitative milestones which are tobe achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP)toward attainment by December 31, 1994; 2 and

4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PMmoalso apply to major stationary sources ofPM10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly
to PMo levels which exceed the NAAQS inthe area.

In today's rulemaking action, EPA is taking final action to approve Arizona's moderate PM10 SIP revision for the PPA, whichincludes the State's demonstration that attainment ofthe PMmo NAAQS by December 31, 1994, is impracticable for the PPA. EPA is also announcing its intention to reclassify the PPA as a serious nonattainment area pursuant to section 188(b)(2). However, EPA is not making a finding asto whether the PPA has attained the PM,0 NAAQS in today's action, but, as discussed elsewhere in this Notice, will be doing so in a separate action in the coming months. See Section III. Once EPA determines the PPA has not attained the PM,0 NAAQS, the area will be reclassified to serious by operation of law.

B.ProposedSIPApproval

EPA proposed approval ofthe moderate areaPM o SIP revision for the PPA on July 28, 1994 (59 FR 38402). EPA's proposed approval was based on

a preliminary finding that the State's submittal meets the requirements ofthe Act, including: (1) an inventory ofall

sources of PM,0 in the nonattainment

area; (2) provisions to implement RACM by December 10, 1993; and (3) a demonstration that attainment ofthe

2As discussed in theFederal Register notice proposing approval ofthisplan, the PMioplan for the PPA does not demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1994, but rather includes the alternative demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable. Therefore, section 189(c) does
not apply. However, as discussed further in this notice, areas demonstrating that attainment is impracticable are required by section 172(c)2) to demonstrate RFP. See Section IV. ofthis Notice, "Reasonable Further Progress". PMmo NAAQS by the moderate area attainment date, December 31, 1994, is impracticable.

EPAproposed simultaneously to approve Maricopa County Rule 310- Open Fugitive Dust Sources, 311- Particulate Matter from Process Industries, 314-Open Outdoor Fires, and 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing, as new rules the State adopted as RACM for the PPA. EPA also proposed to reclassify the PPA as a serious area and invited public
comment on whether final action should occur under section 188(b)(1) or 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA.

II. Today's Action

In today's document, EPAis taking final actionto approve the moderate

area PMmo state implementation plan revision for the PPA. The SIPrevision for the PPA was submitted by the State of Arizona on August 11, 1993 and March 3, 1994. Maricopa County Rule 314 was adopted by the State and submitted to EPA onJanuary 4, 1990. The State also submitted a revised version ofMaricopa County Rule 310- Open Fugitive Dust Sources on December 19, 1994. The County revised this rule to delete provision 221.9 ofthe Rule as requested by EPA. See 59 FR 38407, July 28, 1994. Specifically, EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP the MAG 1991 Particulate Plan for PM1ofor the Maricopa County Area and 1993 Revisions, the Revised Chapter 9 and Maricopa County Rule 311-Particulate Matter from Process Industries and Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing, Maricopa County Rule 314-Open Outdoor Fires and Maricopa County Rule 310--Open FugitiveDust Sources. EPA is also stating its intention, but is not taking final action atthis time,to reclassify the PPAunder section 188(b)(2) ofthe Act. EPA is not taking final action on its proposal to reclassify the PPA under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act.

III. Reclassification

As stated above, EPA is not reclassifying the PPA in this document. However, EPA intends to propose reclassification ofthe PPAto a serious

area pursuant to section 188(b)(2) ofthe Act.

TheAct provides two mechanisms for reclassifying moderate PM10 nonattainment areas as serious PM,0 nonattainment areas. Section 188(b)(1) givesEPA the discretion to reclassify
any area which EPA determines cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date at any time before the attainment date. In the case 

### 18011

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18011 1995

### 18012 Federal Register 

### / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ofthe PPA, the CAA-mandated attainment date wasDecember 31, 1994. The second mechanism for reclassification, provided by section 188(b)(2), is to make a finding after the attainment date has passed thatthe area has not attained the NAAQS.

The difference between these two mechanisms involves the timing of submittals ofcertain plan provisions. Under section 188(b)(1), ifEPA were to take final action on its proposal to reclassify thePPA as serious (see 59 FR 38406, July 28, 1994) the State would be required to submit its serious area SIP revision in two parts. Within 18 months ofthe final action reclassifying thePPA, the State would be required to submit provisions to assure the implementation ofbest available control measures (BACM) no later than fouryears after the date ofreclassification. The State's demonstration that the plan provides for attainment ofthe PMjo NAAQS by the serious area attainment date (December 31, 2001) would have to be submitted within four years ofthe date of reclassification.

Under section 188(b)(2) ofthe Act, if EPAmakes a determination after the moderate area attainment date has passed that the PPA has not attained the NAAQS, then within 18 months after the date ofreclassification, the State is required to submit provisions to assure the implementation ofBACM nolater than four years after the date of reclassification and ademonstration that the plan will provide for attainment ofthe'PMo NAAQS by December 31, 2001. The practical difference in these two approaches is the timing ofthe submittal ofthe attainment demonstration and how it affects the BACM determination.

Under section 188(b)(1), the State would initially develop its BACM determination in the absence ofan attainment demonstration with the potential result that the chosen

measures would notultimately attain the PMjo standards bythe applicable attainment date. Such aresult, however, would notbe revealed until several
years later, whenthe air quality modeling analysis is conducted for the attainment demonstration. If,at that point, additional measures were found tobe necessary for the area to attain the PM 10 NAAQS, new measures would have to be developed, adopted and submitted to EPA. In contrast, under section 188(b)(2), all therequired elements ofthe serious area plan including the attainment demonstration
must be submitted to EPA within 18 months ofreclassification. Thus, under section 188(b)(2), EPAbelieves the process ofattaining thePMo standards is expedited.

In its notice ofproposed rulemaking, EPA expressed its intentto reclassify the PPAunder section 188(b)(2) of the Act. EPA believed that since the State originally concluded that thePPA could not practicably attain the PMIo NAAQS by December 31, 1994 when it developed its November 1991 plan submission and that, despite procedural delays and plan updates culminating in the 1993 and 1994 SIP submittals, this conclusion has not changed, the State has been on notice for more than three years that reclassification was likely. Under these circumstances, a delay of four years for the submission of a serious area attainment -demonstrationis unwarranted. Rather, the Agency believed that it is more appropriate to accelerate, to the maximum extent possible, the State's submission ofa complete serious area plan to attain the PM1 0 NAAQS. Notwithstanding the reasons above, EPA stated in its proposed rulemaking that there could bevalid reasons advanced for reclassifying the PPA under section 188(b)(1). Therefore, EPA proposed to reclassify the PPAusing its discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1). EPA stated its intent to finalize the reclassification under section 188(b)(1) only ifit received compelling arguments from
commenters. EPA received comments

