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

1 ‘‘Maricopa,’’ ‘‘Maricopa County’’ and ‘‘Phoenix’’

are used interchangeably throughout this proposal

to refer to the nonattainment area.

2There are two PM–10 NAAQS, a 24-hour

standard and an annual standard. 40 CFR 50.6. EPA

promulgated these NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR

24672), replacing standards for total suspended

particulate with new standards applying only to

particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter

(PM–10). At that time, EPA established two PM–10

standards. The annual PM–10 standard is attained

when the expected annual arithmetic average of the

24-hour samples for a period of one year does not

exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). The

24-hour PM–10 standard of 150 μg/m3 is attained

if samples taken for 24-hour periods have no more

than one expected exceedance per year, averaged

over 3 years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K.

3See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General

Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992).

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–16437 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ105–0040; FRL–7005–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—

Maricopa Nonattainment Area; PM–10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act),

as a revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP), a general

permit rule that provides for the

expeditious implementation of best

management practices (BMPs) to reduce

particulate matter (PM–10) from

agricultural sources in the Maricopa

County (Phoenix) PM–10 nonattainment

area. EPA is proposing to approve the

general permit rule as meeting the

‘‘reasonably available control measure’’

(RACM) requirements of the Act.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street (AIR2), San Francisco,

CA 94105 or ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

A copy of docket, containing material

relevant to EPA’s proposed action, is

available for review at: EPA Region 9,

Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Interested persons

may make an appointment with John

Ungvarsky to inspect the docket at

EPA’s San Francisco office on weekdays

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

A copy of docket is also available to

review at the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 N.

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85012. (602) 207–2217.

Electronic Availability.This document

is also available as an electronic file on

EPA’s Region 9 Web Page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky at (415) 744–1286 or

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

A. Air Quality Status

Portions of Maricopa County 1 are

designated nonattainment for the PM–

10 national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) 2 and were

originally classified as ‘‘moderate’’

pursuant to section 188(a) of the CAA.

56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). On May

10, 1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa

County PM–10 nonattainment area to

‘‘serious’’ under CAA section 188(b)(2).

61 FR 21372. Having been reclassified,

Phoenix is required to meet the serious

area requirements in CAA section

189(b).

While the Phoenix PM–10

nonattainment area is currently

classified as serious, today’s proposed

action relates only to the moderate area

statutory requirements for RACM.

However, as discussed further below,

Arizona developed state legislation and

a general permit rule applicable to

agricultural sources of PM–10 when the

area had already been reclassified to

serious. Therefore the State’s focus was

on the serious area statutory

requirements for ‘‘best available control

measures’’ (BACM). RACM, as will be

seen, is generally considered to be a

subset of BACM. As a result, in order to

evaluate whether the general permit rule

meets the RACM requirements for the

purpose of this rulemaking, it was

necessary for EPA to refer to portions of

the State’s serious area state

implementation plan (SIP) submittals.

Thus, while the Agency is not proposing

action at this time on those submittals

as they relate to the Act’s serious area

statutory requirements, those

requirements and the State’s submittals

developed to meet them are discussed

here. The relevant portions of the State’s

serious area submittals are cited below

and are included in the docket for this

proposed action.

B. CAA Planning Requirements and

EPA Guidance

The air quality planning requirements

for PM–10 nonattainment areas are set

out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the

Clean Air Act. Those states containing

initial moderate PM–10 nonattainment

areas were required to submit, among

other things, by November 15, 1991

provisions to assure that RACM

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology (RACT)) shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993. CAA sections 172(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C). Since that deadline has

passed, EPA has concluded that the

required RACM/RACT must be

implemented ‘‘as soon as possible.’’

Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th

Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this

requirement to be ‘‘as soon as

practicable.’’ See 55 FR 41204, 41210

(October 1, 1990) and 63 FR 28898,

28900 (May 27, 1998).

EPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ 3 describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how the Agency

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under title I of the Act,

including those state submittals

containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP provisions. The

methodology for determining RACM/

RACT is described in detail in the

General Preamble. 57 FR 13498, 13540–

13541. In short and as pertinent here,

EPA suggests starting to define RACM

with the list of available control

measures for fugitive dust in Appendix

C1 to the General Preamble and adding

to this list any additional control

measures proposed and documented in

public comments. Any measures that

apply to emission sources of PM–10 and

that are de minimis and any measures

that are unreasonable for technology

reasons or because of the cost of the

control in the area can then be culled

from the list. In addition, potential

RACM may be culled from the list if a

measure cannot be implemented on a

schedule that would advance the date

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

4The Committee is composed of five local

farmers, the Director of the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Director of the

Arizona Department of Agriculture, the State

Conservationist for the United States Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) state office, the Dean

of the University of Arizona’s College of

Agriculture, and a soil scientist from the University

of Arizona.

5Subsection N.1 of ARS 49–457 defines

‘‘agricultural general permit’’ to mean: ‘‘best

management practices that: (a) reduce PM–10

particulate emissions from tillage practices and

from harvesting on a commercial farm.[;] (b) reduce

PM–10 particulate emissions from those areas of a

commercial farm that are not normally in crop

production. [;] (c) reduce PM–10 particulate

emissions from those areas of a commercial farm

that are normally in crop production including

prior to plant emergence and when the land is not

in crop production.’’

‘‘Regulated agricultural activities’’ are defined as

‘‘commercial farming practices that may produce

PM–10 particulate emissions within the Maricopa

PM–10 particulate nonattainment area.’’ ARS 49–

457.N.4.

6This submittal was deemed complete by

operation of law on January 11, 2001 pursuant to

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).

7 ‘‘Maricopa County, PM10 State Implementation

Plan Revision: Agricultural Best Management

Practices,’’ Richard W. Tobin II, ADEQ, to Felicia

Marcus, EPA, July 11, 2000.

8 ‘‘Submittal of State Implementation Plan

revision for the Agricultural Best Management

Continued

for attainment in the area. 57 13498,

13560; 57 FR 18070, 18072 (April 28,

1992).

PM–10 nonattainment areas

reclassified as serious under section

188(b)(2) of the CAA are required to

submit, within 18 months of the area’s

reclassification, SIP revisions providing

for the implementation of BACM no

later than four years from the date of

reclassification. The SIP must also

provide for attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS by December 31, 2001. See

CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b). If

certain conditions are met, EPA may

extend this attainment deadline to no

later than December 31, 2006. One of

these conditions is that the serious area

plan must include the ‘‘most stringent

measures’’ (MSM) included in the plan

of any state or achieved in practice in

any state that can feasibly be

implemented in the area. CAA section

188(e).

On August 16, 1994, EPA issued an

Addendum to the General Preamble that

describes the Agency’s preliminary

views on the CAA provisions for serious

area PM–10 nonattainment SIPs. 59 FR

41998. The Addendum provides that for

moderate PM–10 areas reclassified as

serious, the RACM requirements are

carried over and elevated to a higher

level of stringency, i.e., BACM. 59 FR

41998, 42009.

Moderate and serious area plans are

also required to meet the generally

applicable SIP requirements for

reasonable notice and public hearing

under section 110(a)(2), necessary

assurances that the implementing

agencies have adequate personnel,

funding and authority under section

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

the description of enforcement methods

as required by 40 CFR 51.111, and EPA

guidance implementing these

provisions.

C. Recent History of PM–10 Planning in

the Phoenix Area

On August 3, 1998, EPA promulgated

under the authority of CAA section

110(c)(1) a federal implementation plan

(FIP) to address the CAA’s moderate

area PM–10 requirements for the

Phoenix PM–10 nonattainment area. 63

FR 41326 (August 3, 1998). EPA’s PM–

10 FIP for the Phoenix area was the

result of over six years of planning and

litigation regarding the control of PM–

10 emissions in the Phoenix area. For a

detailed discussion of that history, the

reader is referred to EPA’s proposed

rulemaking for the FIP at 63 FR 15920,

15924–15926 (April 1, 1998).

