### 30224 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 /Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

8), R9-3-1003, R9-3-1005, R9-3-1006, R9- 3-1008, R9-3-1009, R9-3-1010, R9-3- 1011, R9-3-1013, R9-3-1016, R9-3-1018, R9-3-1019, R9-3-1025, R9-3-1026, R9-3- 1027, R9-3-1028, R9-3-1030, and R9-3- 1031, adopted on December 23, 1986.

(2)Previously approved and now removed (withoutreplacement), Rule R9-3-1014.

(61) The following amendments to the plan were submitted by the Governor's designee on January 6, 1988.

(i)Incorporation by reference. (A) The 1987 Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision for the Tucson Air Planning Area adopted on October 21, 1987.

(62) The following amendments to the plan were submitted by the Governor's designee on March 23, 1988.

(i)Incorporation byreference. (A) Arizona Revised Statutes. (1)Senate Bill 1360: Section 6: ARS 15-1444-C (added), Section 7: QRS 15- 1627-F (added), Section 21: ARS 49- 542-A (amended, Section 21: ARS 49- 542-E (added), Section 21: ARS 49-542- J.3.(b) (amended), and Section 23: ARS 49-550-E (added), adopted on May 22, 1987.

(63) [Reserved] (64) The following amendments to the plan were submitted by the Governor's designee on June 1, 1988.

(i)Incorporation by Reference. (A) Letter from the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality, dated June 1,1988, committing to administer theprovisions ofthe Federal New Source Review regulations consistent with EPA'srequirements. The commitments apply to the issuance of,

orrevision to, permits for any source which is a major stationary source or major modification as defined in40 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 51, Subpart I.

(65) [Reserved] (66)The following amendments to the plan were submitted by the Governor's designee on July 22, 1988.

(i)Incorporation by Reference. (A) Letter from the PimaCounty Health Department, Office of Environmental Quality, dated April 24, 1988 committing to administer the Now Source Review provisions oftheir regulations consistent with EPA's requirements. The commitments apply to the issuance of, orrevision to, permits for any source which is a major stationary source ofmajor modification

as defined in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 51, Subpart 1. §52.124 [Amended]
3. Section 52.124 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(2). [FR Doc. 88-18081 Filed 8-9-88; 9:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR PART 52
[FRL-3427-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision; Maricopa County Carbon Monoxide Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's final action to approve revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) state implementation plan (SIP)for the Maricopa County (Phoenix) CO nonattainment area that were submitted by the State ofArizona on October 5, 1987, and July 18 and 22, 1988. In itsMay 16, 1988, notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) (52FR 17379), EPA proposed to approve certain control measures in the 1987 Maricopa CO plan; however, those

measures did not by themselves provide sufficient emission reductions to demonstrate timely attainment ofthe CO standard'in Maricopa County.In response to the plan's failure to demonstrate timely attainment and to an order by the U.S. District Court for the District ofArizona, EPAalso proposed in the same notice to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP)for Maricopa County.This proposed FIP contained two measures-an oxygenated fuels program formotor vehicles and an employer-based trip reduction program-which together with theproposed SIP measures would have provided sufficient emission reductions
to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1991. As fully discussed in the May 16 proposal and later in this notice, EPA believes thatthe December 31, 1991 date is the latest date by which an approvable Arizona SIPmay demonstrate attainment under the Clean Air Act and EPA's own policies in light of thepossibility ofattainment by then without the use ofdraconian measures.

In June, 1988, the Arizona State Legislature passed House Bill 2206 which contains a state-run oxygenated fuels program, a travel reduction program, a loaded-mode testing requirement forthe State's inspection and maintenance (I/M)program, and other measures. Two of those measures, the loaded-mode I/M test requirement and the voluntary no-drive-day program apply to both Maricopa and Pima Counties. On July 18 and 22, 1988, the State submitted portions ofH.B. 2206 and a persuasive demonstration that the

measures in the bill along with the SIP

measures proposed for emission reduction credit by EPA on May 16 will lead to attainment ofthe CO standards inMaricopa by December 31, 1991. In its May 16 notice, EPAhad proposed in advance to approve the measures similar to those inH.B. 2206 ifthe State adopted and submitted them to EPA prior to August 10, 1988. Today, EPA takes final action to approve the SIP Submittals received by EPA on October 5, 1987, and July 18 and 22, 1988. EPA takes this actionbased on its conclusion thatthe control measures and the attainment demonstration fully meet the requirements of section 110 and PartD of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). EPA is alsotaking final action to approve the Maricopa County New Source Review (NSR)regulations proposed for approval on July 3, 1983 (48 FR 34293).

With its full approval ofthe Maricopa SIP, EPA iswithdrawing its proposed FIP and theproposal to impose highway funding restrictions under CAA section 176(a) which were proposed on May 16, 1988. In addition, EPAis lifting, effective today, the section 110(a)(2)(I) construction ban on major new or modified sources ofCO that it imposed

on September 23, 1986 (51 FR 33746). EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1988.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support document (TSD) forthis rulemaking are available for public inspection during normal working hours at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, State Liaison Section, A-2-2, AirManagement Division, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, Office ofAir Quality, 2005 N. Central Avenue, Sixth Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Maricopa Association of Governments,

1820West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace D. Woo, Chief, State Liaison Section (A-2-2), Air Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 974-7634, FTS: 454-7634

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30224 1988

### No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 

## 1 Rules and Regulations 3(225

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I.Background

TheCAA amendments of1977 

### required States torevise their SIPsby certain times for allareas that had not then attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).Generally, the States containing these designated "nonattainment areas" had to submit revised SIPs by January 1,1979. The. 1979 SIPrevisions were to provide for attainment ofthe NAAQSby December 31, 1982. An extension of the attainment date for ozoneor CO to nolaterthan December 31, 1987, was available under section 172 ifthe Statecould demonstrate as part ofits 1979 SIP revision thatattainment by the end of 1982 was not possible, despite the implementation ofallreasonably available control measures. For areas that received an attainment date extension from EPA,States were required to submit toEPA by July 1, 1982, an additional SIP revision that provided forattainment no later than December 31, 1987, and that complied with all other requirements of'Part D of the CAA.

A. Maricopa SIPDisapproval Maricopa County was designated as nonattainment for CO onMarch 3, 1978 (43 FR 8970), and the State submitted Maricopa County'sinitial nonatlainment

area plan for CO in 1979 and 1980. On October 30, 1980, the State submitted a request to EPA to extend the CO attainment dateinMaricopa County to December 31, 1987. EPA proposed to approve the extension request on February 5, 1982 (47 FR 5439).

On May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19826), EPA took final action to approve the 1979 SIP revision on thecondition that the State submit revised regulations forMaricopa County tomeet the Act's NSR requirements. On June3, 1982, and March 4, 1983, the State submitted NSR regulations forMaricopa County. On July 3,1983 (48 FR 34293), EPA proposed to approve the Maricopa NSR rules with

one exception and certain understandings.

Beyond establishing the NSR condition,EPA, in its finalaction on the 1979 CO plan, found that theplan was 

### not adequate to bring about attainment by the end of1982. EPApremised its limited approval ofthe plan on the expectation thatf1) the Agency would take final action togrant the State's request foran attainment date extension
to December 31, 1987, and12) theState would submit another plan revision which would provide for attainment by that date. TheState submitteda plan purporting to meet thisrequirement on October 26, 1982. On January 27, 1986 (51 FR3343), EPA proposed todisapprove the revised Maricopa plan and impose the section 110(a)(2)(1) construction ban because the 'Statehad not adequately demonstrated that theplan would provide fortimely attainment ofthe standard.

On September 23, 1986 (51FR 33746), EPA published a final notice disapproving the CO plansfor both the Maricopa and Pima Counties nonattainment areas and imposing the section 110(a)(2](I) construction ban on major new sources and major modifications to existing sources ofCO in the two areas. As explained fully in the September 23, 1986 notice, EPA determined that it was not necessary to take final action on the State's attainment date extension request.

B. U.S. District CourtOrder

On August 10, 1987, the U.S. District Court for the District ofArizona ordered EPA to promulgate aFIP undersection 110(c) ofthe Act forCO in the Maricopa and Pima Counties nonattainment areas. The Court found thatEPA's duty to promulgate aFIP arose when EPA found the State plans were inadequate. The Court Order is the result ofa citizen suit brought against EPA on April 8, 1985, by the Arizona Centerfor Law in thePublic Interest [ACLPI). The timeframe specified in the Court Order forEPA to promulgate a FIPwas six months following either the formal submittal of the Pima COplan or September 30, 1987, whichever came first.McCarthyv. Thomas,D. Ariz. No. CIV-85-34-TUC1WDB (slip op., Aug. 10, 1987).The Court left open thepossibility thatEPA could file a motion after January 1, 1988, requesting an extension ofthe time period forFIPpromulgation ifnecessary.

On March 14, 1988, EPA moved the Court to extend the periodfor EPA to promulgate a FIPfor the Maricopa and Pimaareas. On April 19, 1988,the Court issued an Orderrequiring EPA to propose a FIPfor Maricopa County no later than May 13, 1988, hold public hearings on theproposal no later than June 10,1988, closethe public comment period following the hearing by July 11, 1988, and promulgate a FIP forMaricopa County nolater than August 10, 1988. The Court also ordered that the same schedule forFPpromulgation shall apply for PimaCounty ifEPA did not accept the Pima County SIP. OnJuly 19, 1988, EPA moved the Court to amend its Order to specifically allow EPA to approve Arizona's SIP forMaricopa County by August 10, 1988. The Court granted EPA'smotion on July20, 1988.

EPAoutlined itsintended approach to comply with theCourt Order to promulgate a FIP forMaricopa and Pima 

### Counties in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (51 

### FR 45466)published onNovember 30,1987. IntheANPRM, EPAexplained that, to promulgatea FIPfor these two areas, EPAmust select control measures that fillwhatever gaps are left by approved portions ofthe State plans.The ANPRM also discussed theMaricopa CountyCO plan that hadbeen submitted as aSIP revision by theStateon October5, 1987. Theplan indicated that thearea could attain theCO standard asearly as 1990 and in any event by 1995ifthe recommended control strategy in the SIP (including anoxygenated fuels program formotorvehicles, winter daylight, savings time, andan employer-based tripreduction ordinance) were fully adopted.and implemented.

The Maricopa plan claimed credit, both implicitly and explicitly, forthe Arizona vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program as expanded through 1987. OnApril 26, 1988, ina FederalRegister notice onthe revisedPima COplan, EPA proposed to approve theimprovements tothe State's I/M program asadopted by theArizona State Legislature in 1985, 1986,and 1987. 

### (51 FR 14818). The revised Maricopa planalso assumedcredit forthe following additional control measures: Transitand ridesharing improvements, expanded facilities to encourage increased pedestrian andbicycle trips, alternative work hours,alternative fuels for vehiclefleets, alternative-fueled transit vehicle purchase, anda voluntary no-drive-day program. On May 16, 1988(53 FR17379), EPA proposed to approve and assign emissions reductioncredits to allof these measuresexcept for the alternative fuels forvehicle fleets and the voluntary no-drive-day program. However, the creditable measures inthe revised plandidnotby themselves provide sufficient emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment ofthe CO standard. Therefore, EPA also proposed to promulgate the twocontrol measures for Maricopa County identified inthe ANPRM-an oxygenated fuelsprogram and an employer-based tripreduction program-as technologically available elements ofaFIPthat wouldprovide the emission reductions -necessaryfor attainment.