onthe issue ofreclassification from the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ), Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG), Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD), Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT), and Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI). The comments from ADEQ, MAG, MCESD, and ADOT all encouraged EPA to reclassify the PPA immediately under section 188(b)(1). These commenters were concerned that the State's ability to complete the required technical elements ofthe serious area SIP revision, particularly an improved and updated emission inventory and an accurate air quality analysis including air quality modeling, would require the longer submittal time for a demonstration of attainment afforded under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act. Many ofthe commenters also argued that taking final action toreclassify the PPA before the moderate area attainment date would expedite the air quality benefits which would be provided by the serious areaplan since the BACM implementation date would occur
sooner. EPA hasnot been persuaded by these
comments to reclassify the PPA under section 188(b)(1). EPAbelieves that the State has been aware for a number of
years that, even taking into consideration the implementation efforts it has now undertaken in complying with the PM1oModerate area planning requirements, that it was impracticable to demonstrate attainment ofthe PM1oNAAQS by December 31, 1994. Thus, EPA does notbelieve the State has provided any valid basis to delay submittal ofan attainment demonstration by four years. Furthermore, the schedule for developing and submitting the technical elements ofthe serious area SIP revision is no different than the schedule for submitting a'complete SIP revision for

areas designated nonattainment afterthe passage ofthe 1990 CAA amendments. Under section 189(a)(2)(B) these areas

are required to submit SIP revisions within 18 months after the date they are redesignated. The requirements for developing the technical elements ofa serious area SIP are not substantially different from those for a moderate area.

Regarding the BACM implementation date, the Act simply states that BACM is to be implemented no later than four years afterreclassification to serious. Under the overall scheme ofthe Act, the State is certainly permitted and, in fact, encouraged to implement BACM on as expeditious a schedule aspracticable before the four-year deadline.

EPA also notes that ACLPI opposed reclassification ofthe PPA under 188(b)(1) because itwould have the effect ofrewarding the State's delay in preparing its PM 10 SIP by giving the State four years instead of18 months to submit its serious area plan revision. However, EPA is not taking final action to reclassify the PPA under section 188(b)(1). For the reasons stated above, EPAbelieves that reclassification under section 188(b)(2) is the appropriate action to take in this case. EPAwill be reviewing the PM 10 monitoring data for thePPA and will make an official determination ofwhether the PPA has attained the PM 1 0 NAAQS by June 30, 1995 or sooner. To demonstrate attainment ofthe PMjo NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (December 31, 1994), the PPA would need to show that it has had no violations ofthe PM 0 standards, 24 hour and annual, in the past three years (1992, 1993, and 1994). 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The State recorded violations ofboth standards in 1992 and 1993.

IV. Reasonable FurtherProgress

Section 172(c)(2) ofthe Act states that nonattainment area plans shall require

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18012 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined by section 171(1) as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant as

are required by thispart ormay reasonably be required by [EPA] forthe
purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date." However, there is a gap inthe
statute inthat thePM1 ospecific provisions ofthe Act do notclearly specify when and in what manner states containing PM 1t nonattainment areas that ultimately demonstrate it is impracticable to attain the NAAQS by the Moderate area deadline, such asthe PPA, which is the subject ofthis document, must demonstrate theyhave
met the RFP requirement. While section 189(c)(1) ofthe Act requires PM10 SIP revisions to contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainmenl and which
must also demonstrate reasonable further progress, that section, by its explicit terms, only applies to areas with "plan revisions demonstrating attainment." However, while it appears that the Act does not provide specifically for a quantitative milestone reporting requirement showing RFP is
met for areas that demonstrate it is impracticable to attain the PM 1oNAAQS by the applicable deadline, EPA nonetheless believes, based on the general nonattainment area provisions regarding RFP as well asthe overall
purpose and structure ofTitle I and Part D ofthe Act, that such areas are not thereby relieved ofthe obligation to periodically demonstrate that they re meeting the requirement for RFP. Consequently, forpurposes of implementing the RFP requirement for such areas, EPAbelieves that where the language in section 171(1) indicates that the purpose ofthe RFP reductions is to

ensure "attainment ofthe applicable [NAAQS] bythe applicable [attainment) date," the applicable attainment date for

areas demonstrating that it is impracticable to attain would be the date setby section 188(c) when the area is reclassified as serious. Similarly, since the Act does not explicitly provide for states withPM 1 ononattainment

areas which demonstrate it is impracticable to attain to submit periodic reports demonstrating that RFP is being met, such as is required under section 189(c)(1) forPM1o areas which demonstrate attainment,EPA believes it
may invoke the discretionary authority provided the Agency under section 110(p) ofthe Act to require the submittal ofsuch reports. That section
statesthat "any State shall submit" such reports asEPA may require, and on such schedules asEPA may prescribe, providing information on specific data but also including "any other information [EPA] may deem necessary to assess the development effectiveness, need for revision, or implementation of
any plan or plan revision required under thisAct." The initial RFP report for such areas is tobe included in the SIP submittal containing the area's demonstration ofimpracticability, and should show that even though the emissions reductions achieved through the implementation ofall RACM may notbe enough to enable the areato demonstrate attainment by theModerate

area deadline ofDecember 31, 1994, such implementation has resulted in "incremental reductions" in emissions ofPMo as the RFP definition in section 171(1) specifies. Once the area hasbeen reclassified, subsequent RFP report submittals will betimed to reflect emissions reductions which willbe achieved due to the implementation of BACM. In summary then, EPA's policy isthat the requirement to submit periodic reports demonstrating that RFP (asdefined in section 171(1)) is being
met applies equally to PMo nonattainment areas that demonstrate attainment bythe applicable deadline and to such areas that demonstrate it is impracticable to attain by such date; for the former areas therequirement applies pursuant to sections 189(c)(1) and 172(c)(2), for the latter areas -the requirement applies pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and 110(p). As described in greater detail elsewhere in this document, the Phoenix Planning Area, has provided.information along with its impracticability demonstration, which proves to EPA's satisfaction that it has met the requirement to demonstrate RFP. Finally, the discussion in thisdocument regarding the demonstration ofRFP inPMo nonattainment areas which demonstrate that attainment by the applicable attainment date is impracticable represents EPA's preliminary guidance

on this issue, and is intended to clarify the confusion created by omissions in the Actand in prior EPA guidance. EPA also intends, inthe very near future, to issue more comprehensive guidance on this issue.

V. Response to Comments on Proposed SIPApproval

Only ACLPI commented on EPA's proposed approval ofthe SIP revision; other commenters addressed reclassification. EPA appreciates the
comments submitted by ACLPI, which

are detailed and thoughtful. Some ofthe
comments raise difficult issues 

### regarding the State's compliance with complexplanning requirements, which often depend oncoordination between a number oflocal governments. ACLPI's most detailed comments concern the State's implementation ofRACM, particularly Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). Inthis document, EPA isproviding its general response to ACLPI's comments onthe implementation ofRACM, andEPA is alsoproviding very detailed responses concerning individual TCMs andother specific measuresraised inACLPI's comments in the Technical Support Document (TSD)accompanying this document.