In the FIP, EPA promulgated, among

other things, a demonstration that

RACM will be implemented in the

Phoenix area as soon as practicable. As

part of its RACM demonstration, EPA

promulgated an enforceable

commitment, codified at 40 CFR 52.127,

to ensure that RACM for agricultural

sources would be expeditiously adopted

and implemented. See 63 FR 41326,

41350.

In May 1998, Arizona Governor Hull

signed into law Senate Bill 1427 (SB

1427) which revised title 49 of the

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) by

adding section 49–457. This legislation

established an Agricultural Best

Management Practices (BMP)

Committee 4 that was required to adopt

by rule by June 10, 2000, an agricultural

general permit specifying BMPs for

regulated agricultural activities 5 to

reduce PM–10 emissions in the

Maricopa PM–10 nonattainment area.

ARS 49–457.A–F. Subsection M of ARS

49–457 provided for the initiation of

BMP implementation through the

commencement of an education

program by June 10, 2000.

On September 4, 1998, the State

submitted ARS 49–457 to EPA for

inclusion in the Arizona SIP as meeting

the RACM requirements of CAA section

189(a)(1)(C) and requested that the

Agency approve that legislation in place

of the FIP commitment in 40 CFR

52.127. On June 29, 1999, EPA approved

ARS 49–457 as meeting the RACM

requirements of the CAA and withdrew

the FIP commitment. 64 FR 34726.

Pursuant to section 189(b)(2), on

February 16, 2000, the State submitted

as a revision to the PM–10 SIP the

‘‘Revised Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG) 1999 Serious Area

Particulate Plan for PM–10 for the

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area’’

(1999 serious area plan). Among other

things, this plan provides for attainment

of both the annual and 24-hour PM–10

NAAQS by December 31, 2006 and

relies on ARS 49–457 for the purpose of

addressing the CAA’s BACM and MSM

requirements for agricultural sources.

On April 13, 2000, EPA proposed to

approve the 1999 serious area plan as it

relates to the annual PM–10 standard

and to grant the State’s request to extend

the attainment date for the annual

standard to December 31, 2006. 65 FR

19964. EPA took no action on the

serious area plan’s provisions for the 24-

hour standard because the attainment

demonstration relies on BMPs that had

not yet been quantified by the State. 65

FR at 19970.

II. Arizona’s Agricultural General

Permit

As directed by ARS 49–457, the

Agricultural BMP Committee adopted

the agricultural general permit and

associated definitions, effective May 12,

2000, at Arizona Administrative Code

(AAC) R18–2–610, ‘‘Definitions for R18–

2–611,’’ and 611, ‘‘Agricultural PM–10

General Permit; Maricopa PM10

Nonattainment Area’’ (collectively,

general permit rule). On July 11, 2000,

the State submitted AAC R18–2–610

and 611 to EPA as a revision to the

Arizona SIP.6

In addition to fulfilling the

commitment in ARS 49–457 approved

by EPA as part of the moderate area

PM–10 plan, this submittal was

intended to partially satisfy the CAA’s

serious area PM–10 requirements; the

State indicated that documentation for

the remaining portions of the serious

area SIP revision package would be

submitted at a later date.7 On April 26,

2001, the State submitted this additional

documentation as part of a draft revision

to the 1999 serious area plan and

requested parallel processing, a

procedure adopted by EPA to expedite

review of a state plan. See 40 CFR part

51, appendix V, section 2.3.1. The State

formally submitted the final revision to

EPA on June 13, 2001. This submittal

includes an attainment demonstration

for the 24-hour standard, BACM and

MSM demonstrations, description of the

public education initiative for the

general permit, and a demonstration

that the CAA section 110 general

requirements have been met.8

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

program in the Maricopa County, PM10

Nonattainment Area’’ from Jacqueline E. Schafer,

ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, EPA, June 13, 2001.