C.Proposed FIP



### As fully described in theMay 16, 1988 .notice;EPA'sevaluation ofthe air quality modeling analysis in theSIP submittal prepared bytheMaricopa AssociationofGovernments (MAG) shows thata 22.0percent reduction ir the 1991 baseline COemissions is Federal Register / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30225 1988

### 30226 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

needed to demonstrate attainment ofthe 8-hour CO standard by December 31, 1991. (Theapplicable attainment date forthe Maricopa plan is described in detail in theproposed rulemaking and is summarized later in this notice.)The MAG planprovided an approvable emission reduction of3.9 percent bythe end of1991 leaving a shortfall of18.1 percent in the emission reductions needed forattainment To fill that shortfall,EPA proposed two federal control measures-an employer alternative modes incentives program and an oxygenated fuels programwhidh,together with the approvable SIP
measures, would provide at least a 22.0 percent reduction in COemissions by the end of1991.

The proposed oxygenated fuels program required an equivalent oxygen content level of2.57 percent in motor vehicle fuels sold in theMaricopa area in thewinter CO season. October 1 through March 31. Oxygenated fuel blends, in theform ofaliphatic alcohols and/orethers which are currently on the market and available to the Maricopa
area, include mefhyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), ethanol (gasohol)and methanol/cosolvent blends Theeffect ofthese blends ingasoline is to cause motorvehicle engines to run leaner thereby reducing emissions ofcarbon monoxide In theMay 16, 1988 notice, EPA noted that the equivalent oxygen contentrequirement could change in the final rulemaking depending upon the combination ofcontrol measures selected for promulgation and on whetherthe State adopted any additional control measures EPA also solicited comments on whether the proposed trip reductionregulation shouldbe replaced by a higher average oxygen content level in the oxygenated fuels program.

The proposed employer alternative modes incentive program required that eadh employer of100or moreemployees ata worksite inthenonattainment area develop and offer to its employees alternative transportation mode incentives These incentives would be designed to reduce the number ofsingle occupant.vehicle (SOV) commute trips to the employer's worksite The proposed trip redurtion goal was a 5 percent reduction in SOV commute trips in thefirst year and an additional 5 percent inthe second year EPA's proposed program was designed to regulate the samegroup ofemployers at the same trip reduction level as the MAG model trip reduction ordinance (described fully in theMay 16, 1988 notice) EPA estimated that the MAG model orEPA's proposed regulation, if fully implemented, couldreduce CO emissions by 1.8percent by the end of 1991

In the May 16,1988 proposal, EPA recognized the possibility that Arizona would adopt and submit as a SIP revision additional CO control measures prior to final promulgation by EPAof the proposed FIP measures. EPA proposed
to modify the final FIPifadditional controls were submitted and EPA determined that they were approvable for CO emission reduction credit The purpose of the modification would be to rely as much as possible on State controls rather than federal controls and
to promulgate only as much federal control as needed to satisfy the Act's attainment date requirements. EPA proposed thatif therevised SIP achieved 22.0 percent or more emission reductions, and EPA approved it,EPA would not promulgate anyFIP.

EPA noted that the Arizona State Legislature was considering several hills that would establish oxygenated fuels
programs in Maricopa County and was proposing legislation to improve the State I/M program through the addition ofa loaded-mode testing requirement and to require a trip reduction program in Maricopa County. In its proposed notice, EPAevaluated the various carbon monoxide control measures then under consideration by the Arizona State Legislature and indicated which

measures EPA would approve ifadopted and submitted as SIPrevisions

The May 16, 1988proposal provided that ifa legally enforceable trip reduction ordance was adopted by the State, County, or local governments which was substantially equivalent to the MAG model ordinance and the proposed federal tripreduction regulation and which covered all or virtually all employers ofmore than 100 persons in the CO nonattainment area, then EPA wouldnot finalize its own trip reduction regulation The notice also stated that EPA might go directly to final approval ofthe loaded-mode 1/M testing requirement thenbeing considered by the Arizona Legislature Finally, in order
to lay the procedural foundation for EPA
to take action on any new oxygenated fuels legislation with as little delay as possible, EPA proposed the methods and assumptions that itwould use in appreoving or disapproving such new legislation and in assigning CO emission reduction credit to it

D DatesforAttainmentand Maintenanceofthe COStandard

TheMay 16,1988notice describes in detail the.legal reqturements applicable
to any FIPthat EPA would promulgate for the Martcopa area in light ofits unique characteristics. In general those requirements would also apply to any SIP submitted for the area Specifically EPAconcluded that the FIP as well as any SIPapproved by EPA, must meet the requirements ofboth section 110 and Part D ofthe CAA. EPAalso interpreted those requirements to determine how they apply to implementation plans for this area after December 31, 1987 the latest attainment date expressly identified in the CAA. That date is the planning date for areas that received EPA's approval ofan extension beyond theotherwise applicable planning date December 31, 1982. See section 172(a) The Maricopa area has not received EPA's approval ofsuch an extension However, since the later date, Dece-mber 31, 1987, has now elapsed as well, the discussion below analyzes both dates similarly-as elapsed Part D dates

As explained in EPA's policy on post1987 attainment planning proposed on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45044), since it will be physically impossible after 1987 forEPA to plan for these areas to attain by the elapsed dates in PartD, EPA intends to interpret the requirement to plan for attainment by those dates as a legal impossibility. EPAbelieves that Congress would have intended EPA in such circumstances to select, in place of theelapsed dates, a subsequent date consistent with the general principles of the CAA and Part D. See Chevron, U.S.A v N.R.D.C.,467U.S 837 (1984)

Although it is not clear what subsequent date Congress would have intended in these circumstances, the history ofthe CAA's planning requirements suggests that Congress would have provided EPA (and these areas) an additional period analogous to the 3- and 5-year periods set forth in section 110(a)(2)(A) and section 110(e), respectively When Congress in 1977 directed EPA to initiate a new round of planning for areas that have failed earlier to produce adequate plans meeting the section 110 requirements, it created new planning periods comparable to the section 110 periods (3/5 years from EPA's approval of the
state plan), rather than shortening those periods and thereby demanding plans for immediate attainment Section 172(a)(1) required the SIPs for non extension areas to provide for attainment by the end of 1982, four years from the date these submittals were due (January 1 1979) (See section 129(c)) To be sure, Congress provided a much longerattainment period for extension

areas. From.January 1, 1979 to December 31 1987 approximately nine years from the date the initial Part D SIPs were due But it set up two planning periods for

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30226 1988

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30227

these areas-one to apply all "reasonably available" measures and a second to supplement thosemeasures Since most reasonably available

measures should already have been implemented in theMaricopa area by
now, EPAregards post-1987 planning for the area as comparable to theplanning during the second PartDperiod. That period spanned from theJuly 1982 submittal date (see section 129(c)) to the end of1987 a period roughly consistent with the 3-and 5-year periods in section 110.Thus, although sections 110(a)(2) and (e)donot literally apply to the Maricopa area, EPA will use them (absent considerations ofimpossibility)

as thebest indicators ofthe attainment periods Congress would have intended to apply to plans for these areas after passage ofthe Part Ddates.'

Section 110(a)(2) requires implementation plans to provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable butno later than 3years
rom EPA's approval ofan adequate plan. Section 110(e) allows the EPA Administrator togrant a 2-year extension ofthe attainment date (beyond the3-year periodin section 110(a)(2)(A)) only if:

(A)One or more emission sources (or classes ofmoving sources) are unable to 

### comply with therequirements of such plans which implement such primary standard because thenecessary technology orother alternatives are not available or willnot be available soon enough to permit compliance within such 3-year period, and

(B) The State has considered and applied as a part ofitsplan reasonably available alternative means ofattaining

ICertain important qualifications apply to this analysis. First. EPA is here dealing with a situation in which attainment within 3years is a practical possibility given the size ofthe nonattainment problem and the measures that the state has submitted. EPA currently has rulemaking and policy proposals outstanding which raise the question of whether EPA must disapprove aSIP and thereby trigger a construction ban. even wherea state has failed to submit measures that would providefor attainment within3or 5years ondwhere attainment by means ofany measures wouldbe impossible asa practical matter See 52 FR 26404 (July 14. 1987 and 52 FR 45044 (November 24. 1987) Thus EPA hasyet to decide in final form what the role of impossibility is under the Act for the purpose of approval or disapproval of SiPs.

Second, EPA is not deciding in this noticeoffinal action what its obligations under section110(c) to promulgate afederal implementation plan are Again, the role ofthedoctrine of impossibilityis uncertain Further. it is uncertain in any event that EPA must promulgate a FIP that provides for attainment by anear term fixed date. EPA currently is exploring these issues inconnection with the

ozone and CO SiPs forcertain areas in California includingthe South Coast AirQuality Management District EPA does not intend by meansof the discussion and analysis in this notice to expressa final view on these issues. such primary standard and has justifiably concluded that attainment of suchprimary standard within the 3 years cannot be achieved

Applying these attainment deadlines
to the Maricopa area, the plan must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but inno

case laterthan 1991 (assuming plan approval in 1988), unless even with the application ofreasonably available alternative means attainment cannot be achieved within thatperiod. For the

reasons described below and laterin thisnotice, EPA is approving the State's plan for the Maricopa area which now includes two creditable measures originally proposed as FIP measuresan employer-based trip reduction
program and an oxygenated fuels program-and an additional creditable
measure, loaded-mode I/M testing, that will bring about attainment ofthe CO standard by December 31, 1991 in the

area

EPA believes that a trip reduction
program, an oxygenated fuels program, and a loaded-mode I/M testing program

are technologically available measures thatwould produce enough emissions reductions in combination tobring about attainment by December 31, 1991. However, EPA does notbelieve that any combination ofavailable, practicable

measures exists which could provide for attainment in the Maricopa area before the end of1991. It is true that a very stringentoxygenated fuels program could theoretically advance the attainment date to 1990, butEPA cannot

now conclude that any oxygenated fuels program is definitely practicable for application in the Maricopa area due to

numerous outstanding questions concerning market penetration, fuel availability compliance monitoring, and

consumer reaction to such a program. EPAis approving the oxygenated fuels program described later onlybecause it is necessary to provide for attainment by end of1991. Consequently EPA does not believe that any practicable

measures exist which could achieve attainment in the Maricopa area before the end of 1991

On the other hand, EPA can also not make the conclusion, necessary to support a two-year attainment date extension under section 110(e), that a trip reduction program, an oxygenated fuels program and a loaded-mode I/M testing requirement are clearlS, not reasonably available alternatives

measures. Oxygenated fuels are technologically available and EPA believes that,although there are
numerous and signifiant outstanding questions concerning the program, they may well not prove to be significant obstacles to successful implementation ofthe program. Similarly a trip reduction program is in place in some California localities and thus, despite potential employer resistance, it appears reasonably available for the Phoenix

area as well.Finally the loaded-mode testingrequirement also appears reasonably available for Phoenix

Therefore, EPA is approving a trip reduction program, an oxygenated fuels
program, and a loaded-mode I/Mi testing requirement forthe Maricopa area because the programs are technologically available measures that

are necessary to bring the area into attainment by the end of1991 And, beyond that, asproposed, EPA does not believe it is appropriate toinvoke the two-year extension provided in section 110(e).