A. TechnicalIssues

1.Monitoring



### Comment:The PMo SIPrevision for the PPA doesnot provide for the establishment and operation ofa PM,0 

### monitoring network which meetsthe requirements ofEPA guidelines and regulations. According to a 1992 EPA audit,the monitoring network forthe Phoenix area "fails to meet many ofthe minimum CFR requirements".

.Response:EPAdisagrees with the comment. The PM,0 

### SIP revision provides forestablishing and operating

a PM~omonitoring network in thePPA which meets the requirements ofEPA guidelines and regulations. 40 CFRpart 58; "Guideline forthe Implementation ofthe Ambient AirMonitoring Regulations 40 CFR Part 58." The relevant provisions ofthe PPA's monitoring network are in Appendix B, Exhibit 14 ofthe SIPrevision. Appendix B,Exhibit 14 also discusses proposed modifications to the network and the method by whichthe Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) willaddress episode

occurrences.

Since a 1992 Re-Evaluation ofthe Maricopa CountyAir Pollution Control Program that was conductedby EPA, the MCESD has made and documented progress to meet the requirements in40 CFRparts 50and 58. The MCESD was required bythe Agency to develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to address deficiencies documented in the 1992 Re-Evaluation. The progress onthe CAP isbeing monitored by EPA, Region IX AirQuality Section and Compliance and Oversight Section, through review and verification ofprogress reports by MCESD and visitswith the MCESD Air Monitoring Program personnel. EPAhas also withheld federal grant moneyto encourage the MCESD to address CAP commitments and regulatory requirements in a timelymanner. There have been improvements by MCESD, 18013

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18013 1995

### 18014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

including revising the Quality Assurance Program Manual (conditionally approved by Region IX pending minor additions), revamping its entirp PM10 network with new equipment including four continuous PM 1osamplers, quality assurance training for air monitoring staff, and others.

Comment:A 1992 audit by Dames and Moore (DM) foundthat the monitoring network did not have adequate numbers ofneighborhood scale and middle scale monitors, as directed by EPA guidance. Several homogenous subregions in the

area have no monitoring station orone station. In addition, little orno monitoring is conducted within 500'
meters from several major sources. DM also found that the total number of monitoring stations is far below that required by EPA guidance. Under EPA spatial siting guidelines, there shouldbe approximately 94 monitoring stations in the nonattainment area. Yet the SIP shows only 9 permanent PM 20stations. DM also found that the monitoring
program was inadequately staffed.

Response:EPA does not agree with the DM audit's comments on network adequacy, particularly concerning the
necessary number ofair monitoring sites recommended by DM. EPA criteria, in 40 CFR part 58, requires the Maricopa County network to consist ofsix (6) to ten (10) National AirMonitoring Stations (NAMS). The district is also required to operate State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). Part 58 does not contain a numerical requirement for SLAMS. Maricopa County's network consists ofsix (6) NAMS, two (2) SLAMS, and five (5) Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (SPMS), for atotal ofthirteen (13) SLAMS (NAMS are defined as a subset ofSLAMS). The network's only deficiency is that it lacks a category (a) NAMS site with a high concentration monitoring objective. But this deficiency is being corrected and a special purpose monitor has been set up atthe proposed location for a Category (a) site. An EPA protocol provides that this sampler will berun for at least one year.The data will then be evaluated to determine ifthe site meets the objectives and should be proposed as a NAMS. However, even without a category (a) site, the MCESD air mohitoring network is measuring PM1Q values above the 24 hour standard.

Part 58 requirements for ambient air monitoring networks intend the SLAMS networks tobe representative ofthe four basicmonitoring objectives stipulated in part 58 over the airbasin. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D. Annual network reviews are requested ofthe districts and evaluated bythe EPA to insure it is representative ofthe monitoring stations and to insure optimum use ofresources. EPA, therefore, disagrees that94 monitoring stations should berequired in the nonattainment area.

Comment:In a May 15, 1992 letter to the State EPA stated that the SIPmust include provisions for follow-up monitoring and annual network reviews. The State was to insure that the monitoring network in place as of ' January 1, 1994, wouldbe appropriate
to evaluate attainment. EPA also stated that the SIP revision shouldinclude a plan for establishing PM1oepisode monitoring stations. None of these requirements have been met in the form ofenforceable, funded commitments by the State or local governments.

Response:The State has addressed these requirements in the PMIo SIP revision for the PPAwhich is enforceable now onthe State level, and which willbe enforceable federally once this final notice becomes effective. Appendix B, Exhibit 14 contains additional information on the County's air quality surveillance system. Appendix B, Exhibit 15 contains the County's Rule 5 10-Air Quality Standards-which provides for the establishment ofpollutant monitoring in accordance with EPAguidance and Federal regulations. Appendix B, Exhibit 16 contains the County's Rule 600 which addresses emergency episodes. Appendix B, Exhibit 17 contains further information on the State's procedures for the prevention of
emergency episodes.

Comment:The technical support document accompanying EPA's proposed rulemaking asserts that the SIPprovides for correction ofthe monitoring deficiencies by January 1, 1994. We ask EPA to identify precisely where the SIP shows alegally enforceable commitment to this effect, and where the SIP shows a commitment offinancial resources to complete the job. Moreover, because theJanuary 1, 1094 date has long since passed, the correction ofdeficiencies shouldnow be complete. We ask EPAto indicate where the State has documented actual correction ofthe deficiencies, ifthis has in factoccurred.

Response:As discussed in the preceding response, Maricopa County has made documented progress in meeting all ofthe Federal air quality monitoring requirements. The appendices to the PMtoplan, cited above, provide specific information on the County's progress in correcting deficiencies withthe monitoring network. 2. Emission Inventory

Comment:The State's emission inventory is not accurate or current as required by the CAA.

Response:EPA disagrees withthis
comment andbelieves that the emissions inventory is accurate to within an acceptable degree of uncertainty. The State followed EPArecommended emissions inventory procedures in use at the time of inventory preparation. A degree of uncertainty is particularly associated with PM 1 oinventories because PM1o emissions are especially time- and. place-specific. Emission factors from a study in one area may differ for another

area. PMo emissions also vary with activity levels and there are many activities, such as residential wood burning, forwhich there has been little
accurate quantification. EPArecognizes thatthere are some differences between the emissions inventory fractions estimated from usual inventory methods and the source proportions determined from Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling. However, EPA does not consider these differences to invalidate the inventory. The monitored results used in the CMB analysis reflect differences in distance, dispersion, and deposition ofthe emissions from various PM1o sources. A source's contribution at a particular monitor is
not expected to be in the same proportion as its contribution to the area's total emissions. This explains the inventory/CMB discrepancies.

