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 (without replacement), 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 by reference.

(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 of Environmental Quality,

dated June 1, 1988, committing to

administer the provisions of the Federal

New Source Review regulations

consistent with EPA's requirements. The

commitments apply to the issuance of,

or revision to, permits for any source which is a major stationary source or major modification as defined in 40

Code of Federal 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 Pima County

Health Department, Office of

Environmental Quality, dated April 24,

1988 committing to administer the Now

Source Review provisions of their

regulations consistent with EPA's

requirements. The commitments apply

to the issuance of, or revision to, permits

for any source which is a major

stationary source of major modification

as defined in 40 Code of Federal

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 of Arizona on October 5,

1987, and July 18 and 22, 1988. In its May

16, 1988, notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) (52 FR 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 of the

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 of Arizona, EPA also 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 for motor

vehicles and an employer-based trip

reduction program-which together with

the proposed 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 that the December 31, 1991 date

is the latest date by which an

approvable Arizona SIP may

demonstrate attainment under the Clean

Air Act and EPA's own policies in light

of the possibility of attainment by then

without the use of draconian 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 for the 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 of H.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 of the CO standards

in Maricopa by December 31, 1991. In its

May 16 notice, EPA had proposed in

advance to approve the measures

similar to those in H.B. 2206 if the 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 action based on its conclusion

that the control measures and the

attainment demonstration fully meet the

requirements of section 110 and Part D

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EPA is also taking 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 of the Maricopa

SIP, EPA is withdrawing its proposed

FIP and the proposal to impose highway

funding restrictions under CAA section

176(a) which were proposed on May 16,

1988. In addition, EPA is lifting, effective

today, the section 110(a)(2)(I)

construction ban on major new or

modified sources of CO 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) for this 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,

Air Management Division, 215

Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 2005 N.

Central Avenue, Sixth Floor, Phoenix,

Arizona 85004

Maricopa Association of Governments,

1820 West 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

The CAA amendments of 1977

required States to revise their SIPs by

certain times for all areas 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 SIP revisions were to provide for

attainment of the NAAQS by December

31, 1982. An extension of the attainment

date for ozone or CO to no later than

December 31, 1987, was available under

section 172 if the State could

demonstrate as part of its 1979 SIP

revision that attainment by the end of

1982 was not possible, despite the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures. For areas that received an attainment date

extension from EPA, States were required to submit to EPA by July 1,

1982, an additional SIP revision that

provided for attainment no later than

December 31, 1987, and that complied

with all other requirements of'Part D of

the CAA.

A. Maricopa SIP Disapproval

Maricopa County was designated as nonattainment for CO on March 3, 1978

(43 FR 8970), and the State submitted

Maricopa County's initial 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 date in Maricopa 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 the condition that the State

submit revised regulations for Maricopa

County to meet the Act's NSR

requirements. On June 3, 1982, and

March 4, 1983, the State submitted NSR

regulations for Maricopa 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 final action on the

1979 CO plan, found that the plan was not adequate to bring about attainment

by the end of 1982. EPA premised its

limited approval of the plan on the

expectation that f1) the Agency would

take final action to grant the State's

request for an attainment date extension

to December 31, 1987, and 12) the State

would submit another plan revision

which would provide for attainment by

that date. The State submitted a plan

purporting to meet this requirement on

October 26, 1982.

On January 27, 1986 (51 FR 3343), EPA

proposed to disapprove the revised

Maricopa plan and impose the section

110(a)(2)(1) construction ban because the

'State had not adequately demonstrated

that the plan would provide for timely

attainment of the standard.

On September 23, 1986 (51 FR 33746),

EPA published a final notice

disapproving the CO plans for 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 of CO

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 Court Order

On August 10, 1987, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Arizona ordered

EPA to promulgate a FIP under section

110(c) of the Act for CO in the Maricopa

and Pima Counties nonattainment areas.

The Court found that EPA's duty to

promulgate a FIP arose when EPA found

the State plans were inadequate. The

Court Order is the result of a citizen suit

brought against EPA on April 8, 1985, by

the Arizona Center for Law in the Public

Interest [ACLPI). The timeframe

specified in the Court Order for EPA to

promulgate a FIP was six months

following either the formal submittal of

the Pima CO plan or September 30, 1987,

whichever came first. McCarthy v.

Thomas, D. Ariz. No. CIV-85-34-TUC1WDB (slip op., Aug. 10, 1987). The

Court left open the possibility that EPA

could file a motion after January 1, 1988,

requesting an extension of the time

period for FIP promulgation if necessary.

On March 14, 1988, EPA moved the

Court to extend the period for EPA to

promulgate a FIP for the Maricopa and

Pima areas. On April 19, 1988, the Court

issued an Order requiring EPA to

propose a FIP for Maricopa County no later than May 13, 1988, hold public

hearings on the proposal no later than

June 10,1988, close the public comment

period following the hearing by July 11,

1988, and promulgate a FIP for Maricopa

County no later than August 10, 1988.

The Court also ordered that the same

schedule for FP promulgation shall

apply for Pima County if EPA did not

accept the Pima County SIP. On July 19,

1988, EPA moved the Court to amend its

Order to specifically allow EPA to

approve Arizona's SIP for Maricopa

County by August 10, 1988. The Court

granted EPA's motion on July 20, 1988.

EPA outlined its intended approach to

comply with the Court Order to

promulgate a FIP for Maricopa and Pima

Counties in an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (51 FR

45466) published on November 30,1987.

In the ANPRM, EPA explained that, to

promulgate a FIP for these two areas,

EPA must select control measures that

fill whatever gaps are left by approved

portions of the State plans. The ANPRM

also discussed the Maricopa County CO

plan that had been submitted as a SIP

revision by the State on October 5, 1987.

The plan indicated that the area could

attain the CO standard as early as 1990

and in any event by 1995 if the

recommended control strategy in the SIP

(including an oxygenated fuels program

for motor vehicles, winter daylight,

savings time, and an employer-based

trip reduction ordinance) were fully

adopted.and implemented.

The Maricopa plan claimed credit,

both implicitly and explicitly, for the

Arizona vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program as

expanded through 1987. On April 26,

1988, in a Federal Register notice on the

revised Pima CO plan, EPA proposed to

approve the improvements to the State's

I/M program as adopted by the Arizona

State Legislature in 1985, 1986, and 1987.