EPA s approval ofthe SIPfor Maricopa is consistent with outstanding
agency guidance on CO SIPpreparation. In an April 4, 1979 notice (44 FR 20372), EPApublished criteria for approval of the Part D SIPrevisions that the Act required states to submit in 1979 On January 22,1981 (46 FR7182), EPA published criteria forevaluating the supplemental SIP revisions for extension

areas due in mid-1982.

Section 110(a)(2) requires a plan to provide not only for timely attainment of the NAAQS but also formaintenance of the standards thereafter TheSIP for the Maricopa area is based on the modeling and emission projections prepared by MAG as part ofits SIP submittal. The MAPplan projects emissions only through 1995; however, the projections demonstrate that the proposed SIPwill continue to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS at least through 1995 EPA s proposed policy on post-1987 planning would require post-1987 SIPs to include a demonstration of maintenance for a period often years following the time ofSIPsubmittal. As applied to the Maricopa SIP it would require a maintenance demonstration through 1998. Based on available data and its

own projections based on the MAG plan, EPA concludes that with the SIP approved today the Maricopa area will attain and maintain the CO NAAQS through at least 1998. EPA recognizes that the phase- out of the CO reduction benefits ofthe Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program and population growth and associated increases in vehicle miles traveled may

cause CO levels torise in the Maricopa

area in the late 1990s EPA will continue
to gather the necessary data to monitor the continuing validity of this

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30227 1988

### 30228 Federal Register 

# / Vol. 53, No. 154 

# / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 

# / Rules and Regulations

maintenance determination beyond 1995.

E.LiftingofConstruction Banand WithdrawalofProposed 176(a) Sanctions

Section 110(a)(2)(I) ofthe CAA and EPA's regulation at40 CFR 52.24 impose

a ban on the construction ofmajor new

ormodified stationary sources ofCO until such time as a state plan meeting the requirements ofPartD is approved by the Administrator. Accordingly, EPA imposed the construction ban upon disapproval ofthe SIPon September 23, 1986. Since EPAhas now determined that the SIP submitted by Arizona meets the requirements ofsection 110 and Part D ofthe CAA and will result in attainment of the CO standard as expeditiously as practicable in 1991, EPA is taking final action to approve the SIPforMaricopa County and lift the construction ban originally imposed on September 23, 1986.

In the May 16, 1988 notice,EPA proposed that, ifArizona did not supplement the Maricopa plan with the

measures to demonstrate expeditious attainment, EPAwould make a final finding that the State is not making reasonable efforts to submit an adequate Part D plan and,upon making such a final finding, would impose the federal highway finding restriction of section 176(a). SinceArizona has submitted additional CO control

measures which EPA has determined
meet therequirements ofPart D ofthe CAA, EPAcan no longer make this finding and therefore withdraws its proposal on this issue.

F.FindingunderSection211(c)(4)(C)

EPA believes that Arizona is authorized under the Clean Air Act to prescribe and enforce the oxygenated fuels program EPA is approving today. As fully explained in the May 16, 1988 NPRM at 17412-3, EPA interprets section 211(c)(4)(A) toallow stateregulation of
motorvehicle fuels or fuel additives unless there has been federal preemption. Undersection 211(c)(4)(A) preemption ofstate regulation ofa fuel

occurs (i)ifEPAhas found that no fuelrelated control orprohibition is
necessary for thatfuel oradditive and has published such finding in the Federal Register, or (ii) ifEPA has prescribed byregulation -undersection 211(c)(i) a control orprohibition applicable to the fuel or fuel-additive regulated by the state that isdifferent from the state control orprohibition. TheAgency wants to stress that it does
not believe that eitherlorm ofpreemption-has occurred.in this case. First,EPA has not made the finding that no fuel-related control or prohibition is necessary and clearly has
not published any such finding in the Federal Register.

Second, EPA does not believe that it has prescribed the type of fuel control contemplated insection 211(c)(4)(A)(ii). EPA believes the reference in that section to "a control or prohibition applicable to such fuel or fuel additive" prescribed by the Administrator was intended to include only the same type offuel control that theregulation in question is attempting to prescribe. Under this approach, section 211(c)(4)(A)'s prohibition ofthe adoption ofa particular type offuel control would be triggered only ifEPA had already prescribed, by regulation under section 211(c)(1), the same type of fuel control

as at issue in the case at hand-in this

case controls on the oxygen content of fuels. Since EPA has not prescribed any control on the oxygen content ofany fuel by section 211(c) rulemaking,2 the Agency believes that thepre-emption described in section 211(c)(4)(A)(ii) has
not occurred. As a result, Arizona is free
to adopt its own oxygen content controls and EPA is free to approve a SIP which includes such controls. Under these circumstances, EPA may approve such controls without making the special finding described in section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Section 211(c)(4)(C) allows, where pre-emptionhas occurred, state fuel-related controls to be approved into

a SIPifEPA finds such controls are "necessary" to achieve the standard the SIPimplements. In this case a finding under section 211(c](4)(C) isnot required because pre-emption has not occurred.

Even ifpre-emption has occurred, however, EPAbelieves that it may still
approve certain types of state provisions for limits on oxygen content because the Agency can make the finding under section 211[c)(4)[C), which would authorize approval and, thus, eliminate thepre-emption problem. In the May 16, 1988 notice, EPA proposed to make such

a finding as to provisions concerning
oxygen content and today makes this finding final as to the oxygenated-fuel provisions in H.B. 2206. Section 211(c)[4)(C) authorizes EPAto approve into a SIPa state-adopted fuel control

measure thathas otherwise been preempted byEPA action, ifEPA finds that the state control "is necessary to achieve the standard" that the SIP implements. As explained in the May 16,

2 EPA has estimated limits onoxygen content for certain new fuels that have been granted waivers under section 211f"]of theAct forintroduction into

commerce. hut'has taken no such:actionunder section 211(c). 1988 proposal, EPA interprets the language to require the Agency to find that the fuel control requirement is essential to achieve timely attainment of the standard. EPA believes that a fuel control measure may be "necessary" for timely attainment ifno other measures thatwould bring about timely attainment exist, orifsuch other

measures exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable orimpracticable.

As explained in theproposal at 17413, EPAbelieves that reductions achievable by an oxygenated fuels program are essential to bring about timely attainment in the Maricopa CO nonattainment area, because no other

measures short ofsevere draconian controls are available to achieve attainment by the end of1991. Short of such severe alternatives, only an oxygenated fuels program, supplemented by other measures like loaded-mode I/M testing and travel reduction ordinances, can provide the 22 percent CO reduction necessary for attainment in 1991 without unacceptable socioeconomic impacts. In order to lay theprocedural foundation for final approval ofnew legislation, EPA listed several conditions orrestrictions on its proposed finding that an oxygenated fuels program is "necessary" within the meaning ofsection 211(c)(4)(C). EPA believes that H.B. 2206 meets those conditions. At proposal the Agency indicated that some ofthe billsthen before the Arizona legislature contained elements that exceeded the requirements fortimely attainment. EPA then solicited comment on whether, if

some elements in the final legislation exceeded the minimum program necessary for timely attainment, the Agency should treatthose elements as separable from the remainder ofthe
program and withhold the "necessity" finding for them. 53 FR 17413-17414.

EPA has examined H.B. 2206 and believes that two elements ofthe legislation, ifviewed in isolation from theremainder, arguably require reductions beyond the minimum that would produce timely attainment. First, the averaging requirement ofsection 41- 2124 might, iftriggered, produce more COreduction in the January through March period than is strictly needed for timely attainment. Second, the set-aside authority ofsections 78-2071 through 78-2708 might,ifexercised, make it possible for more fuel to be blended to higher oxygen levels than might otherwise be the case.

In light ofthe process that ledto the State's enactment ofH.B. 2206, however, EPA has concluded that these two 

### 30228 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30228 1988

### No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30229

elements must be viewed as integral parts ofthe legislation adopted by Arizona and that, because the legislation consists primarily of elements essential to timely attainment, EPA should find the legislation as a whole "necessary" to achieve the CO standard. A review of the legislative activity leading to the enactment ofthe law demonstrates that the final legislation reflects a balance aimed at assuring the widest possible availability of alternative types ofoxygenated fuels in the Maricopa County petroleum market, In fact'the Agency believes that

a primary reason that the legislature successfully formulated the necessary oxygenated fuels program is that it was able to reach a consensus ensuring the introduction ofa significant amount of fuels with alcohol into the area. Because both of theprogram elements described above appear to have been adopted for thepurpose ofmeeting this alcoholrelated goal, and since that goal itself

seems to have been critical to enactment of the legislation as a whole, EPA believes it wouldbe inappropriate to conclude that those elements were not themselves "necessary" to achieve the standard, within the meaning ofsection 211(a)(4}(C).3 Indeed, to withhold the "necessity" finding fromthose two elements would reflect a misunderstanding oftheprocess that led
to the enactment ofH.B. 2206. For these
reasons, EPA finds that the oxygenated fuels program as a whole contained in H.B. 2206is "necessary to achieve attainment" of the CO standard in the Maricopa nonattainment area. It.Evaluation of State SIP Submittals

On October 5, 1987, the State of Arizona submitted the MAG 1987 Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area and parts ofArizona Senate Bill 1360 as revisions to the SIP. OnMay 16, 1988,EPA explicitly proposed to assign specific emission reduction credits to several ofthe

measures in the plan and thebill. EPA also proposed to approve theresolutions ofcommitment in the SIP to implement control measures which were passed by the jurisdictions in Maricopa County as well as other State and local agencies.

On July 18. 1988, the State submitted portions ofArizona H.B. 2206 and on July 22, 1988, the State submitted additional portions of H.B. 2206 as well

as a demonstration that the measures in the 1987 SIP submittal combined with

measures in the new submittals provide

:1

The Agency might have concluded otherwise if the bill had consisted primarily of elements not technically necessary forattainment, but I I.B. 2206
is not thaI case. for attainment of the CO standard in Maricopa County by the end of1991. Also accompanying the July 22, 1988 SIP submittal were workplans from agencies having responsibility for implementing parts ofH.B. 2206. These workplans
express each agency's intent to carry out the legislation and are included in the technical support document (TSD) for this notice.

Immediately following is a more detailed evaluation ofthe measures in the SIPsubmittals. Table 1is a complete list of the measures for which EPA today is approving specific emission reduction credits.