Furthermore, accuracy ofthe emissions inventory is not critical to demonstrating impracticability of attainment. This is because a demonstration of impracticability may be based on the CMB apportionment results and not specifically on the emissions inventory. The inventory total is used only as a normalization scaling factor. EPA may have reached a different conclusion if, for example, the State sought to rely on a dispersion " model, which requires o.nre accurate emissions inventory, instead ofthe CMB receptor model.'However, based onthe selected modeling, EPA believes that the inventory is sufficiently accurate to comply with.the requirements ofthe Act and, more specifically, to serve as the basis for the demonstration of impracticability.

3. Modeling

Comment:The SIP does not meet the requirements ofthe Act and EPA guidance for an adequate modeling analysis.

Response:EPA disagrees with this
comment. The State's modeling

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18014 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

complies with EPA guidelines, which allow for a receptor model such as CMB

even though adispersion model is recommended when possible. See Memorandum from John Calcagni, "PM10 SIP Demonstrations Policy for InitialModerate Areas" (March 4, 1991).

EPA recognizes that the State attempted to validate a dispersion model butwas unsuccessful, in large part because ofthe degree ofspatial and temporal accuracy required in the emissions inventory for use asinput to

a dispersion model. EPA believes that the State provided a reasonable level of effort to develop its dispersion model. Because it failed, however, the State is justified (andprovided itsjustification in the SIP revision)in using a CMB receptor model.EPA has determined that the State's modeling complies with EPA guidelines.

EPA also anticipates the PPA willbe reclassified as a serious area. Reclassification will provide additional time for the State to improve its modeling. When the State ultimately seeks to make an attainment demonstration, EPA will apply more stringent criteria for the spatial and temporal accuracy ofthe emissions inventory, corroborating models, and
treatment ofsecondary particulates. Nevertheless, EPAbelieves that the modeling submitted by the State in this PM 10 SIPrevision complies with the requirements and guidance established by EPA fora moderate area SIPrevision and demonstration ofimpracticability.

Comment:EPA's proposed finding that PM 10 precursors do notcontribute significantly to PM1olevels that exceed the NAAQS in the PPA was made without any objective standard against which to measure significance. EPA's proposed action on this issue is arbitrary and capricious.

Response:EPA disagrees with this
comment. EPA recognizes that on individual sampling days there were detectable contributions ofone PMo precursor, secondary ammonium nitrate. Yet the average overall contribution ofsecondary ammonium nitrate was less than five percent ofthe total annual inventory. See 1989-1990 Phoenix PM 1oStudy, Volume II: Source Apportionment, DRI, April 12, 1991, p. S-2. This magnitude ofcontribution is
not significant for purposes ofthis action, although EPA acknowledges that such a contribution might warrant further attention ifthe State were attempting to submit an attainment demonstration for the 24-hour NAAQS. EPA believes that a contribution of less than five percent secondary ammonium nitrate is within the degree of 

### uncertainty and isnear the "noise" level forCMB results.

. In general,because ofthe complexity ofthe chemistry involved, thereis no EPA-recommended method and no scientificconsensus for dealing with secondary particulates. A number of PM1 0

### areas have dealt with this problem by assumingthat secondary particulates

areroughly proportional (orscale) to emissions ofprimaryparticulates. EPA believesthat in the absence ofbetter scientific ortechnical information, including betterEPA guidance, this approach is reasonable. Consistent with thisapproach, the PPA scaled down theirtotal PMmo emissions inventory to exclude the contributions from PM 0 

### precursors. Indeed, ifthe PPAhad included the contributions from PM 0 

### precursors, thiswould have resulted in the recording ofproportionately higher concentrations ofPM1

### oinexcess ofthe NAAQS. Therefore, ifthe PPA had explicitly accounted forthe contribution ofPM,0 

### precursors, the State's conclusion thatattainment is impracticable would be strengthened, not weakened.
.4. Mobile SourceBudget

Comment:ACLPI states that inorder to determine conformity of transportation plans,projects, and programs with this SIP, a mobile source emissionbudget mustbe identified.

Response:EPA does notagree that the State was required to identify a mobile

source emission budget. The moderate

area SIPrevision for the PPA demonstrates that attainment ofthe PMIoNAAQS isimpracticable by December 31, 1994.Mobile source emission budgets are onlyrequired tobe identified inSIP revisions which demonstrate attainment. The preamble toEPA's transportation conformity rule
states:

Some moderate PM,0 

### nonattainment areas mayhave submitted SIPs which demonstrate that the area 

### cannot attain the PM,0 standard by the applicable attainment date. These

areas have been orwill bereclassified as serious areas under section 188(b) ofthe CleanAir Act. Such SIPs which do not demonstrate attainment do not havebudgets and are notconsidered control strategy SIPs forthe purposes oftransportation conformity.

58FR 62196, November 24, 1993.

Thus, EPA's transportation conformity rule explicitly contemplated and determined that PM,0 areas demonstrating impracticability, like the 

### PPA, would not haveprovided for and would notbe required to identify a mobile source emission budget until an approvable attainment demonstration is submitted. B.DemonstrationofImpracticability
Comment:The State's demonstration ofthe impracticability of 1994 attainment is contrary to both the language and purpose ofthe Act.The plain thrust ofsections 188 and 189, in combination with section 172, is that
states should make every effort to attain by 1994. Rather than searching for combinations ofcontrol measures that would produce timely attainment, the
state merely lists 13 control measures; asserts that they are insufficient to attain by 1994, and then "finds" that impracticability has been demonstrated.

Response:EPA disagrees. As discussed throughout this document, including inrelevant responses to comments, EPAhas determined that Arizona has implemented all RACM, and that the correct number of implemented measures is 67. EPA has also determined that the PPA has complied withthe requirement of section 172(c)(2) that it demonstrate it is meeting RFP, by showing a measurable increment ofPMIO reductions between the baseline and the emissions reductions achieved through implementation ofall RACM. EPA believes, therefore, that Arizona's SIP submittal does notcontain mere assertions, but appropriate and acceptable demonstrations that are consistent; notonly with the criteria contained in EPA's guidance, but with the Act's language and purpose as well. Again, as discussed further elsewhere in this Notice, EPA also believes that Congress recognized that many areas initially designated Moderate for PM o would notbe capable ofdeveloping SIP revisions which demonstrated attainment by the applicable attainment date. This is evident by the fact that, for PM 0 ,the Act also allows States to demonstrate earlier than the applicable attainment deadline that implementation ofRACM will not provide for attainment and, thus, that attainment by the Moderate area deadline is impracticable. Since this provision is unique to PM,0 (the Act generally provides fixed attainment dates for other pollutants which, ifthe

area fails to meet, subjects it to a mandatory "bump-up"), it seems clear that the language and intent ofthe Act

are to first provide PMIo-areas with an opportunity to attain the NAAQS through the implementation of reasonable, but notnecessarily exhaustive, efforts (i.e. RACM), and then
toprovide those areas that cannot achieve the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date With an altemative-to demonstrate that attainment is impracticable. However, such areas 

### 18015

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18015 1995

### 18016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

must then gothrough a second planning effort which will require the implementation ofmore stringent
measures, i.e. BACM.