(51 FR 14818). The revised Maricopa

plan also assumed credit for the

following additional control measures:

Transit and ridesharing improvements,

expanded facilities to encourage

increased pedestrian and bicycle trips,

alternative work hours, alternative fuels

for vehicle fleets, alternative-fueled

transit vehicle purchase, and a

voluntary no-drive-day program. On

May 16, 1988 (53 FR 17379), EPA

proposed to approve and assign

emissions reduction credits to all of

these measures except for the

alternative fuels for vehicle fleets and

the voluntary no-drive-day program.

However, the creditable measures in the

revised plan did not by themselves

provide sufficient emissions reductions

to demonstrate attainment of the CO

standard. Therefore, EPA also proposed

to promulgate the two control measures

for Maricopa County identified in the

ANPRM-an oxygenated fuels program

and an employer-based trip reduction

program-as technologically available

elements of a FIP that would provide the

emission reductions -necessary for

attainment.

C. Proposed FIP

As fully described in the May 16, 1988

.notice; EPA's evaluation of the air

quality modeling analysis in the SIP

submittal prepared by the Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG)

shows that a 22.0 percent reduction ir

the 1991 baseline CO emissions 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 of the

8-hour CO standard by December 31,

1991. (The applicable attainment date

for the Maricopa plan is described in

detail in the proposed rulemaking and is

summarized later in this notice.) The

MAG plan provided an approvable

emission reduction of 3.9 percent by the

end of 1991 leaving a shortfall of 18.1

percent in the emission reductions

needed for attainment 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 CO emissions by

the end of 1991.

The proposed oxygenated fuels

program required an equivalent oxygen

content level of 2.57 percent in motor

vehicle fuels sold in the Maricopa area

in the winter CO season. October 1

through March 31. Oxygenated fuel

blends, in the form of aliphatic alcohols

and/or ethers which are currently on the

market and available to the Maricopa

area, include mefhyl-tertiary-butyl-ether

(MTBE), ethanol (gasohol) and

methanol/cosolvent blends The effect

of these blends in gasoline is to cause

motor vehicle engines to run leaner

thereby reducing emissions of carbon

monoxide In the May 16, 1988 notice,

EPA noted that the equivalent oxygen

content requirement could change in the

final rulemaking depending upon the

combination of control measures

selected for promulgation and on

whether the State adopted any

additional control measures EPA also

solicited comments on whether the

proposed trip reduction regulation

should be replaced by a higher average

oxygen content level in the oxygenated

fuels program.

The proposed employer alternative

modes incentive program required that

eadh employer of 100 or more employees

at a worksite in the nonattainment area

develop and offer to its employees

alternative transportation mode

incentives These incentives would be

designed to reduce the number of single

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 the first year and an additional 5

percent in the second year EPA's

proposed program was designed to

regulate the same group of employers at

the same trip reduction level as the

MAG model trip reduction ordinance

(described fully in the May 16, 1988

notice) EPA estimated that the MAG

model or EPA's proposed regulation, if

fully implemented, could reduce CO

emissions by 1.8 percent 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 EPA of the

proposed FIP measures. EPA proposed

to modify the final FIP if additional

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 that if the revised SIP

achieved 22.0 percent or more emission

reductions, and EPA approved it, EPA

would not promulgate any FIP.

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

of a loaded-mode testing requirement

and to require a trip reduction program

in Maricopa County. In its proposed

notice, EPA evaluated the various

carbon monoxide control measures then

under consideration by the Arizona

State Legislature and indicated which

measures EPA would approve if adopted

and submitted as SIP revisions

The May 16, 1988 proposal provided

that if a 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 trip reduction

regulation and which covered all or virtually all employers of more than 100

persons in the CO nonattainment area,

then EPA would not finalize its own trip

reduction regulation The notice also

stated that EPA might go directly to final

approval of the loaded-mode 1/M testing

requirement then being 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 it would use in

appreoving or disapproving such new

legislation and in assigning CO emission

reduction credit to it

D Dates for Attainment and

Maintenance of the CO Standard

The May 16, 1988 notice describes in

detail the.legal reqturements applicable

to any FIP that EPA would promulgate

for the Martcopa area in light of its

unique characteristics. In general those

requirements would also apply to any

SIP submitted for the area Specifically

EPA concluded that the FIP as well as

any SIP approved by EPA, must meet

the requirements of both section 110 and

Part D of the CAA. EPA also 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 of an extension beyond

the otherwise applicable planning date

December 31, 1982. See section 172(a)

The Maricopa area has not received

EPA's approval of such 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

for EPA to plan for these areas to attain

by the elapsed dates in Part D, EPA

intends to interpret the requirement to

plan for attainment by those dates as a

legal impossibility. EPA believes that

Congress would have intended EPA in

such circumstances to select, in place of

the elapsed 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., 467 U.S 837 (1984)

Although it is not clear what

subsequent date Congress would have

intended in these circumstances, the

history of the 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

longer attainment 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 those measures

Since most reasonably available

measures should already have been

implemented in the Maricopa area by

now, EPA regards post-1987 planning for

the area as comparable to the planning

during the second Part D period. That

period spanned from the July 1982

submittal date (see section 129(c)) to the

end of 1987 a period roughly consistent

with the 3- and 5-year periods in section

110. Thus, although sections 110(a)(2)

and (e) do not literally apply to the

Maricopa area, EPA will use them

(absent considerations of impossibility)

as the best indicators of the attainment

periods Congress would have intended

to apply to plans for these areas after

passage of the Part D dates.'

Section 110(a)(2) requires

implementation plans to provide for

attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than 3 years

rom EPA's approval of an adequate

plan. Section 110(e) allows the EPA

Administrator to grant a 2-year

extension of the attainment date

(beyond the 3-year period in section

110(a)(2)(A)) only if:

(A) One or more emission sources (or

classes of moving sources) are unable to

comply with the requirements of such

plans which implement such primary

standard because the necessary

technology or other alternatives are not

available or will not be available soon

enough to permit compliance within

such 3-year period, and

(B) The State has considered and

applied as a part of its plan reasonably

available alternative means of attaining

I Certain important qualifications apply to this

analysis. First. EPA is here dealing with a situation

in which attainment within 3 years is a practical

possibility given the size of the 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 a SIP and thereby

trigger a construction ban. even where a state has

failed to submit measures that would provide for

attainment within 3 or 5 years ond where

attainment by means of any measures would be

impossible as a practical matter See 52 FR 26404

(July 14. 1987 and 52 FR 45044 (November 24. 1987) Thus EPA has yet 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 notice of final

action what its obligations under section 110(c) to

promulgate a federal implementation plan are Again, the role of the doctrine of impossibility is

uncertain Further. it is uncertain in any event that

EPA must promulgate a FIP that provides for

attainment by a near term fixed date. EPA currently

is exploring these issues in connection with the

ozone and CO SiPs for certain areas in California

including the South Coast Air Quality Management

District EPA does not intend by means of the

discussion and analysis in this notice to express a final view on these issues.

such primary standard and has

justifiably concluded that attainment of

such primary 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 in no

case later than 1991 (assuming plan

approval in 1988), unless even with the

application of reasonably available

alternative means attainment cannot be

achieved within that period. For the

reasons described below and later in

this notice, 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 of the 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

that would produce enough emissions

reductions in combination to bring about

attainment by December 31, 1991.