TABLE 1.-CONTROL MEASURES BEING

APPROVED FOR SPECIFIC EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS

[In percent]

Emission Measure reduction

1991 1995

1987 SIP Submittal 1987 I/M legislation

................................ 2.1 1.8 Short-range transit improvements

......... .1 .1 Expanded MAG regional ridesharing

program

...................... 3 .5 High-occupancy-vehicle lanes on

freeways

................................................ NA .3 Freeway surveillance, ramp, metering, and signage

.................................. NA .1 Increased bicycle use

............................. .2 .2 Pedestrian travel

...................................... .1 .1 Conversion of buses to alternative

fuels

..................................................... ..

1 .3 Alternativework hours

............................ 1.1 1.0
1988SIP Submittals Oxygenated fuels:

Sun waiverapproved

........................ 16.20 15.35 Sun waiver denied

............................... 14.28 13.17 Loaded-mode I/M testing

....................... 4.0 5.9 Travel reduction program

....................... 1.8 2.1
Total:

Sun waiver approved

................ 24.1 25.7 Sun waiver denied

....................... 22.3 23.8

'Sun Refining Marketing Company waiver request to EPA to add 15 percent MTBE by volume to unleaded fuel.

A. ControlMeasureEvaluation

Measures in the 1987 SIPSubmittal

TheMAG recommended a list of45 transportation and mobile source control measures forinclusion in its final carbon monoxide plan. These

measures included expansion ofthe I/M program boundaries, improvements to transit and ridesharing programs, trip reduction ordinances, public awareness programs, a voluntary no-drive-day program, parking management, highoccupancy-vehicle (HOV) facilities, traffic flow improvements, pedestrian and bicycle travel amenities, alternative fuels, alternative work hours, changes in land use policies, winter daylight savings time, and miscellaneous other

measures. A complete list of these

measures can be found in the TSD.

In 1987, the Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1360. This legislation required, among other things, enhancements to the State I/M program, alternative workhours forpublic employees, and purchase ofonly cleanfuel buses bypublic agencies after January 1990. Emission reduction credits for these measures were taken in the MAG plan.

The State submitted the final MAG COplan and S.B. 1360 to EPA as revisions to the Arizona CO SIP on October 5, 1987. Included inthis SIP submittal are resolutions passed by the MAG memberjurisdictions that contained commitments to implement

measures in the MAG plan. Resolutions

or letters ofcommitments are also included from the MAG Regional Council, the Phoenix Metropolition Chamber ofCommerce, the Regional Public Transportation Authoirty (RPTA), the Arizona Department of Transportation, and the two local Air Force Bases.EPA is taking action today
to incorporate these resolutions as part of the Maricopa SIP.

From its review ofthe specific commitments in the plan as well as actions ofthe State Legislature, EPA proposed on May 16, 1988 to credit nine

measures as part of the Arizona SIP. These measures are the I/M program enhancements in S.B. 1360,4 short-range transit improvements, expanded ridesharing, HOV lanes, freeway flow improvements, increased bicycle and pedestrian travel, conversion ofbuses to alternative fuels, and alternative workhours.EPA today is taking action
togrant these measures the emission reduction credits listed in Table 1.More detailed information on EPA's reasoning forand the.State's commitments to each ofthese measures is discussed in the TSD.

The cities, towns, and the County of Maricopa also made commitments to other measures (forexample: Traffic flow improvements, educational
programs, and city/county employee programs) that will contribute to reductions in ambient carbon monoxide concentrations. Unfortunately, due to the nature ofmany ofthese measures and their often very small emission reductions, specific emission reduction estimates were impossible to calculate. While not granting specific emission reduction credits for these measures,

4EPA is taking final action to approve these provisions in itsfinal action on the Pima CO SIP elsewhere in today's Federal Register. 

### Federal Register / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30229 1988

### 3020 Fderl RgiterI Vl. 3,No. 154 / Wednesday A"oiit in ioAn /I R -l -1, P

. EPA is today incorporating these commitments into the Maricopa SIP.
Measures in the 1988 SIPSubmittals

In June of thisyear, the State ' Legislature passed H.B. 2206. This bill contains the authority or requirements for an oxygenated fuels program, loaded-mode I/M testing, a voluntary no-drive-day program inboth Pima and Maricopa Counties, and a travel reduction program in Maricopa County only. On July 18 and 22, 1988, the State submitted portions of the adopted bill to EPA as a revision to both the Maricopa and Pima portions ofthe Arizona CO SIP. Accompanying the July 22 SIP submittal were workplans from each of the agencies charged with implementing

a program or part ofa program under H.B. 2206. These workplans clarify each agency's responsibilities and intents on implementing the provisions ofthe bill and are included as attachments to the TSD. Below is a short description of each ofthe control measures in H.B. 2206. 1.OxygenatedFuelsProgram.H.B. 2206 establishes an oxygenated fuels program for the CO nonattainment area ofMaricopa County. New Section 41- 2123 A, Arizona Revised Statutes, sets the required oxygen content of leaded fuel at2.4 to 3.7 percent by weight. Unleaded fuel is prohibited from containing less than 1.9 percent oxygen or more oxygen than allowed by the provisions ofan EPAwaiver under section 211(f) ofthe CAA, i.e., currently

a maximum of3.7 percent.These restrictions apply from and after September 30 ofone year through March 31 of the next year,beginning in the fall of 1989. Section 41-2123 B provides that ifthe Sun Refining and Marketing Company's request for a waiver for 15 percent by volume MTBE in unleaded gasoline (53 FR 11701 (April 8, 1988) is approved by EPA, the oxygen limits will instead be 2.3 to3.7 percent for both leaded and unleaded gasoline.

New section 41-2124 directs the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) to enforce a higher oxygen content requirement from January 1 through March 31, ifmarketing data for the preceding October and November indicate that less than 10 percent offuel sold contained 3.2 to 3.7 percent oxygen. The higher oxygen requirement would beenforced through averaging over the three month period. The oxygen requirement is to be setby ADOT to
ensure that 18 percent ofall fuel sold contains between 3.2 and 3.7 percent oxygen. The averaging requirement apparently would not supersede the requirement that each quantity of fuel sold alsomeet the required minimum and maximum oxygenlimits in section 41-2123 A or B.

New sections 28-2701 through 28-2708 establish authority for the Governor to implement a set-aside program that effectively insures the availability of gasoline suitable for blending with alcohol, ifthe ADOT determines a shortage ofsuch unblended gasoline exists during the mandatory oxygenated fuels period.

Only the requirements ofsection 41- 2123 A and B can be credited with CO emission reductions.The averaging requirement of section 41-2124 would, if triggered, produce additional CO reduction but only in the January through March period. However, EPA has no assurance that thisrequirement would in fact be triggered. The set-aside authority ofsections 28-2071 through 28-2708 would, ifexercised, make it possible for more fuel tobe blended to higher oxygen levels associated with alcohol-based blends than might otherwise be the case with other gasoline blends. The Governor has the discretionary authority, however, to declare a shortage and order the setaside program into operation. Even if ordered, EPA has received no information with which to estimate the degree of alcohol blending during the entire compliance period, as discussed laterin this section.

Before presenting EPA's analysis of the Maricopa County program, it should be noted that a detailed description of oxygenated fuels and theireffect on motor vehicle emissions is contained in EPA's NPRM ofMay 16, 1988 (58 FR 17378). Also, the overall methodology and assumptions for evaluating the CO effects of the oxygen content limits specified in section 41-2123 A or Bwere proposed at 17410 ofthat same Federal Register notice and clarified by a memo fron Phil Lorang, Office ofMobile Sources, EPA, to Wallace Woo, EPA Region 9 (June 22, 1988). The details of the methodology are contained in the TSD forthis action and will not be repeated here.The interested reader is instead referred to that document. However, thebasic elements ofEPA's evaluation are briefly described below.

The EPAreport, "Guidance on Estimating Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions From the Use ofAlternative Fuels and Fuel Blends," January 29, 1988, EPA -AA-TSS-PA-87-4, is thebasis for the calculation ofCO emission reductions. The guidance in thisreport is supplemented with the following information and assumptions, which pertain to the specific program contained in H.B.2206. In response to the mandate which specifies different oxygen levels for specific grades ofgasoline, EPA

assumes that catalyst vehicles will use unleaded gasoline and that vehicles manufactured without a catalyst will

use leaded fuel with an allowance for the voluntary use of unleaded fuel. EPA also assumes that, in the near term, no switching between leaded and unleaded gasoline will occur due to changes in relative price orconsumer desire to use
oravoid one type orlevel ofoxygenate. Regarding the actual oxyen content, EPA assumes that the minimum oxygen content for all grades ofgasoline will be
met using MTBE with a 0.1 percent oxygen safety margin. 5This assumption is based on a workplan for implementation ofH.B. 2206 contained in Appendix B.2 ofthe SIPAddendum which indicates an intent by the Arizona Department ofWeights and Measures (ADWM) to allow no enforcement tolerance for oxygen content so that refiners must blend to a slightly higher oxygen level to allow for measurement variability. Additionally, no major oil company, other sizable gasoline marketer, or other investor indicated in comments on EPA's NPRM that it will definitely purchase and import via pipeline from California oxygen-free gasoline forresale to distributors for use in alcohol blending. Thus, EPA is conservatively assuming that no alcohol blends will be sold in the Phoenix area for thepurposes ofassigning emission reduction credits to the program. Therefore, ifthe Sun waiver is not approved, leaded fuel is expected to contain a level ofMTBE which produces 2.5 percent oxygen contentby weight and unleaded fuel is expected to contain

a level ofMTBE which produces 2.0 percent oxygen by weight. Ifthe Sun waiver is approved. EPA assumes that all fuel will contain a level ofMTBE which produces 2.4 percent oxygen by weight, i.e., about 13.2 percent MTBE by volume depending on the density of individual batches ofgasoline used in blending.

With respect to enforcement ofthe State's program, as noted above, the ADWM has developed a workplan for implementation ofH.B. 2206 which contains enforcement provisions. Further, H.B. 2206 appropriates

',EPA originally assumed leaded fuel would be blended with ethanol blends. Ilowever, the "substantially similar" restriction of section 211 of the Clean Air Act does not apply to leaded fuel, so MTBEcan legally be used at any levels.The Agency finds the current MTBE assumption is more realistic and more conservative regarding emission benefits. See the TSD for details. 

### 30230 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 ] Wp.dn .qdnv Anon t "lLq "lofla / R,,l e n,-I l

, .,,l t;.,.o

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30230 1988

### Federal Register 

## / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30231

resources to the Department for this purpose.

Given the information and assumptions delineated above, the fleet average CO emission reduction would be 14.28 percent on December 31, 1991 if the Sun waiver is not approved. Ifthe waiver is approved, the COreduction would be 16.20 percent on that date.

The actual CO reduction in Maricopa County may be higher, but not assuredly

so.Ifa 10 percent market share for alcohol blends is in fact achieved throughout the six-month mandate period, the 3.4 to 3.7 percent oxygen content by weight normally associated with such fuel would provide greater CO benefits than the smaller values assumed by EPA forMTBE blends. For example, ifthe Sun waiver is approved and a 10percent alcohol blend market share actually occurs throughout the sixmonth period, the fleet COreduction in December 1991 would be 16.7 percent. However, EPAhas no evidence that this will in fact occur for the entire compliance period, so this estimate is provided for illustration only, and is not part of the basis for SIP approval.