9R18–2–610 defines commercial farmer ‘‘an

individual, entity, or joint operation in general

control of 10 or more continuous acres of land used

for agricultural purposes within the boundary of the

Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment area.’’

10R18–2–610 defines tillage and harvest as ‘‘any

mechanical practice that physically disturbs

cropland or crops on a commercial farm.’’ R18–2–

610 defines non-cropland as ‘‘any commercial farm

land that: is no longer used for agricultural

production; is no longer suitable for production of

crops; is subject to a restrictive easement of contract

that prohibits use for the production of crops; or

includes a private farm road, ditch, ditch bank,

equipment yard, storage yard, or well head.’’ R18–

2–610 defines cropland as ‘‘land on a commercial

farm that: is within the time frame of final harvest

to plant emergence; has been tilled in a prior year

and is suitable for crop production, but is currently

fallow; is a turn-row.’’

11 ‘‘Guide to Agricultural PM–10 Best

Management Practices, Maricopa County, Arizona

PM–10 Nonattainment Area,’’ Governor’s

Agricultural BMP Committee, First edition,

February, 2001.

12See Enclosure 3, ‘‘Final Revised Background

Information,’’ BACM—Recommendations from

Governor’s Agricultural BMP Committee, pages 31–

33 of June 13, 2001, Submittal of State

Implementation Plan revision for the Agricultural

Best Management Practices program in the

Maricopa Count PM–10 Nonattainment Area.

13 Ibid.

14 ‘‘How Agriculture is Improving Maricopa

County’s Air Quality,’’ Governor’s Agricultural

BMP Committee, March, 2001. 15ACC R18–2–611 reiterates the compliance

deadlines contained in ARS 49–457. 16See reference in footnote 8.

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

In this action, EPA is proposing only

to approve the general permit rule as

meeting the CAA’s RACM requirements.

For this purpose, the Agency reviewed

the portions of the June 13, 2001

submittal relating to the BACM and

MSM demonstrations, public education

initiative and CAA section 110

requirements. EPA will formally

evaluate the general permit rule in

relation to the BACM and MSM

requirements in the context of a future

rulemaking on the 1999 serious area

plan.

AAC R18–2–611 includes thirty-four

BMPs identified by the BMP Committee

as feasible, effective, and common sense

practices that will reduce PM–10

emissions while minimizing negative

economic impacts on local agriculture.

A BMP is defined in AAC R18–2–610

as ‘‘a technique verified by scientific

research, that on a case-by-case basis is

practical, economically feasible and

effective in reducing PM–10 particulate

emissions from a regulated agricultural

activity.’’

AAC R18–2–611 requires a

commercial farmer 9 to implement by

December 31, 2001 at least one BMP to

control PM–10 for three categories of

emission sources: tillage and harvest,

non-cropland, and cropland.10

To reduce PM–10 emissions during

tillage and harvest activities, a

commercial farmer shall implement at

least one of following BMPs: Chemical

irrigation; combining tractor operations;

equipment modification; limited

activity during high-wind event; multiyear crop; planting based on soil

moisture; reduced harvest activity;

reduced tillage system; tillage based on

soil moisture; or timing of tillage

operation.

To reduce PM–10 emissions from

non-cropland, a commercial farmer

shall implement at least one of

following BMPs: access restriction;

aggregate cover; artificial wind barrier;

critical area planting; manure

application; reduced vehicle speed;

synthetic particulate suppressant; trackout control system; tree, shrub, or

windbreak planting; or watering.

To reduce PM–10 emissions from

cropland, a commercial farmer shall

implement at least one of following

BMPs: artificial wind barrier; cover

crop; cross-wind ridges; cross-wind

strip-cropping; cross-wind vegetative

strips; manure application; mulching;

multi-year crop; permanent cover;

planting based on soil moisture; residue

management; sequential cropping;

surface roughening; or tree, shrub, or

windbreak planting.