However, EPA does not believe that any

combination of available, practicable

measures exists which could provide for

attainment in the Maricopa area before

the end of 1991. It is true that a very

stringent oxygenated fuels program

could theoretically advance the

attainment date to 1990, but EPA 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.

EPA is approving the oxygenated fuels

program described later only because it

is necessary to provide for attainment

by end of 1991. 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

of the 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

testing requirement 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 for the Maricopa area

because the programs are

technologically available measures that

are necessary to bring the area into

attainment by the end of 1991 And,

beyond that, as proposed, EPA does not

believe it is appropriate to invoke the

two-year extension provided in section

110(e).

EPA s approval of the SIP for

Maricopa is consistent with outstanding

agency guidance on CO SIP preparation.

In an April 4, 1979 notice (44 FR 20372),

EPA published criteria for approval of

the Part D SIP revisions that the Act

required states to submit in 1979 On

January 22,1981 (46 FR 7182), EPA

published criteria for evaluating 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 for maintenance of

the standards thereafter The SIP for the

Maricopa area is based on the modeling

and emission projections prepared by

MAG as part of its SIP submittal. The

MAP plan projects emissions only

through 1995; however, the projections

demonstrate that the proposed SIP will

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 of ten years following the

time of SIP submittal. 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 of the Federal Motor Vehicle

Emission Control Program and

population growth and associated

increases in vehicle miles traveled may

cause CO levels to rise 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. Lifting of Construction Ban and

Withdrawal of Proposed 176(a)

Sanctions

Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA and

EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 52.24 impose

a ban on the construction of major new

or modified stationary sources of CO

until such time as a state plan meeting

the requirements of Part D is approved

by the Administrator. Accordingly, EPA

imposed the construction ban upon

disapproval of the SIP on September 23,

1986. Since EPA has now determined

that the SIP submitted by Arizona meets

the requirements of section 110 and Part

D of the CAA and will result in

attainment of the CO standard as

expeditiously as practicable in 1991,

EPA is taking final action to approve the

SIP for Maricopa County and lift the

construction ban originally imposed on

September 23, 1986.

In the May 16, 1988 notice, EPA

proposed that, if Arizona did not

supplement the Maricopa plan with the

measures to demonstrate expeditious

attainment, EPA would 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). Since Arizona has

submitted additional CO control

measures which EPA has determined

meet the requirements of Part D of the

CAA, EPA can no longer make this

finding and therefore withdraws its

proposal on this issue.

F. Finding under Section 211(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) to allow state regulation of

motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives

unless there has been federal preemption. Under section 211(c)(4)(A) preemption of state regulation of a fuel

occurs (i) if EPA has found that no fuelrelated control or prohibition is

necessary for that fuel or additive and

has published such finding in the

Federal Register, or (ii) if EPA has

prescribed by regulation -under section

211(c)(i) a control or prohibition

applicable to the fuel or fuel-additive

regulated by the state that is different

from the state control or prohibition.

The Agency wants to stress that it does

not believe that eitherlorm of preemption-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 in section 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

of fuel control that the regulation in

question is attempting to prescribe.

Under this approach, section

211(c)(4)(A)'s prohibition of the adoption

of a particular type of fuel control would

be triggered only if EPA 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 of any

fuel by section 211(c) rulemaking,2 the

Agency believes that the pre-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-emption has occurred, state

fuel-related controls to be approved into

a SIP if EPA finds such controls are "necessary" to achieve the standard the

SIP implements. In this case a finding

under section 211(c](4)(C) is not required

because pre-emption has not occurred.

Even if pre-emption has occurred,

however, EPA believes 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

the pre-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 EPA to approve

into a SIP a state-adopted fuel control

measure that has otherwise been preempted by EPA action, if EPA 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 on oxygen content for

certain new fuels that have been granted waivers

under section 211f"] of the Act for introduction into

commerce. hut'has taken no such:action under

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 if no other measures

that would bring about timely

attainment exist, or if such other

measures exist and are technically

possible to implement, but are

unreasonable or impracticable.

As explained in the proposal at 17413,

EPA believes 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 of severe draconian

controls are available to achieve

attainment by the end of 1991. 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

the procedural foundation for final

approval of new legislation, EPA listed

several conditions or restrictions on its

proposed finding that an oxygenated

fuels program is "necessary" within the

meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C). EPA

believes that H.B. 2206 meets those

conditions. At proposal the Agency

indicated that some of the bills then

before the Arizona legislature contained

elements that exceeded the

requirements for timely 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 treat those elements as

separable from the remainder of the

program and withhold the "necessity"

finding for them. 53 FR 17413-17414.

EPA has examined H.B. 2206 and

believes that two elements of the

legislation, if viewed in isolation from

the remainder, arguably require

reductions beyond the minimum that

would produce timely attainment. First,

the averaging requirement of section 41-

2124 might, if triggered, produce more

CO reduction in the January through

March period than is strictly needed for

timely attainment. Second, the set-aside

authority of sections 78-2071 through

78-2708 might, if exercised, make it

possible for more fuel to be blended to

higher oxygen levels than might

otherwise be the case.

In light of the process that led to the

State's enactment of H.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 of the 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 of the

law demonstrates that the final

legislation reflects a balance aimed at

assuring the widest possible availability

of alternative types of oxygenated 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 of a significant amount of

fuels with alcohol into the area. Because

both of the program elements described

above appear to have been adopted for

the purpose of meeting this alcoholrelated goal, and since that goal itself

seems to have been critical to enactment

of the legislation as a whole, EPA

believes it would be inappropriate to

conclude that those elements were not

themselves "necessary" to achieve the

standard, within the meaning of section

211(a)(4}(C). 3 Indeed, to withhold the "necessity" finding from those two

elements would reflect a

misunderstanding of the process that led

to the enactment of H.B. 2206. For these

reasons, EPA finds that the oxygenated

fuels program as a whole contained in

H.B. 2206 is "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 of Arizona

Senate Bill 1360 as revisions to the SIP.