Comment:ACLPI commented that the State's demonstration of impracticability is deficient because it failsto addressthe 24 hour standard.

Response:EPA disagrees thatthe impracticability ofmeeting both standards mustbe demonstrated. The PPA cannot be redesignated to attainment forPM 1ountil the State can demonstrate that the SIP provides for attainment ofboth the annual and the 24-hour NAAQS. Conversely, ifthe SIP demonstrates that even with the implementation ofRACM it cannot attain any one of the standards (annual

or24-hour) by December 31, 1994, then ithas demonstrated thatPMo attainment is impracticable. As an additional matter, it should be noted thatthe PPA is proportionately farther above the 24-hour NAAQS than it is above the annual NAAQS. Thus, given thatthe impracticability ofattainingthe annual NAAQS has been demonstrated, EPAagrees with the State's conclusion that attaining the more difficult 24-hour NAAQS would likelybe shown to be similarly impracticable.

Comment:ACLPI commented that EPA should not evaluate practicability from the present pointin time; i.e., whether attainment by December 31, 1994 is now practicable. The issue is whether timely attainment would have been practicable had the state implemented all RACM as expeditiously

as practicable, and no laterthan December 10, 1993. ACLPI also states that, based on the decision in Delaney

v. EPA, 898 F. 2d 687 (1990), the state wouldbe obligated to provide for attainment as soon as possible if achievable via implementation ofRACM

as expeditiously aspracticable.

Response:EPA is concluding in this action that Arizona has met theAct's requirement to implement all RACM by December 10, 1993. EPA is also concluding that the Statehas demonstrated that attainment of the PMo NAAQS by December 31, 1994, is impracticable even with timely implementation of all RACM. EPA therefore believes that the detailed explanations in this notice, including those contained in other relevant responses to comments, and in the accompanying technical support document should adequately address the issue raised by this comment. EPA further believes that therequirements that are relevant to consider are those contained in the CAA, as amended in 1990, and not statements taken from the Delaneyopinion, which was construing requirements under theCAA as amended in 1977. As statedpreviously inthis document, sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C) whenread together require the implementation ofall RACM as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 10, 1993. Additionally, section 189(a)(1)(B) requires either a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable. Since EPA believes both that the RACM implementation requirement has been
met and that an acceptable demonstration ofimpracticability has been provided by the State, no further
response is required.

C.RACM

Comment:ACLPI commented generally that the SIP, EPA Guidance and public comments identified 161 potential measures asRACM, but that the revised PMo SIP rejected allbut 13 ofthe measures without providing adequate justification. Similarly, the
state adopted only one new transportation control measure, while failing to adopt, without explanation, every other potentially available TCM.

Response:The general and detailed
comments by ACLPI concerning RACM raise difficult issues concerning the State planning requirements, and EPA appreciates the time and thought that ACLPI has contributed to this process. However, ACLPI has misunderstood the number ofmeasures that the State implemented orrejected as 'RACM. The revised PM10 SIP did not reject all but 13 measures from the list ofpossible RACM. As discussed below and in substantial detail in the accompanying TSD, the Statehas implemented all possible RACM (insome cases, by demonstrating that partial implementation ofameasure is all that

was reasonable to implement by December 10, 1993) and has provided EPA with areasoned justification for the rejection ofthe remainingmeasures as not constituting RACM.

EPA disagreeswith ACLPI regarding its RACM interpretation as it relates to transportation control measures (TCMs). In its comments regarding whether the State should have considered various proposed TCMs to be reasonably available, ACLPI asserts that the Court ofAppeals forthe Ninth Circuit held in Delaneyv.EPA, "that TCMs listed in section 108 ofthe Act are presumed to be reasonably available." ACLPI goes on to argue that "Congress adopted and endorsed this decision in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments," and cites for this proposition 136 Cong. Rec. S16971 (dailyed. Oct. 27, 1990). In reliance on these claims, ACLPI concludes that Arizona "has failed to rebut the [presumption regarding the] availability ofthe section 108 measures in theinstant SIP, and therefore the SIP
must be rejected." EPA disagrees with both assertions and with the conclusion ACLPI derives from them as well. In the General Preamble (57FR 13560-13561) EPA presents a detailed discussion ofits interpretation ofthe RACM requirement, including implementation ofTCMs. EPA continues to stand by that interpretation and the General Preamble discussion is explicitly referenced herein as forming part ofthe justification for the action being taken in this document.

The portion ofthat discussion that relates to TCMs acknowledges that in pre-amended Act guidance EPA created

apresumption that all ofthe TCMs listed in section 108(f) were RACM for all areas, and required areas to specifically justify a determination that any measure was not RACM based on local circumstances. However, EPA then explicitly repudiated that earlier guidance, explaining that,based on its experience in implementing TCMs in subsequent years, local circumstances varied to such a degree that it was inappropriate to presume that all ofthe

measures listed in section 108(f) were per se reasonably available for all nonattainment areas. See 44 FR 20372- 20375 (April4, 1979). Under EPA's revised guidance, all states are required,
at aminimum, to address the section 108(f) measures, and where such a

measure is determined to be reasonably available to implement it in accordance with section 172(c)(1).

With respect to Delaney,the General Preamble states EPA's beliefthat the
court did not hold, as ACLPI claims, that the statute required the Agency to interpret the RACM requirement to create a presumption that all TCMs are reasonably available. Instead, the court held that EPA itselfhad created such a presumption and, therefore, was bound
to apply its own then-applicable 1979 RACM guidance. An administrative
agency is permitted to revise or alter prior guidance so long as thatguidance continues to represent areasonable interpretation ofthe statutory requirement. Nothing in the court's decision precluded EPA fromrevising its own guidance based on later experience in implementing TCMs. EPA also believes that the Senate managers'
statement endorsing the Agency's 1979 RACM guidance as construed by the Delaneycourt reflected the view of several legislators who had wanted the Senate Committee bill to require that all section 108() measures be implemented

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18016 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

in severe nonattainment areas. However, the final version ofthe Senate bill did
not adopt this position. Consequently,
any subsequent statements by any legislators that appearto consider the interpretation relating to TCMs inEPA's 1979 RACM guidance as still being applicable post-1990 could notbe said
to reflect the views ofthe Congress as

awhole, and thus should notbe accorded weight.

Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C), along with relevant EPA guidance, require the State to implement all RACM provisions in its moderate area plan toreduce PM1 0'emissions. EPA's proposed approval ofthe revised PM,0 SIP concluded that there was an initial list of 161 potential RACM. See 59 FR 38404. EPA has determined that the State implemented 67 ofthose measures

as RACM. Oftheremaining 94 potential RACM, 62 measures were duplicates of other measures. Finally, EPA believes that the State acted in accordance with Agency guidance in determining that the remaining 32 measures were not in fact, reasonably available because either; (1) The source made a de minimis contribution ofPMo or (2) the measure

was rejected onthe basis ofeconomic or. technological infeasibility. Thus, EPA has determined that the State has satisfied its moderate area RACM requirements under sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C).

In some cases, RACM hasbeen met through partial implementation ofa measure, such as doubling rather than tripling bus service or implementing

measures only in populous municipalities. The State provided more detailed justification explaining why partial implementation ofmany

measures constitutes RACM in "Summary ofLocal Government Commitments to Implement Measures and Reasoned Justification forNonImplementation forthe MAG 1991 Particulate Plan forPMo and Select Measures from the Clean AirAct Section 108(f)" ("MAG Supplementary Document"). The Mag Supplementary Document was submitted at EPA's request after EPA proposed to approve therevised PMo SIP in an effort to respond to comments received by EPA claiming that the SIP submittal didnot contain sufficient detail regarding the State's justification forrejecting potential RACM. The MAG Supplementary Document hasbeen included in the Administrative Record forthis rulemaking and, to the extent that it provides additional detail and elaborates onthe State's reasoning regarding its RACM determination, forms, inpart, a complementary basis forEPA's final approval ofthe State's revised PMo SIP, including EPA's finding thatthe State complied with its obligation under Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C) to implement all RACM.

The list of67 RACM the State has implemented includes 41 measures that

were adopted in the State's 1993 Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Plans ("1993 CO Plan"). EPA believes that adoption and inclusion ofthe measures in the 1993 CO Plan is a sufficiently meaningful and legally binding action by the State which, moreover, constitutes compliance with the Act's requirement
to submit a plan which includes provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than December 10, 1993. ACLPI's comments on individual measures addressed in the accompanying TSD state that certain

measures have not been adopted "in committed form." For the measures in the 1993 CO Plan, EPA believes thatthe State has provided adequate evidence that the plan is being implemented and is enforceable. The State's 1993 CO plan builds upon the control strategy developed and adopted for theMAG 1987 COplan. Many ofthe measures in the 1993 CO plan continue implementation oftransportation control measures included in the 1987 CO plan.The 1993 CO plan also contains new control measures that

were notin the 1987 CO plan. EPAis

aware that, for the most part, the State is not claiming PM1o emission reduction credits for the measures developed for their CO and ozone plans. The PMo SIP does take emission reduction credit for Maricopa County's Trip Reduction Ordinance and the operation oftwo alternative fueled buses. The State explained instead that reductions from RACM in the 1987 CO Plan were calculated in the 1989 baseline PMo emission inventory. These COmeasures may qualify as RACM regardless of whether emissions reduction credit can be assigned, as noted by EPA's proposed approval, stating: "These CO measures

are included in the PM oSIP revision because they could also reduce particulate matter emissions." 59 FR 38404. EPAhas not received direct adverse comment 'onthe proposal to include the CO measures in the State's revised PMo SIP as RACM, and is therefore taking final action on that proposal. The 41 measures fromthe CO and Ozone Plans that are treated as RACM in therevised PMo SIP are listed inthe TSD, Attachment #2, for this NFRM.

In addition to RACM from the 1993 CO Plan, the State is implementing

measures required by national rulemakings. These measures are also RACM for themoderate area PMlo SIP. For example, the State must ensure that cleaner commercial aircraft land in the PPA based on the federal Airport Noise Control Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 2151 (1990) (ANCA). Municipalities in the PPA are required to comply with ANCA. Thus,

even though the clean aircraft requirement is established by ANCA, it also satisfies the State's obligation to

assure implementation ofRACM. EPA believes the State may satisfy theRACM obligation pursuant to compliance with ANCA rather than through adoption in the revised PMio SIP ofmeasure No. 45, "Replacement ofHigh Emitting Aircraft," offered in the public
comments. The accompanying TSD lists RACM which are based on national rulemakings or emissions standards.

For diesel fuel controls, EPA believes that the State has adequately demonstrated that partial implementation ofthis measure through compliance withnational diesel fuel standards is RACM, and that the State has alsojustified rejecting implementing the California diesel fuel standards as RACM. Likewise, the State's partial implementation ofameasure requiring conversion ofits diesel fleet to clean fuels constitutes RACM. The Statehas also partially implemented measures regulating nonroad utility heavy duty engines and utility enginesthrough compliance with national standards. EPA believes that partial implementation ofthis measure is all that was reasonable for the state to implement by December 10, 1993. The implementation ofcontrols associated with diesel fuels and engines is discussed more fully in the accompanying TSD. The TSD also discusses the State's justification for rejecting asRACM an inspection and maintenance testing program for diesel vehicles.

Comprehensive rules are another

source ofRACM. The State submitted -severalcomprehensive rules, such as Rules 310, 311, 314 and 316, that
encompass RACM that are separate from the initial list of161 possible measures. Forexample, Rule 310 addresses 13 of the 15 measures that EPA considered to be reasonably available forthe control of fugitive dust. See 59 FR 38404. The accompanying TSD provides a more detailed discussion ofRACM for fugitive dust based on implementation ofRule 310. To control residential wood combustion, Maricopa County has adopted a new rule, Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance (RWRO), and the Statehas included a provision inHB 2001 that provides a personal income tax deduction for people that purchase EPA-certified wood heaters. The County also has a 

### 18017

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18017 1995

### 18018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

public education and awareness program in place to inform residents of the impacts ofresidential wood combustion on air quality and public health and the requirements of the County's woodburning restriction ordinance. These measures cover all of the four RACM listed by EPA inits General Preamble to address particulate
matter emissions from residential wood combustion. The State's adoption ofthe County's RWRO satisfies the obligation
to adopt measures to reduce emissions from residential wood combustion. As with measures in the 1993 CO Plan, EPAbelieves thatthe Statehas adopted the RWRO in sufficiently meaningful legal form to ensure that RACM is being implemented in compliance with the Act.The TSD also discusses this

measure.

From the initial list of161 possible RACM, EPA determined that 62

measures are duplicates ofothers and consequently did notrequire any further consideration. These duplicate

measures are also listed in the TSD, Attachment #1.

Finally, EPA has determined that the State wasjustified in rejecting 32 ofthe remaining measures from the list of161 possible RACM. These measures, which

are listed in the TSD, Attachment #3,

were discussed in EPA's proposed approval, 59FR 38404, and are not reasonably available because they are either de minimis or economically or technologically infeasible. Certain

measures are notreasonably available because the contribution from the

source is de minimis in the PPA, such

as Public Comment No. 37 which provides for reducing emissions from shipberthing. There are no ship ,berthing facilities in the PPA. Alternatively, the State has provided reasonedjustifications to reject certain

measures asRACM based on economic

ortechnological infeasiblity, such as railroad electrification. Those measures rejected from the initial list of 161 possible RACM, and thejustifications for such rejections, are provided inthe accompanying TSD.