A commercial farmer is required to

maintain a record demonstrating

compliance with the general permit. A

commercial farmer not in compliance

with the general permit is subject to a

series of compliance actions described

in ARS 49–457.I–K.

The BMP Committee began

implementing the general permit rule in

June 2000 by means of an extensive

educational outreach program informing

growers about the BMPs. In addition,

the BMP Committee developed a Guide

to Agricultural PM–10 Best Management

Practices 11 to provide information and

guidance on how to effectively

implement BMPs. The guide represents

a significant step in helping growers

reduce PM–10 emissions from

farmlands located within the Maricopa

County PM–10 nonattainment area.

The BMP Committee developed an

Agricultural BMP General Permit

Education Program to inform and

educate the public and growers about

the forthcoming general permit. As of

July 2000 nine public presentations had

been given in addition to the twentytwo public meetings held by the BMP

Committee.12 Informational public

workshops for growers were held on

February 20, 2001 and March 1, 2001.13

The workshops focused on the purpose

of the rule, the individual BMPs,

recordkeeping requirements, and

compliance options. In addition, ADEQ

plans to hold an annual workshop to

educate growers, inspectors, and

interested stakeholders.

In addition to the guide referenced

above, the BMP Committee developed a

brochure to inform the public and

growers about PM–10 and the BMPs.14

III. SIP Approval Criteria

Once a SIP submittal is deemed

complete, EPA must next determine if

the submittal is approvable as a revision

to the SIP. EPA must first determine

whether the general permit rule meets

the RACM requirements of CAA section

189(a)(1)(C) and EPA guidance

interpreting that provision. EPA must

also determine that the rule meets the

general SIP requirements described in

section I.B. above.

Finally, in order for EPA to approve

the SIP revision, EPA must determine

that the SIP submittal complies with

CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) states

that the ‘‘Administrator shall not

approve a revision of a plan if the

revision would interfere with any

applicable requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further

progress * * * or any other applicable

requirement of [the Clean Air] Act.’’

IV. Evaluation of the Agricultural

General Permit Rule

A. RACM Requirements

CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), as

interpreted by EPA under the current

circumstances, requires that a moderate

area plan provide for the

implementation of RACM as soon as

practicable. Arizona’s requirements

regarding the timing of the

implementation of the BMPs are

contained in ARS 49–457. Since EPA

has already approved this legislation as

meeting the ‘‘as expeditiously as

practicable’’ test and the general permit

rule was adopted in compliance with

the statute, EPA need not revisit the

timing issue in this rulemaking. See 64

FR 34726.15

Therefore EPA need only determine

whether the BMPs in the general permit

rule meet the level of control required

by CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). As

discussed above, for this evaluation,

EPA looked to the State’s BACM and

MSM analyses in the June 13, 2001

submittal.16

In September 1998, the Agricultural

BMP Committee was established for the

purpose of developing an agricultural

general permit specifying BMPs.17 The

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34601

18See reference in footnote 12, pages 15–16. 19The BMP Committee divided the 34 BMPs by

applicability to the three source categories: 10

BMPs were applicable to the Tillage and Harvest

category; 10 BMPs were applicable to the NonCropland category; and 14 BMPs were applicable to

the Cropland category.

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

21USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Arizona; Conservation Practice Summary; Air

Quality (cropland—irrigated), FOTG Section IV,

November, 1998.

established an Ad-hoc Technical Group

to develop a comprehensive list of

potential BMPs for regulated sources in

the Maricopa nonattainment area.

Participants included the USDA NRCS,

USDA Agricultural Research Service,

University of Arizona College of

Agriculture, ADEQ, University of

Arizona College of Agriculture and

Cooperative Extension, Western

Growers Association, Arizona Cotton

Growers Association, Arizona Farm

Bureau Federation, and EPA.

The Ad-hoc Technical Group

reviewed available dust control

regulations, literature, and technical

documents, and developed a list of

conservation practices potentially

suitable to agricultural sources in the

Maricopa County nonattainment area.