On May 16, 1988, EPA explicitly

proposed to assign specific emission

reduction credits to several of the

measures in the plan and the bill. EPA

also proposed to approve the resolutions

of commitment 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 of Arizona 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 for attainment, but I I.B. 2206

is not thaI case.

for attainment of the CO standard in

Maricopa County by the end of 1991.

Also accompanying the July 22, 1988 SIP

submittal were workplans from agencies

having responsibility for implementing

parts of H.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 of the measures in

the SIP submittals. Table 1 is 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 freew ays ................................................ 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

Alternative work hours ............................ 1.1 1.0

1988 SIP Submittals

Oxygenated fuels:

Sun waiver approved ........................ 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. Control Measure Evaluation

Measures in the 1987 SIP Submittal

The MAG recommended a list of 45

transportation and mobile source

control measures for inclusion in its

final carbon monoxide plan. These

measures included expansion of the 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 for public

employees, and purchase of only cleanfuel buses by public agencies after

January 1990. Emission reduction credits

for these measures were taken in the

MAG plan.

The State submitted the final MAG

CO plan and S.B. 1360 to EPA as

revisions to the Arizona CO SIP on

October 5, 1987. Included in this SIP

submittal are resolutions passed by the

MAG member jurisdictions that

contained commitments to implement

measures in the MAG plan. Resolutions

or letters of commitments are also

included from the MAG Regional

Council, the Phoenix Metropolition

Chamber of Commerce, 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 of the specific commitments in the plan as well as

actions of the 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 of buses to

alternative fuels, and alternative

workhours. EPA today is taking action

to grant these measures the emission

reduction credits listed in Table 1. More

detailed information on EPA's reasoning

for and the.State's commitments to each

of these measures is discussed in the

TSD.

The cities, towns, and the County of

Maricopa also made commitments to

other measures (for example: 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 of many of these 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 its final 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 SIP Submittals

In June of this year, 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 in both 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 of the Arizona CO

SIP. Accompanying the July 22 SIP

submittal were workplans from each of

the agencies charged with implementing a program or part of a program under

H.B. 2206. These workplans clarify each

agency's responsibilities and intents on implementing the provisions of the bill

and are included as attachments to the

TSD. Below is a short description of

each of the control measures in H.B.

2206.

1. Oxygenated Fuels Program. H.B.

2206 establishes an oxygenated fuels

program for the CO nonattainment area of Maricopa County. New Section 41-

2123 A, Arizona Revised Statutes, sets

the required oxygen content of leaded

fuel at 2.4 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 of an EPA waiver under

section 211(f) of the CAA, i.e., currently a maximum of 3.7 percent. These

restrictions apply from and after

September 30 of one year through March

31 of the next year, beginning in the fall

of 1989. Section 41-2123 B provides that

if the 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 to 3.7 percent for both

leaded and unleaded gasoline.

New section 41-2124 directs the

Arizona Department of Transportation

(ADOT) to enforce a higher oxygen

content requirement from January 1

through March 31, if marketing data for

the preceding October and November

indicate that less than 10 percent of fuel

sold contained 3.2 to 3.7 percent oxygen. The higher oxygen requirement would

be enforced through averaging over the

three month period. The oxygen requirement is to be set by ADOT to ensure that 18 percent of all 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 also meet the required minimum

and maximum oxygen limits 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, if the ADOT determines a shortage of such unblended gasoline

exists during the mandatory oxygenated

fuels period.

Only the requirements of section 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 this requirement

would in fact be triggered. The set-aside

authority of sections 28-2071 through

28-2708 would, if exercised, make it

possible for more fuel to be 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

later in this section.

Before presenting EPA's analysis of

the Maricopa County program, it should

be noted that a detailed description of

oxygenated fuels and their effect on motor vehicle emissions is contained in

EPA's NPRM of May 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 B were proposed at 17410 of that same Federal

Register notice and clarified by a memo fron Phil Lorang, Office of Mobile

Sources, EPA, to Wallace Woo, EPA

Region 9 (June 22, 1988). The details of

the methodology are contained in the

TSD for this action and will not be

repeated here. The interested reader is

instead referred to that document.

However, the basic elements of EPA's

evaluation are briefly described below.

The EPA report, "Guidance on Estimating Motor Vehicle Emission

Reductions From the Use of Alternative

Fuels and Fuel Blends," January 29, 1988, EPA -AA-TSS-PA-87-4, is the basis for

the calculation of CO emission

reductions. The guidance in this report 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 of gasoline, 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 or consumer desire to use or avoid one type or level of oxygenate.

Regarding the actual oxyen content,

EPA assumes that the minimum oxygen

content for all grades of gasoline will be

met using MTBE with a 0.1 percent

oxygen safety margin. 5 This assumption

is based on a workplan for

implementation of H.B. 2206 contained

in Appendix B.2 of the SIP Addendum

which indicates an intent by the Arizona

Department of Weights 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 for resale to distributors for use in alcohol blending. Thus, EPA is

conservatively assuming that no alcohol

blends will be sold in the Phoenix area for the purposes of assigning emission

reduction credits to the program.

Therefore, if the Sun waiver is not

approved, leaded fuel is expected to

contain a level of MTBE which produces

2.5 percent oxygen content by weight

and unleaded fuel is expected to contain a level of MTBE which produces 2.0

percent oxygen by weight. If the Sun

waiver is approved. EPA assumes that

all fuel will contain a level of MTBE

which produces 2.4 percent oxygen by

weight, i.e., about 13.2 percent MTBE by

volume depending on the density of

individual batches of gasoline used in

blending.

With respect to enforcement of the

State's program, as noted above, the

ADWM has developed a workplan for

implementation of H.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 MTBE can 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. If the

waiver is approved, the CO reduction

would be 16.20 percent on that date.

The actual CO reduction in Maricopa

County may be higher, but not assuredly so. If a 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 for MTBE blends. For

example, if the Sun waiver is approved

and a 10 percent alcohol blend market

share actually occurs throughout the sixmonth period, the fleet CO reduction in

December 1991 would be 16.7 percent.

However, EPA has 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-Mode Inspection and

Maintenance Testing. Currently the

Arizona I/M program passes or fails

vehicles based on their exhaust

emission concentrations under curb-idle

conditions. Section 18 of H.B. 2206

amends Section 49-542 F of the 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.