For thereasons stated above, EPA has determined that the State has satisfied its obligation underthe Act to submit a plan containing provisions to assure that RACM hasbeen implemented by December 10, 1993, and, consistent with Agency guidance, has provided a reasoned justification for rejecting other potential measures on grounds that they

are not RACM. The accompanying TSD provides a detailed response to each specific measure ortype ofmeasure that

was raised in ACLPI's comments onthe RACM portion ofEPA's proposed approval ofthe State's revised PM 3 0 SIP. Many other measures were duplicates of

measures that were either adopted or rejected. For the remaining measures which the State rejected, EPA has given careful consideration to ACLPI's thorough comments. On balance, however, the Statehas complied with its obligation to provide EPA with a reasoned justification for the rejection of the remaining potential RACM.

D.RFP

Comment:The SIP fails to show RFP

as -requiredby section 172(c)(2) ofthe Act. According to the SIP, emissions of PM30 increase in 1994 compared to the baseyear.

R esponse:EPAdisagrees withthe commenter's assertion that the SIP does
not demonstrate reasonable further progress in reducing PM 0 emissions. While the State's demonstration showed

a small reduction in PMo emissions from the implementation ofMaricopa County's Rule 310-Fugitive Dust, EPA believes that the emission reduction that the State associated.with thisrule was overly conservative. When the State calculated the emission reduction potential for Rule 310, they only applied the control effectiveness to the urban portions ofthe PPA. EPA believes the control effectiveness should have been applied to the entire nonattainment area since the rule applies throughout Maricopa County which includes the entire nonattainment area. When EPA recalculated the emission reduction benefits ofthe SIP's control strategy the reduction potential equals 8,677 tons per year. The 1989 base year inventory is 40,975 tons per year and was projected to grow to 45,981 tons per year in 1994. Therefore, the total 1994 projected inventory after application of RACM would equal 37,304 tons peryear which shows, consistent with EPA's guidance on demonstrating RFP, which is described in greater detail earlier in this notice, that the area has indeed made progress in reducing emissions from the base year total, and thushas demonstrated it has met the requirements ofsection 172(c)(2) for the period 1990-1994.

E.Rules

Comment:Rule 310 is not approvable because the rule does not meetthe Act's

or EPA's criteria for enforceability. The rule must make clear to whom it applies and be sufficiently specific that a source is fairly on notice' as to the standard it
mustmeet. No threshold level ofdust generation is specified, leaving sources to guess as to when the ordinance will be triggered.

Response:Rule 310 does specify the

sources that are subject to control. Rule 310 applies to any activity, equipment, operation and/or man-made or mancaused condition or practice capable of generating fugitive dust. Section 300 of the Rule further specifies the types of activities and sources offugitive dust that are subject to the rule's requirements (e.g., vehicle use in open

areas and vacant parcels; unpaved parking areas/staging areas; unpaved haul/access roads; disturbed surface

areas; vacant areas;material handling operations; material transport; haul trucks; roadways, streets and alleys; and cattle feedlots and livestock areas). Further, as discussed in more detail in
response to the next comment, the requirements ofRule 310 are triggered if

a source of fugitive dustviolates either the 20% opacity standard in Section 301

orthe requirement to implement RACM in Sections 301 through 314. Thus, any activity that causes visible emissions in

excess of 20percent opacity or any activity that is carried out contrary to the implementation ofRACM is a violation ofRule 310. For new sources offugitive dust, Rule 310 requires compliance with an approved dust control plan as implementation of RACM, subject to approval bythe control officer; existing sources of fugitive dust are required to comply with the RACM defined inthe Rule;

Comment:The standards of performance [inRule 310] are equally
vague. The rule merely statesthat reasonably available control measures must be applied. That term is in turn defined merely by listing examples of vaguely described control steps without requiring use ofany specific measure or

a specific level ofeffort in any specific
context. Thus, any specific level of control that the County seeks to impose will be subject to challenge.

Response:ACLPI's comments tend to oversimplify the requirements ofRule 310. Because ofthe very many different circumstances under which fugitive dust can be generated, it wouldbe nearly impossible for the County to predict every situation and prescribe a specific control measure for it. As noted above, Rule 310 contains two standards
to enforce. One standard with which all

sources are required to comply is the 20% opacity limit. The second standard is the RACM requirement. New sources offugitive dust are required to comply with approved dust control plans, which become enforceable as permit conditions. For existing sources of fugitive dust, Rule 310 addresses the variability ofsources and activities by eitherprescribing RACM (see, e.g., Section 311.2) or listing potential reasonably available fugitive dust control measures (see, e.g., Sections 306

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18018 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

&221). Yet Rule 310 allows a source to tailor its own control strategy to fit its particular situation and EPA believes that such flexibility is necessary. When the activity or situation does not involve

ahigh degree ofvariability, the

measures that apply to that source are typically more prescriptive. For example, Section 311.2, which applies
to allhaul trucks operating inthe PPA,
sets forth specific requirements as RACM. Ifhaul trucks fail to implement these measures, there is aviolation of Rule 310. Even ifthe haul trucks comply with Section 311.2, but still violate the 20% opacity standard, there is aviolation ofRule 310. Other sections oftherule are equally enforceable through permit conditions. Section 303 ofRule 310 requires that a permit application for any new source subject
to Section 302 ofRule 310 shall include

a Control Plan to prevent or minimize fugitive dust, and the Control Plan must beapproved by the County Control Officer. Ifthe County determines through a violation of theseparate 20% opacity standard that a Control Plan is
not sufficient to control fugitive dust, the responsible party is required to revise the control plan accordingly. Thus, the County willbe able to enforce the provisions ofthis Rule 310through
two standards: the 20% opacity standard and the requirement to implement RACM through a Control Plan or as defined inthe Rule.

The original version ofRule 310that

was submitted toEPA contained a provision that EPA believed threatened theenforceability ofthe rule. The original rule contained a provision (221.9) that allowed the Control Officer
to approve the use of alternative control methods not listed in the rule. This provision has since been deleted from Rule 310.

Comment:The State and County have not committed the necessary resources and personnel to ensure enforcement of rules 310, 311, 314, and 316, as required under section 110(a)(2)(E) and EPA guidance. Nor does the SIP contain a program toprovide forenforcement of any ofthe SIPcontrol strategies, as required by section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe Act.

Response:The County has committed thenecessary resources and personnel
to implement rules 310, 311, 314, and 316. Details on the level ofpersonnel and funding, as required by section 110(a)(2}(E) ofthe Act, as well as enforcement strategies as required by section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe Act are provided inthe document "MAG 1991 Particulate Plan forPMmo for the Maricopa County Area and 1993 Revisions, Commitments for Implementation, Volume Three", section entitled "Maricopa County".