2.Loaded-ModeInspectionand MaintenanceTesting.Currently the Arizona I/M program passes or fails vehicles based on their exhaust emission concentrations undercurb-idle conditions. Section 18 ofH.B. 2206 amends Section 49-542 F ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes, to require, beginning

on January 1, 1989, that 1981 and newer vehicles pass both a curb-idle mode and

a loaded-mode emissions test (i.e., a test conducted while a vehicle is operating under load on a dynamometer to simulate actual driving conditions). To avoid the need for dynamometers at the fleet operators' test sites fleet operators who have obtained a permit to test their

own vehicles are allowed to substitute a 2500 revolutions per minute mode for the loaded-mode portion of the test.

EPAhas calculated the expected incremental benefit ofloaded-mode testing using MOBILE3 which contains EPA's standard estimates of the 1/M reductions forboth idle and loaded-plusidle testing. Inputs for average speed,. registration mix, tampering/misfueling rates, and I/M stringency were those recommended by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality as being representative for Phoenix. The incremental COreductions from loadedmode testing were calculated by EPA to be 4.0percent in 1991 and 5.9 percent in 1995.6A more complete discussion of

6In a subsequent Federal Register notice. EPA plans to propose to amend the existing loaded-mode test procedure contained in 40CFR Part 85. Subpart W The proposed changes willeliminate factors related to this calculation is contained in the TSD.

The May 16, 1988 NPRM stated that EPA might godirectly to final approval ofthe loaded-mode testing requirement then being considered by the Arizona legislature. EPA is today approving the loaded-mode testing requirement, for both Maricopa and Pima Counties, as part ofthe Arizona CO SIP.

3. TravelReductionProgram.H.B. 2206 establishes a travel reduction program (TRP) in the nonattainment

area ofMaricopa County, which is very similar to the Pima CountyTravel Reduction Ordinance.The legislation appoints Maricopa County as the implementing and enforcing agency and provides funding forimplementation through the State Air Quality Fund.

The TRP requires all employers of100

ormore full-time equivalent employees
at a worksite to appoint a transportation coordinator, distribute information on alternative transportation modes to their employees, participate in surveys of alternative-mode usage oftheir employees, and develop a travel reduction plan. The travel reduction goals in the program are a 5percent reduction in single-occupant vehicle trips to each major employer's worksite in the first year and an additional 5 percent in the second year.Travel reduction goals in the third and subsequent years are to be set bythe MAC and enacted by County ordinance.

Under the TRP, major responsibility for overseeing the implementation ofthe program is held by the travel reduction program regional task force. This task force, the exact composition ofwhich is
to be decided bythe Maricopa Board of Supervisors, may have representatives ofmajor employers, development
owners, Maricopa Countyjurisdictions, and public interest groups. Duties ofthe task force include reviewing surveys and travel reduction plans and requiring employers to revise unapprovable and/

orinadequate plans.The task force is alsoresponsible forrecommending that enforcement actions be initiated. The task force makes recommendations to the existing County Air Quality Advisory Committee, a volunteer committee which currently provides recommendations to the Maricopa Board ofSupervisors on air quality rules and regulations.

discrepancies between Arizona's loaded-mode testing protocoland EPA's requirements, thereby ensuring continued performance warranty coverage for potentially affectedconsumers. The minor revisions presently being contemplated donot change the CO benefit beingcredited to Arizona's loaded-mode testing requirement and, therefore, the amendment is not an issue in today's action. Violations ofthe TRP are punishable by civil penalties ofup to $350 per day. Violations include failure todesignate a transportation coordinator, to disseminate information, to submit an approvable trip reduction plan, or to implement such a plan. Failure of a major employer to achieve the goal is
not considered a violation of the TRP although it does trigger mandatory and specific revisions to the employer's travel reduction plan.

In a letter dated July 22, 1988, the County outlined its expected budget and staffing for implementing the TRP as well as a schedule for working with employers. Staffing for theprogram will be located in the Bureau ofAir Quality Control with additional contracted services from the Regional Transportalion Authority. The County is currently scheduled to provide major employers with survey forms by the second week ofFebruary 1989. After that, the County will provide major employers with survey forms as soon as the provisions of H.B. 2206allow.

In overall concept the TRP is similar
to the proposed Federal trip reduction regulation and the MAG model trip reduction ordinance discussed at length in theproposal for today's notice. The requirements in all three apply to employers with more than 100 employees at a worksite and include the appointment ofan employer transportation coordinator, the annual dissemination ofinformation on alternative transportation modes to employees, annual surveys ofemployee
commute modes, and the annual preparation, submittal, and implementation ofa trip reduction plan that includes a report on the current year's program. The trip reduction goals

are the same in all three programs. All three enforce on the failure ofan employer tomeet the requirements listed above. While EPA did propose in its trip reduction regulation to enforce

on failure to meet the goal, the MAG model and the TRP do not.The TRP does require,however, that employers who have failed to meet the annual travel reduction goal implement a specified number of travel reduction strategies. This automatic trigger functions similarly to enforcement of the goal. (See the subsection "Trip/Travel Reduction Program" under the Response
to Comment section ofthis notice for

more information.)

In itsMay 16 notice,EPA proposed to grant an emission reduction credit of1,8 percent in 1991 to the MAG model trip reduction ordinance and calculated the

same emission credit for itsown proposed regulation. Because the TRP

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30231 1988

### 30232 Federal Register 

# / Vol. 53, No. 154 

# / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 

# / Rules and Regulations

covers the same employers at the same trip reduction goal as both the MAG model and the federal regulation, EPA is granting a 1991 emission reduction credit of 1.8 percent to the program.

4. VoluntaryNo-Drive-DayProgram. In its 1987 SIP submittal, MAG and the State took a substantial emission reduction credit for a voluntary nodrive-day program inMaricopa County. As described in that SIP submittal, the
program was ajoint undertaking of the Phoenix Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Public Transportation Authority, and the Arizona Office ofEnergy. The SIP submittal, however, contained no longterm funding commitment for the program. EPA's review ofthe proposed voluntary no-drive-day program raised three concerns, and in May 1988, EPA proposed not to approve the program as part ofthe SIP.The three concerns were

assurance ofadequate annual funding, the existence ofan institutional framework meeting therequirements of CAA section 172(b)(10), and the development ofa monitoring program to

assess and verify the impact of the
program.

H.B. 2206in section 17 requires a Countywith a population'ofmore than 400,000 (effectively Pima and Maricopa Counties) to institute a voluntary nodrive-day program. With the County having clear responsibility for implementation, the program meets the institutional requirements ofCAA section 172(b)(10). H.R. 2206 also requires the DEQ to fund the voluntary no-drive-day programs fromthe Air Quality Fund; therefore, long-term funding ofthe program isassured. Based

on these two changes, EPAis approving the voluntary no-drive-day program as part ofthe SIPfor both Maricopa and Pima Counties; however, because a monitoring protocol to assess and verify the impact ofthe program is still lacking, EPA is not at this time approving a specific emission reduction credit forthe
program. BeforeEPA can approve a specific emission reduction credit for this measure, the State must submit a monitoring protocol forthe program and
any supporting documentation on the effectiveness of such a program in Maricopa or Pima County. Should the State submit this information, EPA will
at that time revisit the issue ofan emission reduction credit in the Maricopa SIP for a voluntary no-driveday program.

5.OtherMeasures.In addition to the voluntary no-drive-day measure, EPA is also approving as part of the SIP, but without allotting emission reductions credit, the public education program for oxygenated fuels, incentives for the use ofcompressed natural gas in vehicle fleets, allocation ofmoneys rom the Air Quality Fund forpublic transit projects and encouragement of vanpools for County and State employees. H.B. 2206 provides the legislative authority for these programs and specifically allocates moneys from the Air Quality Fund to the agencies which will implement them. H.B. 2206 allows subsidies, inthe form ofpayment to third-party companies and tax deductions, as incentives for County, State and private employers, respectively, to encourage theuse of vanpools for employees. Although the emission reduction impacts forthese

measures has notbeen determined, EPA believes these measures support the attainment and maintenance demonstrations in the SIPand demonstrate the wide range ofefforts the State has taken to improve CO in Maricopa County.

6.New SourceReview.On June 1, 1988, the State submitted a letter from itself,and on July 22, 1988, the State submitted a letter fromMaricopa County. These letters make certain commitments regarding implementation ofthe State and Maricopa NSR rules pursuant to the understandings in EPA's 1983 proposed approval of those rules. Based upon these letters, EPA is taking final action to approve the Maricopa NSR rules and, elsewhere in the Federal Register today,EPA is taking final action to approve the State NSR rules. These commitment letters, which are appended to the technical support document for thisnotice, concern stack heights, temporary sources, growth allowances, net emission decreases, reasonable further progress, volatile organic compounds, stationary sources, allowable offsets, permittee responsibility, and visibility protection. Both letters have been forwarded to the Office ofthe Federal Register for incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations as enforceable components ofthe Maricopa CO SIP. As such they are federally enforceable against both Maricopa County and the State ofArizona under sections 113 and 304 ofthe Act.The commitments are also enforceable through citizen suit under section 304 ofthe Act.

B.Demonstration of

Attainment, Maintenance andRFP
In its May 16, 1988 NPRM, EPA concluded that any approvable SIP submitted by the State must demonstrate attainment of the CO standard by December 31, 1991. EPA's evaluation ofthe air quality analysis in the MAG plan indicates that a 22.0 percent reduction in the 1991 baseline CO emissions is needed to demonstrate attainment ofthe 8-hourCO NAAQS by December 31, 1991.

Table I is a list ofthe control

measures which were submitted by the State and to which EPAis granting specific emission reductions credit in this notice.EPA calculates that these measures'will reduce CO emissions by 22.3 percent in 1991 iftheSun Waiver is denied and 24.1 percent in 1991 ifthe Sun Waiver is approved. These reductions are sufficient to reduce the ambient CO concentrations in Maricopa County to below the NAAQS by the end of 1991, Ifthe Sun Waiver is approved, EPA projects that attainment will be achieved by mid 1991. In Table 1,the total emission reductions are not a sum of the individual emission reductions because measures that control tailpipe emissions (e.g. oxygenated fuels, and the I/Mprogram) reduce the emission reduction impact ofmeasures which control VMT (transit, and the travel reduction program).

EPA has concluded thata demonstration ofmaintenance for 10
years after the date of approval is sufficient for the Maricopa SIP.Because the Maricopa plan does not provide modeling results past 1995, EPA has used available data to forecast the expected ambient air quality from the latest date in the plan, 1995, to 1998.

Themajor factor influencing COair quality in Maricopa is mobile sources. Using VMT growth projections and the expected reductions from the FMVCP, EPA estimates that the second maximum concentration at the design monitor would be 10.0ppm in 1998 assuming reductions from only the FMVCP, the State's I/Mprogram (including loaded-mode testing and the 1987 legislation), and the freeway buildout. A 10.0ppm reading would require a reduction of10.3 percent in CO emissions from other SIP measures in orderto show continued maintenance with the 9.0 ppm CO NAAQS. The oxygenated fuels program alone will achieve a 12.46 percent reduction (assuming the Sun Waiver is denied) in 1998. Thisreduction is sufficient by itselfto show continued maintenance. Because the estimates ofthe emission reductions from other measures rely on State-performed modeling which is unavailable for theperiod after 1995, the 1998 impacts of the other measures in , the SIPcannot be determined; however, these measures will continue to provide additional emission reductions through 1998.