EPA has calculated the expected

incremental benefit of loaded-mode

testing using MOBILE3 which contains

EPA's standard estimates of the 1/M

reductions for both 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 of Environmental Quality as being representative for Phoenix. The

incremental CO reductions from loadedmode testing were calculated by EPA to

be 4.0 percent in 1991 and 5.9 percent in

1995.6 A more complete discussion of

6 In a subsequent Federal Register notice. EPA

plans to propose to amend the existing loaded-mode

test procedure contained in 40 CFR Part 85. Subpart

W The proposed changes will eliminate

factors related to this calculation is

contained in the TSD.

The May 16, 1988 NPRM stated that

EPA might go directly to final approval

of the 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 of the Arizona CO SIP.

3. Travel Reduction Program. H.B.

2206 establishes a travel reduction

program (TRP) in the nonattainment

area of Maricopa County, which is very

similar to the Pima County Travel

Reduction Ordinance. The legislation

appoints Maricopa County as the

implementing and enforcing agency and

provides funding for implementation

through the State Air Quality Fund.

The TRP requires all employers of 100

or more 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 of their

employees, and develop a travel

reduction plan. The travel reduction

goals in the program are a 5 percent

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 by the

MAC and enacted by County ordinance.

Under the TRP, major responsibility

for overseeing the implementation of the

program is held by the travel reduction

program regional task force. This task

force, the exact composition of which is

to be decided by the Maricopa Board of

Supervisors, may have representatives

of major employers, development

owners, Maricopa County jurisdictions,

and public interest groups. Duties of the

task force include reviewing surveys

and travel reduction plans and requiring

employers to revise unapprovable and/

or inadequate plans. The task force is

also responsible for recommending 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 of Supervisors on air quality rules

and regulations.

discrepancies between Arizona's loaded-mode

testing protocol and EPA's requirements, thereby

ensuring continued performance warranty coverage

for potentially affected consumers. The minor

revisions presently being contemplated do not

change the CO benefit being credited to Arizona's

loaded-mode testing requirement and, therefore, the

amendment is not an issue in today's action.

Violations of the TRP are punishable

by civil penalties of up to $350 per day.

Violations include failure to designate 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 the program will

be located in the Bureau of Air 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 of February 1989. After

that, the County will provide major

employers with survey forms as soon as

the provisions of H.B. 2206 allow.

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 the proposal for today's notice. The

requirements in all three apply to

employers with more than 100

employees at a worksite and include the

appointment of an employer

transportation coordinator, the annual

dissemination of information on

alternative transportation modes to

employees, annual surveys of employee

commute modes, and the annual

preparation, submittal, and

implementation of a 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 of an

employer to meet 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 of this notice for

more information.)

In its May 16 notice, EPA proposed to

grant an emission reduction credit of 1,8

percent in 1991 to the MAG model trip

reduction ordinance and calculated the

same emission credit for its own

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. Voluntary No-Drive-Day Program.

In its 1987 SIP submittal, MAG and the

State took a substantial emission

reduction credit for a voluntary nodrive-day program in Maricopa County.

As described in that SIP submittal, the

program was a joint undertaking of the

Phoenix Metropolitan Chamber of

Commerce, the Regional Public

Transportation Authority, and the

Arizona Office of Energy. The SIP

submittal, however, contained no longterm funding commitment for the

program. EPA's review of the proposed

voluntary no-drive-day program raised

three concerns, and in May 1988, EPA

proposed not to approve the program as

part of the SIP. The three concerns were

assurance of adequate annual funding,

the existence of an institutional

framework meeting the requirements of

CAA section 172(b)(10), and the

development of a monitoring program to

assess and verify the impact of the

program.

H.B. 2206 in section 17 requires a

Countywith a population' of more 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 of CAA

section 172(b)(10). H.R. 2206 also

requires the DEQ to fund the voluntary

no-drive-day programs from the Air

Quality Fund; therefore, long-term

funding of the program is assured. Based

on these two changes, EPA is approving

the voluntary no-drive-day program as

part of the SIP for both Maricopa and

Pima Counties; however, because a

monitoring protocol to assess and verify

the impact of the program is still lacking,

EPA is not at this time approving a

specific emission reduction credit for the

program. Before EPA can approve a

specific emission reduction credit for

this measure, the State must submit a

monitoring protocol for the 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 of an

emission reduction credit in the

Maricopa SIP for a voluntary no-driveday program.

5. Other Measures. 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

of compressed natural gas in vehicle

fleets, allocation of moneys rom the Air

Quality Fund for public 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, in the form of payment to

third-party companies and tax

deductions, as incentives for County,

State and private employers,

respectively, to encourage the use of

vanpools for employees. Although the

emission reduction impacts for these

measures has not been determined, EPA

believes these measures support the

attainment and maintenance

demonstrations in the SIP and

demonstrate the wide range of efforts

the State has taken to improve CO in

Maricopa County.

6. New Source Review. On June 1,

1988, the State submitted a letter from

itself, and on July 22, 1988, the State

submitted a letter from Maricopa

County. These letters make certain

commitments regarding implementation

of the 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 this notice, 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 of the Federal Register for

incorporation by reference into the Code

of Federal Regulations as enforceable

components of the Maricopa CO SIP. As

such they are federally enforceable

against both Maricopa County and the

State of Arizona under sections 113 and

304 of the Act. The commitments are

also enforceable through citizen suit

under section 304 of the Act.

B. Demonstration of Attainment,

Maintenance and RFP

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 of the 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 of the 8-hour CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1991.

Table I is a list of the control

measures which were submitted by the

State and to which EPA is granting

specific emission reductions credit in

this notice. EPA calculates that these

measures'will reduce CO emissions by

22.3 percent in 1991 if theSun Waiver is

denied and 24.1 percent in 1991 if the

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, If the 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/M program) reduce the emission

reduction impact of measures which

control VMT (transit, and the travel

reduction program).

EPA has concluded that a

demonstration of maintenance 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.

The major factor influencing CO air

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 10.0 ppm in 1998

assuming reductions from only the

FMVCP, the State's I/M program

(including loaded-mode testing and the

1987 legislation), and the freeway buildout. A 10.0 ppm reading would require a

reduction of 10.3 percent in CO

emissions from other SIP measures in

order to 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. This reduction is sufficient by

itself to show continued maintenance.

Because the estimates of the emission

reductions from other measures rely on

State-performed modeling which is

unavailable for the period after 1995, the

1998 impacts of the other measures in ,

the SIP cannot 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 of 1988/89, 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 of oxygenated

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 of the 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, higher goals in the

travel reduction program will continue

to reduce ambient CO concentrations.

By the 1991/92 season, the projected

date of attainment, the complete control

strategy will provide sufficient emission

reduction to demonstrate attainment.