F. Other

1.Public Comment

Comment:In the process of developing and submitting the PM SIP revision for Phoenix, MAG and the State have on several occasions failed intheir responsibility to seriously consider public comment prior to adopting plans.

Response:The State has provided a section in all ofits PM 0 SIP submittals which includes all public comments received and the State's responses to those comments.

2. State Assurances

Comment:The PM 10 SIP does not contain, as required by section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) ofthe CAA, the necessary assurances that, where the Statehas relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation ofany plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation ofsuch plan provision." While the State contends that thisrequirement.is met by A.R.S. §49-406.J, the process laid out by this State statute does not meet the plain requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and is completely inconsistent with the Act's requirements for SIP enforceability, timely implementation ofcontrol measures, and expeditious attainment.

Response:EPA has historically adopted a rule ofreasonableness in construing the language ofsection 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) ofthe Act with respect to the extent to which the State must. show that its plan evinces a showing of responsibility sufficient to ensure adequate implementation ofthe plan's provisions by local orregional governments. EPA, forexample, does
notrequire the State to adopt into its

own plan the local government's implementing provisions,but has considered it sufficient for the State to describe and reference those provisions and the accompanying descriptions of the local municipalities intended implementation actions. The State has included in its plan submission a copy ofthe Arizona Laws Relating to Environmental Quality, §49-406. J. of which contains the assurances required by section 110(a)(2)(E). Ifany person fails to implement an emission limitation orcontrol measure, the relevant State official is required to issue a written finding to that effect, which may also necessitate the holding ofa conference regarding the failure with the offending person. Ifa determination is made that the failure hasnot been corrected, theattorney general, at the responsible official's request, must file an action, seeking either "a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, or any other reliefprovided by law." Section 49-,407 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes provides thatcitizens may sue the director to perform his or her duty. While some opportunity is provided to rectify problems short oftaking legal action, EPA does notbelieve this is unreasonable, northat the affected State officials ultimately have discretion to ignore the law's requirements. The comment engages in some speculation, describing several possible scenarios under which implementation by the local authorities may not occur. Desp~te these concerns-which are admittedly speculative-EPA believes, based on its experience in administering this provision ofthe Act, that the relevant sections ofthe State's law provides an adequate degree of assurance that the control measures in the plan are enforceable and willbe fully implemented.

VI. Executive Order 12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866review.


### VII. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPAmay certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-forprofitenterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

SIPapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I,part D ofthe Clean AirAct do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does
not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does nothave a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature ofthe federal-state relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

### 18019

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18019 1995

### 18020 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List ofSubjects in40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan forthe Stateof Arizona was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register onJuly 1,1982.

Dated: February 28, 1995. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator.

Part 52, chapter I,title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations 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 by adding paragraphs (c) (67)(i)(B), (73), (74), and (77) and by adding and reserving paragraphs (c) (72), (75), and (76) to read as follows:
§52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *



### (c)* * * (67) * * * 

### (i)* * * (B)Amended Maricopa County Division ofAir Pollution Control Rule 314, adopted July 13, 1988.

* * * * *

(72) [Reserved] (73) Plan revisions were submitted on August 11, 1993 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) TheMaricopa Association of Governments 1991 Particulate Plan for PMo for theMaricopa County Area and 1993 Revisions, Chapters 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 10 and Appendices A through D, adopted August 11, 1993.

(74) Plan revisions were submittedby the-Governor's designee on March 3, 1994.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Maricopa County Division ofAir Pollution Controlnew Rule 316, adopted July 6, 1993, andrevised Rule 311, adopted August 2, 1993.

(B) The Maricopa Association of Governments 1991 Particulate Plan for PM10 for the Maricopa County Area and 1993 Revisions, Revised Chapter 9 adopted on March 3, 1994.

(75) [Reserved] (76) [Reserved] (77) Amended regulations for the Maricopa County Division ofAir Pollution Control submitted by the Governor's designee onDecember 19, 1994.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Maricopa County Division ofAir Pollution Control Rule 310, adopted on September 20, 1994. [FRDoc. 95-8215 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 8560-80-P

40 CFR Part 63 [AD-FRL-6183-3]

RIN 2060-ACI 9

National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous AirPollutants forSource Categories; Organic Hazardous Air Pollutantsfrom the SyntheticOrganic Chemical Manufacturing Industryand Other Processes Subjectto the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On October 24 and 28, 1994, EPA proposed amendments to certain aspects ofthe."National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks" 59 FR 19402 (April 22, 1994) and 59 FR 29196 (June 6, 1994) (collectively known as the "hazardous organic NESHAP" orthe "HON"). This action announces the EPA's final decisions on those proposed amendments.

The rule is being revised to provide a deferral ofHON requirements for source

owners oroperators who wishto make

an area source certification and to establish minimum documentation requirements. This action is being taken because EPA believes thatin view of
current circumstances the requirements ofthe rule should notbe imposed on

sourcesthat are likely to be designated

as area sources in the near future. The rule is also being revised to extend the compliance date for certain compressors and for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers to allow the time
necessary for installation ofcontrols.- The applicability ofcontrol requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers is also being revised to reduce confusion overthe rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Janet S. Meyer, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.Background

A. Federal Register Actions
On October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53359) EPA announced that, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B), it was reconsidering certain portions ofthe HON rule and issuing a 3 month administrative stay. The October 24, 1994 administrative stay applied only to those source owners or operators who make a representation in writing that resolution ofthe area source definition issues could affect whether the facility is subject to the HON. As part ofthat action, EPA also proposed amendments
to the HON to establish procedures for

a source to obtain a deferral ofHON requirements for such sources and to establish minimum documentation requirements.

.

In addition, on October 28, 1994 (59 FR 54131), EPA announced an administrative stay ofthe effectiveness ofthe provisions ofthe HON for
compressors and for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers for

sources subject to the October 24, 1994 compliance date. As part ofthat action, EPA also proposed amendments to the HONto revise compliance dates for
compressors and for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers to prcvide sufficient time to make the equipment changes necessary for compliance with the rule. Provisions to document the use ofthe compliance extensions for compressors were also proposed. Changes were also proposed to the applicability of controlrequirements for
surge control vessels and bottoms receivers.

Along with both notices ofpartial stay and reconsideration, EPA also proposed
to extend the compliance dates beyond the 3 months provided, as necessary to complete reconsideration and revision ofthe rule in question. OnJanuary 27, 1995 (60 FR 5320), EPA amended the HON to extend the compliance dates until April 24, 1995 to allow time to complete the two sets of revisions to the rule.

B.PublicParticipation

Ten comment letters were received on each ofthe two notices ofproposed amendments. All comment letters received were from industry representatives or trade associations. No
comments objecting to the EPA's basic approach were received on either the October 24 or the October 28, 1994 proposed amendments. The significant

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 18020 1995