Section 172 of the CAA requires that
state implementation plans demonstrate 

### 30232 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30232 1988

### No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30233

reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as "annual incremental reductions in emissions of the applicable air pollutant (including substantial reductions in the early years following approval * * * and regular reductions thereafter) **
.During the CO season of1988/89, the 1987 I/M program, loaded-mode I/M testing (scheduled to begin January 1,1989), short-range transit improvements, regional ridesharing, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and alternative work hours will provide emission reductions. In addition, a voluntary no-drive-day program and the voluntary introduction ofoxygenated fuels may also provide emission reductions during this season.

During the 1989/90 CO season, the above measures as well as the then mandatory oxygenated fuels program, and the initiation ofthe travel reduction program will provide increasing emission reductions. In fact during this
season, less than fourteen months after today's approval, the mandatory oxygenated fuels program will provide the majority of the emission reductions needed for attainment by the end of 1991. In 1990/91, highergoals in the travel reduction program will continue
to reduce ambient CO concentrations. By the 1991/92 season, theprojected date ofattainment, the complete control strategy will provide sufficient emission reduction to demonstrate attainment.

Even without these SIP measures, the modeling performed forthe plan demonstrates that considerable progress will be achieved in reducing emissions in Maricopa County with only the "baseline" measures-FMVCP, thepre1987 I/Mprogram, and the freeway build-out-despite high growth rates in VMT. Themodeling shows that a 34 percent reduction in emissions was needed to demonstrate attainment in 1987, 25.6 percent is needed to demonstrate in 1990, and 22.0 percent in 1991. In addition, H.B. 2206 requires that the oxygenated fuels program, the travel reduction program, and the loaded-mode testing start in 1989-more than two years before the date ofattainment. Finally, the majority ofthe other SIP commitments specifically listed in Table 1are already being implemented and

are providing emission reductions. All these factors provide sufficient evidence that the plan demonstrates RFP and
meets therequirement for "substantial reductions in the early years."

Ill. Response to Comments

EPAreceived a considerable number ofcomments in response toits May 16 NPRM. Comments were made both in writing and at a June 10, 1988, public hearing in Maricopa County. The majority ofthe comments received dealt specifically with the two federal

measures that EPA proposed to promulgate in its FIP.Most ofthese
comments are made moot by EPA's action today to withdraw the FIPin preference to the Stateplan. However,

some of the comments received address the SIP submittals orbear on EPA's finding that the SIP is fully approvable under section 110 and Part Dof the CAA. EPA's response to those
comments are given below. A summary ofpertinent comments received on the May 16 notice can be found in the technical support document forthis rulemaking.

A. LegalIssues

Attainment Date

The ACLPI commented that the attainment date for the Maricopa area shouldnot be three years fromthe date ofSIP approval.ACLPI argued that after
passage ofthe statutory PartD attainment dates, EPA should interpret the Act as requiring attainment at the
soonest time,essentially without regard
to practicalities in order to implement Congressional intent in setting the original deadlines.As EPA previously explained infull, EPA believes that after December 31, 1987, a SIPneeds to demonstrate attainment no more quickly than as "expeditiously as practicable" but by certain fixed dates. See EPA's proposed post-1987 attainment policy, 52 FR 45044, 45049 (November 24, 1987), and the proposal for today's action, 53 FR 17378, 17381 (May 16, 1988), for a full discussion ofEPA's legal interpretation.

IfEPA were to adopt ACLPI's position that post-1987 planning shouldprovide for attainment at the soonest time, many post-1987 nonattainment areas would have to resort to draconian measures with drastic social and economic impacts-such as plant closings, gasoline rationing and mandatory nodriverestrictions-simply because such

measures are physically available to bring about attainment. EPA doesnot believe that Congress, ifithad addressed the post-1987 nonattainment situation nowbeing faced, would have required such a result, even after passage ofthe PartD dates. EPA believes that Congress would instead have regarded the "as expeditiously as practicable" requirement tobe still in place, albeit bounded in situations, such

as that ofMaricopa County, by fixed attainment deadlines.

ACLPI cites AmericanLung Associationv. Kean,18 Envtl. L.Rptr. 20317(D.N.J. 1987), in support ofits position. ACLPI misinterprets that case. That case in fact interprets the Act to require "SIP implementation 'as expeditiously aspracticable'after December 31, 1987."AmericanLung Association,id. at 20317 (emphasis added). The case does not require SIP implementation more rapidly than practicable and does not set any outside date for attainment in the event no near term date is practicable. This caseis therefore consistent with EPA's position; indeed, the "as expeditiously as practicable" formulation would actually allow for a much longer attainment period in very severe nonattainment

areas.

The Maricopa County SIP that EPA is approving today provides for attainment by 1991. EPA believes that this is the appropriate attainment date forthe area in light ofthe Agency's conclusion that

no measures beyond those already included in theMaricopa SIPare both practicable and would advance that attainment date.ACLPI suggests a number ofmeasures that it believes are available that together might advance the attainment date for the Maricopa

area. EPA cannot now conclude that any ofthese measures are both practicable and sufficient to materially advance the attainment date.

Specifically, ACLPI suggests an immediate, major expansion ofthe transit system, a rigorous program of parking controls, exclusive buslanes, winter daylight savings time, mandatory no-drive days, and a statewide I/M
program. TheMaricopa SIPalready contains some measures for expanded

masstransit and HOV lanes.EPA does
not believe there aregrounds to conclude that the substantial expansion ofthe transit system that would be
necessary to advance the attainment date from 1991 could practicably be implemented in the short timebetween

now and the end of1990. EPA cannot require a state to observe winter daylight savings time since authority to establish orregulate daylight savings time is reserved to the U.S. Department ofTransportation's (USDOT) Office of General Counsel under the 1966 Uniform Time Act. EPA believes that any program to create parking controls, mandatory no-drive-days and exclusive bus lanes could not materially advance the attainment date, unless itwere so stringent as to create the type ofpublic
uproar thatEPA faced when it promulgated such measures in FIPs in the 1970s. In light ofthat experience, EPA cannot conclude that such stringent programs would be practicable to implement. Beyond that,theMaricopa SIP already contains the most stringent I/M program in the country, and it has 7 Federal Register / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30233 1988

### 30234 Federal Register / Vol. 53, N.14/Wdedy uut1,18 ue n euain
recently been expanded to include a loaded-mode testing feature. Although further expansion of the program might be practicable, EPA cannot conclude from its experience with other states' less stringent programs that a significant expansion in Arizona's tough program is certainly practicable. Therefore, EPA believes that the 1991 date derived by analogy to sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(e) is the appropriate attainment date for the Maricopa area.

Reasonable Further Progress

ACLPI commented that the proposed plan did not provide for reasonable further progress towards attainment. EPA does not agree. The expanded I/M program, transit improvements, ridesharing program, increased bicycle and pedestrian travel, fleet conversions, alternative work hours, trip reduction ordinances and the FMVCP will together provide measurable emissions reductions throughout 1989 and 1990. It is true that thebulk ofthe emissions reductions will result from the oxygenated fuels program, which will onlybe voluntary in the 1988/89 CO

season.However, EPA expects that the voluntary program will still provide

some reductions in 1988/89 season and sizable emissions reductions will result from the mandatory program beginning in the 1989/90 CO season. Together these measures provide forreasonable further progress towards attainment.
Reasonably Available Control Measures

ACLPI commented that the Maricopa CO SIPdoes not provide for implementation of allreasonably available control measures (RACM) as required by section 172(b)(2) of the Act. ACLPI specifically refers to transit improvements and parking controls as reasonably available measures.

EPAhas longinterpreted section 172(b)(2) as requiring implementation of only those available controls necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date. This is because it would not be reasonable to require states to implement measures that, although technologically available, would not materially advance an area's attainment date. See EPA's General Preamble on Part D SIPpreparation, 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April4, 1979].

As explained above, EPAdoes not believe ithas grounds to conclude that
any combination ofclearly praticable

measures would provide for attainment in the Maricopa area before 1991. EPA believes that'the approvable measures in the Marcicopa SIP provide for.- attainment as expeditiously as practicable and that therefore any additional potentially available 

### measures would notbe necessary to achieve timelyattainment and consequently would not be required as RACM.
Maintenance

Two commenters addressed the issue ofmaintenance ofthe CO standard. ACLPIcommented that themaintenance demonstration in theMaricopa plan is inadequate because it is not supported by therecord and doesnot cover a sufficiently long period oftime. EPA disagrees. The maintenance demonstration is based on themodeling and emissions projections in theMAG plan and EPA's own projections based

on thedata in theMAC plan. These projections indicate that the Maricopa

area will maintain the CO standard until at least 1998. This demonstration covers the ten-year timeperiod which EPA proposed as appropriate fora maintenance demonstration in its proposed post-1987 CO/Ozone policy. ACLPIcommented thata maintenance demonstration shouldnot be limited to ten years but should instead extend to the limit oftechnical feasibility. On the otherhand, theUSDOT commented that EPA should not apply themaintenance requirements ofits proposed post-1987 policy to any areas until theAgency has finalized the policy. EPAbelieves that given these conflicting public comments theuse ofa ten-year maintenance demonstration is appropriate. Although thepost-1987 policyis not yetfinal, EPA believes that projections extending ten years are technically reliable and provide a manageable planning period. Projections beyond that period become
too speculative tobe reliable.

Moreover, although the Actrequires SIPs to contain a demonstration of maintenance ofthe standards, the Act nowhere indicates thelength oftime such demonstrations shouldcover.

Where the statute is unclear,EPA mustfill any gaps using arule of reasonableness. See Chevronv.NRDC, 467U.S. 837(1984). As reflected in the proposed post-1987 policy, andbecause projections ofsource growth and emissions reductions beyond ten years
are too speculative, EPA has determined that a ten-year periodis a reasonable period fora maintenance demonstration in Maricopa County and that requiringa demonstration extending more than ten years would not be reasonable.

In supplemental comments ACLPI pointed to40CFR51.42 in support of its assertion that at least a 20-year maintenance demonstration would be appropriate. That provision ispart of EPA's 1975maintenance program. The entire program, however,has been effectively superseded by the 1977 CAA amendments and creation ofPart Dand the section 107 nonattainment area designations. The reference to maintenance in Part D(section 172) and theentire planning scheme in Part D

were created in light ofthe failures of the 1970's efforts to produce sound state plans. They werenot intended as a ratification ofEPA's approach to these issues in theprevious years.While in 1975 EPAapparently believed that a 20- year maintenance demonstration would be desirable and feasible, EPA now views the issues differently. Upon subsequent reflection, inlight ofthe Agency'spost-1977 experience with computermodels for projecting mobile

source emissions and with the inaccurate growth projections in the initialround ofPart DSIPs,EPA currently concludes that projections beyond 10 years are simply too speculative.The Agency's recent conclusions are reflected inthe proposed post-1987 policy.For these
reasons,EPA believes atthis time thata maintenance demonstration through 1998 is adequate for the Maricopa area.