Even without these SIP measures, the

modeling performed for the plan

demonstrates that considerable progress

will be achieved in reducing emissions

in Maricopa County with only the

"baseline" measures-FMVCP, the pre1987 I/M program, and the freeway

build-out-despite high growth rates in

VMT. The modeling 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 of attainment.

Finally, the majority of the other SIP

commitments specifically listed in Table

1 are already being implemented and

are providing emission reductions. All

these factors provide sufficient evidence

that the plan demonstrates RFP and

meets the requirement for "substantial

reductions in the early years."

Ill. Response to Comments

EPA received a considerable number

of comments in response to its May 16

NPRM. Comments were made both in

writing and at a June 10, 1988, public

hearing in Maricopa County. The

majority of the comments received dealt

specifically with the two federal

measures that EPA proposed to

promulgate in its FIP. Most of these

comments are made moot by EPA's

action today to withdraw the FIP in

preference to the State plan. However,

some of the comments received address

the SIP submittals or bear on EPA's

finding that the SIP is fully approvable

under section 110 and Part D of the

CAA. EPA's response to those

comments are given below. A summary

of pertinent comments received on the

May 16 notice can be found in the

technical support document for this

rulemaking.

A. Legal Issues

Attainment Date

The ACLPI commented that the

attainment date for the Maricopa area

should not be three years from the date

of SIP approval. ACLPI argued that after

passage of the statutory Part D

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 in full, EPA believes that after

December 31, 1987, a SIP needs 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 of EPA's legal interpretation.

If EPA were to adopt ACLPI's position

that post-1987 planning should provide

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 nodrive restrictions-simply because such

measures are physically available to

bring about attainment. EPA does not

believe that Congress, if it had

addressed the post-1987 nonattainment

situation now being faced, would have

required such a result, even after

passage of the Part D dates. EPA

believes that Congress would instead

have regarded the "as expeditiously as

practicable" requirement to be still in

place, albeit bounded in situations, such

as that of Maricopa County, by fixed

attainment deadlines.

ACLPI cites American Lung

Association v. Kean, 18 Envtl. L.Rptr.

20317(D.N.J. 1987), in support of its

position. ACLPI misinterprets that case.

That case in fact interprets the Act to

require "SIP implementation 'as

expeditiously as practicable' after

December 31, 1987." American Lung

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 case is

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 for the area

in light of the Agency's conclusion that

no measures beyond those already

included in the Maricopa SIP are both

practicable and would advance that

attainment date. ACLPI suggests a

number of measures that it believes are

available that together might advance

the attainment date for the Maricopa

area. EPA cannot now conclude that any

of these measures are both practicable

and sufficient to materially advance the

attainment date.

Specifically, ACLPI suggests an

immediate, major expansion of the

transit system, a rigorous program of

parking controls, exclusive bus lanes,

winter daylight savings time, mandatory

no-drive days, and a statewide I/M

program. The Maricopa SIP already

contains some measures for expanded

mass transit and HOV lanes. EPA does

not believe there are grounds to

conclude that the substantial expansion

of the transit system that would be

necessary to advance the attainment

date from 1991 could practicably be

implemented in the short time between

now and the end of 1990. EPA cannot

require a state to observe winter

daylight savings time since authority to

establish or regulate daylight savings

time is reserved to the U.S. Department

of Transportation'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 it were so

stringent as to create the type of public

uproar that EPA faced when it

promulgated such measures in FIPs in

the 1970s. In light of that experience,

EPA cannot conclude that such stringent

programs would be practicable to

implement. Beyond that, the Maricopa

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 the bulk of the emissions

reductions will result from the

oxygenated fuels program, which will

only be 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 for reasonable

further progress towards attainment.

Reasonably Available Control Measures

ACLPI commented that the Maricopa

CO SIP does not provide for

implementation of all reasonably

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.

EPA has long interpreted 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 SIP preparation, 44

FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979].

As explained above, EPA does not

believe it has grounds to conclude that

any combination of clearly 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 not be necessary to

achieve timely attainment and

consequently would not be required as

RACM.

Maintenance

Two commenters addressed the issue

of maintenance of the CO standard.

ACLPI commented that the maintenance

demonstration in the Maricopa plan is

inadequate because it is not supported

by the record and does not cover a

sufficiently long period of time. EPA

disagrees. The maintenance

demonstration is based on the modeling

and emissions projections in the MAG

plan and EPA's own projections based

on the data in the MAC plan. These

projections indicate that the Maricopa

area will maintain the CO standard until

at least 1998. This demonstration covers

the ten-year time period which EPA

proposed as appropriate for a

maintenance demonstration in its

proposed post-1987 CO/Ozone policy.

ACLPI commented that a maintenance

demonstration should not be limited to

ten years but should instead extend to

the limit of technical feasibility. On the

other hand, the USDOT commented that

EPA should not apply the maintenance

requirements of its proposed post-1987

policy to any areas until the Agency has

finalized the policy. EPA believes that

given these conflicting public comments

the use of a ten-year maintenance

demonstration is appropriate. Although

the post-1987 policy is not yet final, EPA

believes that projections extending ten

years are technically reliable and

provide a manageable planning period.

Projections beyond that period become

too speculative to be reliable.

Moreover, although the Act requires

SIPs to contain a demonstration of

maintenance of the standards, the Act

nowhere indicates the length of time

such demonstrations should cover.

Where the statute is unclear, EPA

must fill any gaps using a rule of

reasonableness. See Chevron v. NRDC,

467 U.S. 837 (1984). As reflected in the

proposed post-1987 policy, and because

projections of source growth and

emissions reductions beyond ten years

are too speculative, EPA has determined

that a ten-year period is a reasonable

period for a maintenance demonstration

in Maricopa County and that requiring a

demonstration extending more than ten

years would not be reasonable.

In supplemental comments ACLPI

pointed to 40 CFR 51.42 in support of its

assertion that at least a 20-year

maintenance demonstration would be

appropriate. That provision is part of

EPA's 1975 maintenance program. The

entire program, however, has been

effectively superseded by the 1977 CAA

amendments and creation of Part D and

the section 107 nonattainment area

designations. The reference to

maintenance in Part D (section 172) and

the entire planning scheme in Part D

were created in light of the failures of

the 1970's efforts to produce sound state

plans. They were not intended as a

ratification of EPA's approach to these

issues in the previous years. While in

1975 EPA apparently believed that a 20-

year maintenance demonstration would

be desirable and feasible, EPA now

views the issues differently. Upon

subsequent reflection, in light of the

Agency's post-1977 experience with

computer models for projecting mobile

source emissions and with the

inaccurate growth projections in the

initial round of Part D SIPs, EPA

currently concludes that projections

beyond 10 years are simply too

speculative. The Agency's recent

conclusions are reflected in the

proposed post-1987 policy. For these

reasons, EPA believes at this time that a

maintenance demonstration through

1998 is adequate for the Maricopa area.