The information sources evaluated are

listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—INFORMATION SOURCES

USED TO DEVELOP A LIST OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES WITH POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY IN MARICOPA

COUNTY

NRCS Field Office Technical Guide.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule 403 (fugitive dust) Agricultural Handbook.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1997 PM–10 Attainment Demonstration Plan.

University of Arizona Cooperative Extension

Mojave Valley research project.

University of Washington Columbia Plateau

research project.

ENSR Report: Evaluation of Fugitive Dust

Control in the Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area. March 1997. Document Number 0493–015–500.

Particulate Control Measure Feasibility Study:

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

From a review of these information

sources, 65 potential practices for

further consideration were selected.18

These 65 measures represented a broad

spectrum of potential BMPs, many of

which related to conservation practices

used in the western United States that

had never been evaluated in the context

of reducing PM–10. This list

represented a list of potential practices

to be considered in determining what

measures are actually available for

implementation in the Phoenix area.

The Agricultural BMP Committee

thoroughly reviewed the potential

practices presented by the Ad-hoc

Technical Group and identified 34 19 of

the 65 BMPs to include in the general

permit rule that the Committee deemed

to be feasible, effective and common

sense practices for the Phoenix area

which also minimized potential

negative impacts on local agriculture.

Of the 31 potential BMPs eliminated,

the majority were dropped because they

either duplicated another BMP or did

not reduce PM–10. Other reasons for

elimination included the

impracticability of a BMP for the

Maricopa County Area, lack of cost

effectiveness, or infeasibility of

implementation.20 Examples of how

potential BMPs were eliminated for

these reasons are provided below:

(1) No identifiable relation to PM–10

emission reductions. For example, the

original list of potential BMPs

developed by the Ad-hoc Technical

Committee included a potential BMP for

Tree/Shrub Pruning. Although the Tree/

Shrub Pruning might qualify as a BMP

for some agricultural activities, it would

not reduce PM–10. Therefore, the Tree/

Shrub Pruning was dropped.

(2) Duplication. Many similar BMPs

were combined into a single BMP. For

example, the original list of potential

BMPs included numerous practices that

relate to creating a barrier (i.e., Tree/

shrub establishment, windbreak/

shelterbelt establishment, windbreak/

shelterbelt renovation, hedgerow

plating, herbaceous wind barriers) to

reduce the impact of wind on disturbed

soils. These practices were combined

into a single BMP: tree, shrub, or

windbreak planting.

(3) Impracticability to Maricopa

County farming or implementation

infeasibility. Some of the potential

BMPs were determined to be

impractical or infeasible. For example,

the original list included Wildlife

Upland Habitat Management. This

conservation practice is intended to

create, maintain, or enhance habitat

suitable to sustaining desired kinds of

upland wildlife.21 Although evaluated

as a potential BMP, it was determined

to be impracticable for Maricopa County

given that the agricultural sources in

question are not located in an area

suitable for upland wildlife.

The general permit rule, as finally

adopted by the BMP Committee in May

2000, requires that commercial farmers

implement at least one BMP for the

Tillage and Harvest, Cropland, and Noncropland categories by December 31,

2001. Because of the variety,

complexity, and uniqueness of farming

operations, the BMP Committee

concluded that farmers need a variety of

BMPs to choose from in order to tailor

PM–10 controls to their individual

circumstances. Further, the BMP

Committee acknowledged that there is a

limited amount of scientific information

available concerning the emission

reduction and cost effectiveness of some

BMPs, especially in relation to Maricopa

County. The BMP Committee balanced

these limitations with the common

sense recognition that the BMPs would

reduce wind erosion and the

entrainment of agricultural soils,

thereby reducing PM–10. Given the

limited scientific information available

and the myriad factors that affect

farming operations, the BMP Committee

concluded that requiring more than one

BMP could not be considered

technically justified and could cause an

unnecessary economic burden to

farmers. Instead, the BMP Committee

and ADEQ committed to monitor the

effectiveness of the BMPs and adjust the

program, if needed, in the future.