Finally EPA notes that theMaricopa SIP whichEPA is approving today includes several recently-adopted

meaures towhich EPA hadnot assigned emissionreduction credit in the proposal forthis action. These are the voluntary no-drive-day program and the requirement under theoxygenated fuels program fora specific market share of alcohol blends. EPA is notrelying upon anyreductions from these new

measures to bring about attainment. However, the emission reductions from these measures willbe available as additional assurances that the Maricopa

area will continue to maintain the CO standard into the future.

New Source Review (NSR)

ACLPIcommented that EPA could not approve theMaricopa CO SIP and lift theconstruction banin Maricopa County so long as the planlacks an approvable NSR component. EPAhas reviewed theMaricopa NSR program andhas determined that it can be fully approved based upon Maricopa County's and the State ofArizona's commitments to interpret theregulation consistent with EPA's requirements. The State submitted a letterfrom itselfon June 1,1988, and a letter fromMaricopa County on July22, 1988, which make the necessary commitments. These commitment letters,which have been appended to the TSD forthis notice, have been forwarded to the Officeof Federal Register forincorporation by reference into the Code ofFederal Regulations as enforceable component No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30234 Federal Register / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30234 1988

### No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30235

ofthe Maricopa CO SIP. As such are enforceable against Maricopa County and the State ofArizona under sections 113 and 304 of the Act and will effectively control any court's interpretation of the State's and County's intent under the NSR rules.

ACLPI also commented that the Maricopa COplan does not meet the requirement ofsection 172(b)(11)(A) that the NSR program require a demonstration that the benefits ofa proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed by the source. Section 172(b)(11)(A) technically does not apply
at all to Maricopa. The section only applies by its own terms to areas that received attainment date extensions to 1987. EPA has stated, however, that generally SIPs for areas that failed to attain in 1982 as planned would have to meet all requirements applicable to extension areas inorder to demonstrate timely attainment. See Guidance Document for Correction ofPart D SIPs forNonattainment Areas, January 27, 1984.The Arizona NSR program does require a demonstration that the , benefits ofa proposed project outweigh the project's environmental costs.EPA concludes that with that provision Arizona's NSR program adequately complies with EPA's pqlicy that nonextension areas that failed to attain generally meet the Part D requirements for extension areas to demonstrate attainment. Contingency Plan

ACLPI commented that the Maricopa plan does not include adequate contingency provisions. The ACLPI also commented that EPA should adopt a contingency plan because ofuncertainty ofemission reduction estimates and should ensure that it is legally enforceable and self-implementing. In its 1981 guidance on SIP preparation, EPA indicated that all PartD SIPs should contain contingency measures to compensate for unanticipated shortfalls in planned emission reductions. Although not directly required by the CAA, EPA believed that such measures would be appropriate toprovide

assurance that an area would achieve timely attainment. It is true that the contingency provisions in the Maricopa SIPare not extensive. However, as mentioned above, the recently adopted Arizona legislation mandates two'

measures that EPA had not previously included in the Maricopa attainment demonstration. These measures are a requirement for a minimum market share of alcohol blends and the voluntary no-drive-day program. Although EPA cannot assign specific 

### emission reduction credits to these programs as part ofthis final action, theycan result inadditional emission reductions beyond thosenecessary to achieve timely attainment and may offsetunanticipated shortfalls in planned emission reductions.These
measures, whichhave already been adopted, will adequately serve the function ofthe contingency provisionsEPA contemplated in 1981in conjunction with the contingency

measures in theMAG plan. Conformity Provisions

Two commenters addressed theplan's conformity provisions. (See discussion ofsection 176(c) and conformity generally in theMay 16 1988 proposal.) ACLPIcommented that the provisions

were inadequate, presumably because they failed to fully meet EPA's 1981 guidance establishing criteria for approval of1982 planrevisions as indicated in theproposal, and therefore EPA should promulgate conformity provisions. On theother hand, USDOT commented thatEPA should notrequire that theMaricopa plancontain the conformity provisions outlined in either the proposed post-1987 policy ofEPA's April 1,1980, ANPRM on conformity requirements. USDOTclaims transportation actions are excluded from the 1980 ANPRM because ofthe June 12, 1980, USDOT/EPA agreement and that they also excluded from the proposed post-1987 policy.

Compliance with section 176(c)of the Act concerning conformity is'primarily 

### theresponsibility ofthe various federal agencies and metropolitan planning 

### organizations approving or funding projects. EPA's policy is to require conformity requirements in SIPs as 

### needed to protect the air quality standards. The control measures in the Maricopa SIP'are basically all transportation related measures. The conformity provisions in the Maricopa SIP are adequate to insure compliance with section 176(c) inMaricopa County. EPAwill continue to work with Maricopa County to'incorporate additional conformity procedures and criteria consistent with all outstanding EPA guidance as appropriate in light of theAgency's conclusions onconformity issues in its final post-1987 ozone/CO policy when it is published. See 52 FR 

### 45044 (November 24, 1987). Highway Funding Sanctions

•

Several commenters addressed the proposed funding sanctions. ACLPI strongly supported the termination of highway assistance, while USDOT 

### asserted that section 176(a)highway funding sanctions are not available at all in the period beyond 1987. Several local agencies and the State opposed the imposition ofsanctions because they believe the State was making reasonable efforts to develop an approvable SIP. Since EPA is today approving the Maricopa CO SIP, the Agency is withdrawing its proposal to impose funding sanctions; therefore, these comments are moot.

B.OxygenatedFuels

TheAgency's oxygenated fuels proposal included a description of the assumptions and methods that EPA intended to use inevaluating the. specific elements ofany subsequently adopted State program. Several
comments were received on this methodology, although significantly

more general comments were received

on the federal proposal. Ofthese, the only comments that appear directly relevant to the approvability ofthe SIP pertain to the proposed October 1989 implementation date ofthe fuels
program, which was both originally proposed by EPA and chosen by Arizona. The basic question to be resolved is whether the effective date represents progress toward attainment

as expeditiously as practicable.

In evaluating this issue, EPA finds it particularly important to note that the State's program will likely result in the
oxygen content ofall gasoline in the Maricopa County nonattainment area being substantially above the levels found iniconventional fuels duringthe mandatory compliance period. This could result in a significant amount of

new facilities being added to the Phoenix petroleum terminal, or to refineries servicing the area, to produce the requisite oxygenated-fules, i.e., the blending ofMTBE and/or alcohol with gasoline. Such a situation isnot dissimilar to that expected under the federal proposal, which prompted EPA
to orignially select, and most commenters to support, the October 1989 implementation date.Furthermore.
many commenters pointed out the importance ofinstituting an oxygenated fuels program that minimizes the risk for fuel supply disruptions, prevents unnecessary price increases, and has a high degree ofpublic acceptance. EPA

concurs and believe* that the approximately one year leadtime afforded by the October 1989 date should be adequate to achieve these goals. On the otherhand, the available information does not provide an adequate basis to conclude that a significant acceleration in the date is possible without jeopordizing these objectives. Therefore, the effective dale Federal Register / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30235 1988

### 30236 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

for Arizona's oxygenated fuels program appears reasonable toallow for the orderly transition from conventional to oxygenated gasolines.

The remaining comments primarily related to EPA's January 1988 guidance forcalculating CO reduction benefits from alternative fuels, or to concerns associated with therelatively high
average oxygen content and likely large market share foralcohol blends under the federal proposal. The comments pertaining to the Agency's emission reduction methodology foroxygenated fuels will be considered in a separate action, along with other information that has become available since the guidance

was formulated. These comments donot call into question EPA's action on the SIP, primarily because the suggested revisions to the guidance would likely increase the estimated CObenefits for the program contained in the SIP. The
comments pertaining to the relatively high oxygen content ofEPA's proposal

are alsonot directly relevant to the SIP, because the Stateprogram has less stringent oxygenrequirements. As a result, the Agency expects that the majority ofgasoline sold in Phoenix duringthe wintertime compliance period will contain MTBE, which is widely regarded as a fullysatisfactory oxygenating compound.

A more complete discussion ofthese and other comments is contained in the TSD for today's action.

C.Trip/TravelReductionPrograms

EPAreceived a number ofcomments

on the proposed federal trip reduction regulation and the State travel reduction
program. These comments fell into one of three categories. The first category

are positions and support for those positions on whether EPA should promulgate in its FIP a more stringent oxygenated fuels program in lieu ofa federal trip reduction regulation. EPA had specifically asked in itsproposal for
comments on this issue. The second category are comments on specific aspects oftheproposed federal regulation such as area of coverage and whether enforcement under CAA section 113is appropriate for such a regulation. The final category are comments thatdeal with aspects ofthe State's travel reduction program.

Because EPA is promulgating neither

a tripreduction regulation nor an oxygenated fuelsprogram, issues raised

on tripreduction regulation versus higher oxygen levels are moot as are issues on specific aspects ofthe federal regulation. The final category of
comments bear on EPA's ability to approve the State's travel reduction legislation under section 172 and are addressed below.

ACLPI stated in its comments that the State's legislation failed in two ways to meet the section 172(b)(10) criteria that-as ACLPI writes-"all control

measures be supported by legally enforceable requirements, schedules and timetables for compliance."

ACLPI claims that H.B. 2206, which contains the travel reduction program, does not set dates by which employers' travel reduction plans mustbe submitted. While EPA agrees that the legislation does not set specific dates on which the requirements oftheprogram mustbe met by majoremployers, EPA disagrees, with the implication that there isno enforceable schedule in the travel reduction program. In section 49- 588, each major employer is required to prepare and submit a travel reduction plan in each year ofthe regional
program. By definition (see section 49- 581(16)), the regional program is to begin in January 1989. Taken together, this language requires thatevery employer who is a majoremployer in1989 prepare and submit a travel reductionplan by the end of1989. While the legislation does give theCounty great discretion on the exact date travel reduction plans
must be submitted, it does constrain the overall timeframe therefore does not pose an issue underthe CAA section 172(b)(10) requirement forschedules and timetables for compliance. In addition, a letterfrom Maricopa County submitted with theJuly 25, 1988 SIP submittal indicates that the County will begin the
program as soon as H.B. 2206 allows, i.e., January 1, 1989.

ACLPI further commented that because there were no sanctions against employers for failure to achieve the trip reduction goal, the trip reduction
program fails to meet therequirement that all control measures be supported by "legally enforceable requirements." EPA disagrees. In a very real sense the TRP does impose sanctions against employers failing to achieve the goal. TheTRP requires any major employer who fails to meet the annual trip reduction goal to implement a specific number oftrip reduction strategies: Two in the first year oftheregional program, three in the second, and, in the third and subsequent yea'rs, the strategies specified by the TRP Task Force. This process oftriggering an automatic and specific revision to the travel reduction plan deprives an employer ofa good part ofits discretion -underthe program and represents a powerful incentive for employers to achieve the goals. Failure
to revise theplan or toimplement the required strategies would trigger the enforcement process in the TRP, which in turn will itselfbe enforceable by citizens and the Administrator under sections 304 and 113 ofthe CAA. EPA therefore believes that the TRP meets the Act's requirement concerning legal enforceability.