Finally EPA notes that the Maricopa

SIP which EPA is approving today

includes several recently-adopted

meaures to which EPA had not assigned

emission reduction credit in the

proposal for this action. These are the

voluntary no-drive-day program and the

requirement under the oxygenated fuels

program for a specific market share of

alcohol blends. EPA is not relying upon

any reductions from these new

measures to bring about attainment.

However, the emission reductions from

these measures will be available as

additional assurances that the Maricopa

area will continue to maintain the CO

standard into the future.

New Source Review (NSR)

ACLPI commented that EPA could not

approve the Maricopa CO SIP and lift

the construction ban in Maricopa

County so long as the plan lacks an

approvable NSR component. EPA has

reviewed the Maricopa NSR program

and has determined that it can be fully

approved based upon Maricopa

County's and the State of Arizona's

commitments to interpret the regulation

consistent with EPA's requirements. The

State submitted a letter from itself on

June 1, 1988, and a letter from Maricopa

County on July 22, 1988, which make the

necessary commitments. These

commitment letters, which have been

appended to the TSD for this notice,

have been forwarded to the Office of

Federal Register for incorporation by

reference into the Code of Federal

Regulations as enforceable component

30234 Federal Register No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations / Vol. 53,

HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 30234 1988
No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 30235

of the Maricopa CO SIP. As such are

enforceable against Maricopa County

and the State of Arizona 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 CO plan does not meet the

requirement of section 172(b)(11)(A) that

the NSR program require a

demonstration that the benefits of a

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 in order to demonstrate

timely attainment. See Guidance

Document for Correction of Part D SIPs

for Nonattainment Areas, January 27,

1984. The Arizona NSR program does

require a demonstration that the ,

benefits of a 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 of uncertainty

of emission reduction estimates and

should ensure that it is legally

enforceable and self-implementing. In its

1981 guidance on SIP preparation, EPA

indicated that all Part D 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 to provide

assurance that an area would achieve

timely attainment. It is true that the

contingency provisions in the Maricopa

SIP are 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 of this final action,

they can result in additional emission

reductions beyond those necessary to

achieve timely attainment and may

offset unanticipated shortfalls in

planned emission reductions. These

measures, which have already been

adopted, will adequately serve the

function of the contingency provisionsEPA contemplated in 1981 in

conjunction with the contingency

measures in the MAG plan.

Conformity Provisions

Two commenters addressed the plan's

conformity provisions. (See discussion

of section 176(c) and conformity

generally in the May 16 1988 proposal.)

ACLPI commented that the provisions

were inadequate, presumably because

they failed to fully meet EPA's 1981

guidance establishing criteria for

approval of 1982 plan revisions as

indicated in the proposal, and therefore

EPA should promulgate conformity

provisions. On the other hand, USDOT

commented that EPA should not require

that the Maricopa plan contain the

conformity provisions outlined in either

the proposed post-1987 policy of EPA's

April 1, 1980, ANPRM on conformity

requirements. USDOT claims

transportation actions are excluded

from the 1980 ANPRM because of the

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

the responsibility of the 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) in Maricopa County.

EPA will continue to work with

Maricopa County to'incorporate

additional conformity procedures and

criteria consistent with all outstanding

EPA guidance as appropriate in light of

the Agency's conclusions on conformity

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 term ination 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 of sanctions 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. Oxygenated Fuels

The Agency's oxygenated fuels

proposal included a description of the

assumptions and methods that EPA

intended to use in evaluating the.

specific elements of any subsequently

adopted State program. Several

comments were received on this

methodology, although significantly

more general comments were received

on the federal proposal. Of these, the

only comments that appear directly

relevant to the approvability of the SIP

pertain to the proposed October 1989

implementation date of the 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 of all gasoline in the

Maricopa County nonattainment area

being substantially above the levels

found ini conventional fuels during the

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 of MTBE and/or alcohol with

gasoline. Such a situation is not

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 of instituting an oxygenated

fuels program that minimizes the risk for

fuel supply disruptions, prevents

unnecessary price increases, and has a

high degree of public 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 other hand, 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 to allow for the

orderly transition from conventional to

oxygenated gasolines.

The remaining comments primarily

related to EPA's January 1988 guidance

for calculating CO reduction benefits

from alternative fuels, or to concerns

associated with the relatively high

average oxygen content and likely large

market share for alcohol blends under

the federal proposal. The comments

pertaining to the Agency's emission

reduction methodology for oxygenated

fuels will be considered in a separate

action, along with other information that

has become available since the guidance

was formulated. These comments do not

call into question EPA's action on the

SIP, primarily because the suggested

revisions to the guidance would likely

increase the estimated CO benefits for

the program contained in the SIP. The

comments pertaining to the relatively

high oxygen content of EPA's proposal

are also not directly relevant to the SIP,

because the State program has less

stringent oxygen requirements. As a

result, the Agency expects that the

majority of gasoline sold in Phoenix

during the wintertime compliance period

will contain MTBE, which is widely

regarded as a fully satisfactory

oxygenating compound.

A more complete discussion of these

and other comments is contained in the

TSD for today's action.

C. Trip/Travel Reduction Programs

EPA received a number of comments

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 of a

federal trip reduction regulation. EPA

had specifically asked in its proposal for

comments on this issue. The second

category are comments on specific

aspects of the proposed federal

regulation such as area of coverage and

whether enforcement under CAA

section 113 is appropriate for such a

regulation. The final category are

comments that deal with aspects of the

State's travel reduction program.

Because EPA is promulgating neither a trip reduction regulation nor an

oxygenated fuels program, issues raised

on trip reduction regulation versus

higher oxygen levels are moot as are

issues on specific aspects of the 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 must be

submitted. While EPA agrees that the

legislation does not set specific dates on

which the requirements of the program

must be met by major employers, EPA

disagrees, with the implication that

there is no 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 of the regional

program. By definition (see section 49-

581(16)), the regional program is to begin

in January 1989. Taken together, this

language requires that every employer

who is a major employer in 1989 prepare

and submit a travel reduction plan by

the end of 1989. While the legislation

does give the County great discretion on

the exact date travel reduction plans

must be submitted, it does constrain the

overall timeframe therefore does not

pose an issue under the CAA section

172(b)(10) requirement for schedules and

timetables for compliance. In addition, a

letter from Maricopa County submitted

with the July 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 the requirement

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.