There are only two PM–10

nonattainment areas in the nation that

are currently requiring agricultural

sources to reduce PM–10 emissions. The

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD), which includes the

agricultural areas of western Riverside

County and the Coachella Valley, is

implementing Rules 403 and 403.1 to

reduce PM–10 emissions from

agricultural sources. The Arizona

general permit rule represents the only

other measure in the country that

requires the implementation of BMPs to

reduce PM–10. Because agricultural

sources vary by factors such as regional

climate, soil type, growing season, crop

type, water availability, and relation to

urban centers, agricultural PM–10

strategies must be based on local factors.

Therefore, while the Committee

surveyed measures adopted in other

geographic areas, they are of limited

utility in determining what measures

are available for Maricopa County area.

In order to justify additional

requirements for farming operations in

the area beyond those in the general

permit rule, a significant influx of

money and additional research would

be needed.

The development of the general

permit rule was a multi-year endeavor

involving an array of experts in

agricultural practices. As noted, Arizona

is one of the few areas where regulation

of PM–10 emissions from the

agricultural sector has even been

attempted. Based on the available

34602 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

22See reference in footnote 8, pages 33–35.

information, EPA believes that the

general permit rule represents a

comprehensive, sensible approach that

meets, and in fact far exceeds, the

RACM requirements of CAA section

189(a)(1)(C) and EPA guidance

interpreting those requirements.

B. General SIP Requirements

EPA has concluded that the State’s

June 13, 2001 submittal provides the

necessary assurances of adequate

personnel and funding required by CAA

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR

51.280 to carry out the general permit

program.22 ADEQ intends to fund the

program through resources currently

allocated to the State’s existing general

permit and compliance program. Based

on historical data, ADEQ anticipates a

decreasing agricultural source

population and, therefore, does not see

the need for increased funding to

administer the program.

For the general permit program,

ADEQ intends to inspect commercial

farms every two to three years. In

addition, ADEQ intends to develop in

2002 a compliance initiative that selects

a geographic area within the

nonattainment area for inspections.

Based on the results, other initiatives

may be developed. Moreover, ADEQ’s

Air Compliance Section will respond to

agricultural related complaints within

five working days. ADEQ will also

develop a process whereby air

inspectors from other agencies will

notify ADEQ if they observe an alleged

violation or receive a complaint, and an

ADEQ inspector will conduct a timely

investigation.

EPA has also concluded that the

general permit rule, as informed by ARS

49–457 and the State’s June 13, 2001

submittal, meets the requirements of 40

CFR 51.111. This provision requires a

description of enforcement methods,

including procedures for monitoring

compliance (discussed above),

procedures for handling violations, and

designation of agency responsibility for

enforcement of implementation. ARS

49–457.I, J, and K and AAC R18–2–

611.K and L give ADEQ specific

authority to address noncompliance

with the general permit rule and

includes the steps the department will

take to enforce the rule. ADEQ’s Air

Compliance Section routinely updates

its database to include general

information regarding complaints and

enforcement actions which can be

utilized in future years to determine

rule effectiveness.

C. CAA Section 110(l)

In its rulemaking on ARS 49–457,

EPA concluded that approval of the

State legislation and withdrawal of the

FIP commitment would not interfere

with the attainment, reasonable further

progress and RACM requirements of the

CAA. 63 FR 71815, 71817. Since the

general permit rule strengthens the SIP

by providing specific BMPs in place of

the commitment to adopt BMPs in ARS

49–457, EPA’s proposed approval meets

the requirements of CAA section 110(l).

V. Proposed Actions

EPA has evaluated ACC R18–2–610

and 611 and has determined that these

rules are consistent with the CAA and

EPA policy. Therefore, EPA is proposing

to approve ACC R18–2–610 and 611

under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as

meeting the requirements of sections

110(a) and 189(a)(1)(C).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not

have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it have substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because

it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use CS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This proposed rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter.

Dated: June 22, 2001.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–16439 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U