D. OtherComments

EPA received three comments regarding the benefits to be obtained from the State's I/M program. In the NPRM, EPA noted that the State had made an adjustment to the I/M credits in its modeling. This adjustment was to freeze the I/M benefits for vehicles which had been in the I/M program for

more than five years.EPA stated in the NPRM that this adjustment was inconsistent with accepted use of MOBILE3 and, further, that the State did
not provide EPAwith any data showing that such effect occurs in eitherthe Arizona I/Mprogram orother I/M programs in the Country. EPA, therefore, recalculated the emission reductions needed for attainment excluding this adjustment. Excluding the adjustment lowered the percent reduction needed to attain the CO standards in 1991.

EPA received three comments regarding its recalculation ofthe I/M benefit. The State and MAG commented that MOBILE3 has always grossly underestimated CO concentrations in Maricopa County and that the State's modeling, though still underestimating CO concentrations, has proven to be considerably more accurate. ACLPI commented that because theI/M
program has been operated exclusively by the State for more than a decade, EPA is not in the position to question the State's conclusions regarding the emission reductions achievable by that
program.

The State has not provided any emissions data to support the accuracy of freezing I/Mbenefits after a vehicle has been in the program five years. MOBILE3, the mobile source emission factor model-including the routines to calculate I/M credits-was developed by EPA after extensive public input. In the face ofno State data to support its contention that MOBILE3 underestimates COconcentrations in Maricopa County, EPA must stay with its publicly debated policy on theuse of MOBILE3 when determining the minimum reductions needed for attainment. However, the State is free to base its own planning onthe higher emission reduction targets derived from its assumptions about I/M benefits. EPA encourages them to do so; however, in determining the approvability ofthe attainment demonstration in the

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30236 1988

### Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30237

Maricopa SIP, EPA will rely on its policy

on calculating 1/M benefits.

In supplementary comments, ACLPI gave new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) numbers for Maricopa County which.are higher than the numbers in the Maricopa plan. ACLPI commented that because the SIPunderestimates the VMT numbers, EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration in the SIP and adopt additional FIPmeasures to address the increased emissions from the VMT growth.

The simple existence of higher VMT numbers does not lead to the conclusion that the attaitment demonstration in the MAG plan is inadequate and that additional FIPor SIP control measures

are needed. The VMT numbers supplied by ACLPI show a substantial increase in baseline (1985) VMTnumbers. Changes in the baseline data affect the model evaluation and thus the future-year modeling and the emission reduction needed for attainment in unpredictable ways. Depending on the spatial distribution ofthe VMT and the effect

on regional speeds, the emission reduction needed for attainment could increase, decrease or remain the same. Simply stated, the effect on the attainment number of the VMT increases presented by ACLPI is indeterminate lacking a completely new modeling exercise.

Given that this new VMT data has appeared near the conclusion ofthe
current SIP planning process and the data's impact on the SIP is indeterminate, the issue faced byEPA is what is the most appropriate use ofthis

new data. When determining the emission reductions needed for attainment, the State and MAG did use the most current data then available. After completing the modeling in the spring of 1987, the State did revise the modeling results to reflect higher VMT figures that had thenjust become available. The State has now submitted its complete planwhich includes an. adopted control strategy sufficient to demonstrate attainment using thebest data available when the control strategy

was developed. In this situation, EPA believes the most appropriate response to this newgrowth data is not to delay approval ofthe SIPbut rather to use the

new data in the next round ofplanning

as the State isalready planning to do.

In its comment regarding the CO plan attainment demonstration, ACLPI states that the model is based on an unrepresentative design value. ACLPI cites 1984 monitored values of 20 ppm (high) and 19 ppm (2nd. high) from the West Indian School microscale-site as the values which should have been considered for the design day. 

### When a design value isselected from

a multi-year data base,EPApolicy dictates that the second-highest concentration be used as the design value on which to base a CO SIP. Inthe MAG CO plan, a 1985 monitored value of 18.5ppm was used as thedesign value. This value isessentially the same
as usingthe second-high 1984value of 19ppm, although it mustbe noted this is not thereason for its selection. The State, inagreement with EPA, decided upon theUrban AirshedModel for modeling the SIP control strategy and initiated an intensive air quality and meteorological sampling program to acquire thedata necessary to provide theinputs to themodel. The design value was selected by theState from this 1985 data base asbeing themost representative value on which to model

a control strategy. EPA agreeswith the State'sjudgment about the representativeness ofthe 1985 data.

IV.Summary ofFinal Action

In todays's notice, EPA is taking final action to approve the revisionsto the carbon monoxide state implementation plan for theMaricopa nonattainment

area which were submittedby the State ofArizona on October5,1987, andJuly 18 and 22, 1988. Specifically, EPA is 

### approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP theMAG 1987 Carbon Monoxide Planforthe Maricopa CountyArea (including the resolutions ,ofcommitments containedin that plan) andportions ofArizona S.B. 1360 and H.B. 2206. Inaddition, EPA is approving specific emissionreduction credits for the followingmeasures: The 1987 I/M program improvements, short-range transit improvements, expanded ridesharing, HOV lanes, freeway flow improvements, increased bicycle usage, pedestrian travel improvements, conversion ofbuses to alternative fuels, alternative work hours,oxygenated. fuelsprogram,loaded-mode I/Mtesting (which also applies to bothMaricopa andPima Counties), and a travel reduction program. The specific emissionreduction credits for these

measures are listedinTable 1ofthis notice.EPA is also approving aspart of the SIP,but without emission reduction credits, thevoluntary no-drive-day program (which applies to both Maricopa andPima Counties), the minimum gasohol market share requirment, public education programs for oxygenated fuels, incentives forthe

use ofcompressed natural gas in vehicle fleets, public transit projects, programs to encourage the use ofvanpools for County, State .andprivate employees, *and allocation of.monies fromthe

State's Air Quality Fund to fund several of these programs. Finally, EPAis approving the Maricopa County NSR regulations.

EPA's evaluation of the control strategy submitted by the State shows that these measures will provide sufficient emission reductions to attain the CO standards in Maricopa County by December 31, 1991, maintain the standards until after 1998, and provide RFP between plan approval and attainment. Therefore, EPA is today approving the State's demonstration of attainment.

With these actions, EPA is approving the Maricopa portion ofthe Arizona CO SIP as fully meeting therequirements of section 110 and Part D ofthe CAA. With this full approval, EPA is withdrawing the federal implementation plan that it proposed on May 16, 1988. EPAis also lifting theCAA section 110(a)(2)(I) construction ban imposed in Maricopa County on September 23, 1986, and withdrawing its May 16, 1988, proposal
to impose highway funding restrictions under section 176(a).

VII. Regulatory Process

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofSection 3ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, .petitions forjudicial review ofthis action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit by October 11, 1988. This action
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

Airpollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note:Incorporation byreference ofthe StateImplementation Planfor theState of Arizona was'approved by theDirector of the Federal Register on July 1,1982.

Authority:42U.S.C.7401-7642.
Lee M.Thomas, Administrator.

Date:August 4,1988. Subpart D ofPart 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

Subpart D-Arizona

1.The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30237 1988

### 30238 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 53, No. 154 

# I Wednesday, August 10, 1988 

# / Rules and Regulations

2.Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(55), (57), (60)(i)(B), (62)(i)(A)(2), (65), and (66)(i)(B) to read

as follows:

§52.120 Identificationof plan. )* * * * 

### (c) (55) The following amendments to the plan were submitted bythe Governor's designee on March 4, 1983.

(i]Incorporation by Reference. (A)Maricopa County Health Department, Bureau ofAir Quality Control.

(1) New or amended rule 21.0: A-C, D.1. a-d. and E adopted on October 25, 1982.

(57) The following amendments to the plan were submitted by the Governor's designee on April 17, 1985.

(i)Incorporation byReference. (A)Maricopa CountyHealth Department, Bureau ofAir Quality Control.

(1)New oramended regulations: rule 21.0: D.1., D.1.e, f, andg adopted on July 9, 1984.

(60) * *
(i) * * (B) TheMaricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 1987 Carbon Monoxide (CO)Plan for the Maricopa County Area, MAG CO Plan Commitments forImplementation, and Appendix A through E,Exhibit 4. Exhibit D, adopted on July 10, 1987.



### (62) * * * 

### (i) * * 

### (A)
(2)Senate Bill 1360: Section 2: ARS 9- 500.03 (added), Section 14: ARS 41- 796.01 (added); Section 17:49-454 (added], Section 18: 49-474.01 (added), and Section 25: ARS 49-571 (added), adopted on May 22, 1987.

(63) [Reserved) (64) * * * (65) The following amendments to the planwere submitted by the Governor's designee on July 18, 1988.

(i)Incorporation by Reference. (A) Arizona Revised Statutes. (1] House Bill 2206, Section 2: ARS 15- 1627 (amended); Section 6: Title 28, ARS Chapter22, Article 1,ARS28-2701, ARS 28-2702, ARS 28-2703, ARS 28-2704, and ARS 28-2705 (added); Section 7:ARS 41.101.03 (amended; Section 9: ARS 41- 2065 (amended); Section 10: ARS41- 2066 (amended); Section 11: ARS 41- 2083 (amended); Section 13:Title 41, Chapter 15, Article 6, ARS41-2121: Nos. 1,3,4, 5,6, 7,8, and 9, ARS 41-2122, ARS 41-2123, ARS 41-2124 (added); Section 15:Title 49, Chapter3, Article 1,ARS 49-403 to49-406 (added); Section 17: Title 49, Chapter 3,Article 3, ARS 49- 506 (added); Section 18: ARS49-542 (amended); Section 19: ARS49-550 (amended); Section 20: ARS 49-551 (amended); Section 21: Title 49, Chapter 3.Article 5, ARS 49-553 (added), Section 22: ARS 49-571 (amended); Section 23: Title49, Chapter 3, Article 8,ARS49- 581, ARs 49-582, ARS 49-583, ARS 49- 584, ARS 49-585, ARS 49-586, ARS 49- 588, ARS 49-590, and ARS 49-593 (added); Section 25: Definition ofmajor employer, Section 27: Appropriations; Section 29: Delayed effective dates, adopted on June 28, 1988.

(66) * * * (i * (B) Letter from Maricopa County Department ofHealth Services, Division ofPublic Health, dated April 28, 1988 and submitted to EPAby the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality July25, 1988, committing to administer the New Source Review provisions of theirregulations, consistent with EPA's requirements. These commitments apply
to the issuance of, or revision to, permits forany source which is a major stationary source ormajor modification

as defined in the Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 51, Subpart I.

(C) Addendum to MAG 1987 Carbon Monoxide Plan for theMaricopa County Nonattainment Area, July 21, 1988 (supplemental information related to the SIPrevision ofJuly 18, 1988).

* * a * * 

### §52.124 [Removed]

3.Section 52.124(a)(1) is removed and the section is reserved. 

### [FR Doc. 88-18079 Filed8-9-88; 9:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

### 30238 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30238 1988