The TRP requires any major employer

who fails to meet the annual trip

reduction goal to implement a specific

number of trip reduction strategies: Two

in the first year of the regional program,

three in the second, and, in the third and

subsequent yea'rs, the strategies

specified by the TRP Task Force. This

process of triggering an automatic and

specific revision to the travel reduction

plan deprives an employer of a good

part of its discretion -under the program

and represents a powerful incentive for

employers to achieve the goals. Failure

to revise the plan or to implement the

required strategies would trigger the

enforcement process in the TRP, which

in turn will itself be enforceable by

citizens and the Administrator under

sections 304 and 113 of the CAA. EPA

therefore believes that the TRP meets

the Act's requirement concerning legal

enforceability.

D. Other Comments

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 EPA with any data showing

that such effect occurs in either the

Arizona I/M program or other 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 of the 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/M benefits 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 of no State data to support its

contention that MOBILE3

underestimates CO concentrations in

Maricopa County, EPA must stay with

its publicly debated policy on the use of

MOBILE3 when determining the

minimum reductions needed for

attainment. However, the State is free to

base its own planning on the higher

emission reduction targets derived from

its assumptions about I/M benefits. EPA

encourages them to do so; however, in

determining the approvability of the

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 SIP underestimates the VMT

numbers, EPA should disapprove the

attainment demonstration in the SIP and

adopt additional FIP measures 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 FIP or SIP control measures

are needed. The VMT numbers supplied

by ACLPI show a substantial increase in

baseline (1985) VMT numbers. 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 of the 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 of the

current SIP planning process and the

data's impact on the SIP is

indeterminate, the issue faced by EPA is

what is the most appropriate use of this

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 then just become

available. The State has now submitted

its complete plan which includes an.

adopted control strategy sufficient to

demonstrate attainment using the best

data available when the control strategy

was developed. In this situation, EPA

believes the most appropriate response

to this new growth data is not to delay

approval of the SIP but rather to use the

new data in the next round of planning

as the State is already 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 is selected from

a multi-year data base, EPA policy

dictates that the second-highest

concentration be used as the design

value on which to base a CO SIP. In the

MAG CO plan, a 1985 monitored value

of 18.5 ppm was used as the design

value. This value is essentially the same

as using the second-high 1984 value of

19 ppm, although it must be noted this is

not the reason for its selection. The

State, in agreement with EPA, decided

upon the Urban Airshed Model for

modeling the SIP control strategy and

initiated an intensive air quality and

meteorological sampling program to

acquire the data necessary to provide

the inputs to the model. The design value was selected by the State from

this 1985 data base as being the most

representative value on which to model

a control strategy. EPA agrees with the

State's judgment about the

representativeness of the 1985 data.

IV. Summary of Final Action

In todays's notice, EPA is taking final

action to approve the revisions to the

carbon monoxide state implementation

plan for the Maricopa nonattainment

area which were submitted by the State

of Arizona on October 5, 1987, and July

18 and 22, 1988. Specifically, EPA is

approving and incorporating by

reference into the SIP the MAG 1987

Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa

County Area (including the resolutions

,of commitments contained in that plan)

and portions of Arizona S.B. 1360 and

H.B. 2206. In addition, EPA is approving

specific emission reduction credits for

the following measures: The 1987 I/M

program improvements, short-range

transit improvements, expanded

ridesharing, HOV lanes, freeway flow

improvements, increased bicycle usage,

pedestrian travel improvements, conversion of buses to alternative fuels,

alternative work hours, oxygenated.

fuels program, loaded-mode I/M testing

(which also applies to both Maricopa

and Pima Counties), and a travel

reduction program. The specific

emission reduction credits for these

measures are listed in Table 1 of this

notice. EPA is also approving as part of

the SIP, but without emission reduction

credits, the voluntary no-drive-day

program (which applies to both

Maricopa and Pima Counties), the

minimum gasohol market share

requirment, public education programs

for oxygenated fuels, incentives for the

use of compressed natural gas in vehicle

fleets, public transit projects, programs

to encourage the use of vanpools for

County, State .and private employees,

* and allocation of.monies from the

State's Air Quality Fund to fund several

of these programs. Finally, EPA is

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 of the Arizona CO

SIP as fully meeting the requirements of

section 110 and Part D of the CAA. With

this full approval, EPA is withdrawing

the federal implementation plan that it

proposed on May 16, 1988. EPA is also

lifting the CAA 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 of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

.petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the 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 of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona was'approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

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

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator.

Date: August 4, 1988.

Subpart D of Part 52, Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal 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 Identification of plan.

)* * * *

(c)

(55) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted by the Governor's

designee on March 4, 1983.

(i] Incorporation by Reference.

(A) Maricopa County Health

Department, Bureau of Air 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 by Reference.

(A) Maricopa County Health

Department, Bureau of Air Quality

Control.

(1) New or amended regulations: rule

21.0: D.1., D.1.e, f, and g adopted on July

9, 1984.

(60) * *

(i) * *

(B) The Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG) 1987 Carbon

Monoxide (CO) Plan for the Maricopa

County Area, MAG CO Plan

Commitments for Implementation, 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

plan were 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

Chapter 22, Article 1, ARS 28-2701, 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: ARS 41-

2066 (amended); Section 11: ARS 41-

2083 (amended); Section 13: Title 41,

Chapter 15, Article 6, ARS 41-2121: Nos.

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, ARS 41-2122, ARS

41-2123, ARS 41-2124 (added); Section

15: Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 1, ARS

49-403 to 49-406 (added); Section 17:

Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 3, ARS 49-

506 (added); Section 18: ARS 49-542

(amended); Section 19: ARS 49-550

(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:

Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 8, ARS 49-

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 of major

employer, Section 27: Appropriations;

Section 29: Delayed effective dates,

adopted on June 28, 1988.

(66) * * *

(i *

(B) Letter from Maricopa County

Department of Health Services, Division

of Public Health, dated April 28, 1988

and submitted to EPA by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

July 25, 1988, committing to administer

the New Source Review provisions of

their regulations, consistent with EPA's

requirements. These commitments apply

to the issuance of, or revision to, permits

for any source which is a major

stationary source or major modification

as defined in the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 51, Subpart I.

(C) Addendum to MAG 1987 Carbon

Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County

Nonattainment Area, July 21, 1988

(supplemental information related to the

SIP revision of July 18, 1988). * * a * *

§ 52.124 [Removed]

3. Section 52.124(a)(1) is removed and

the section is reserved.

[FR Doc. 88-18079 Filed 8-9-88; 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