[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64794-64795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32185]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ059-0005; FRL-5933-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State 
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Maricopa County's Ordinance P-7, 
Maricopa County Trip Reduction Ordinance, as a revision to the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA's final approval of this proposed 
rule will incorporate it into the federally approved SIP. EPA has 
evaluated the rule and is proposing to approve it under provisions of 
the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national 
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan 
requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Frances Wicher, Office of Air 
Planning, (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the ordinance and EPA's evaluation of the ordinance is 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Office Of Air Planning 
(AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Maricopa County is designated nonattainment and classified as a 
serious area for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter. 
See 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997), 61 FR 39343 (July 29, 1996) and 60 
FR 30046 (June 7, 1995). Emissions from motor vehicles contribute 
substantially to exceedances of the national ambient air quality 
standards for all three pollutants in the Maricopa area. Over the years 
the State has adopted a comprehensive motor vehicle emission control 
program including a number of transportation control measures to 
address this problem.
    In 1988, the Arizona legislature adopted a trip reduction program 
for Maricopa County (see 1988 Session, Arizona House Bill (H.B.) 2206, 
section 23, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 49, 
Chapter 3, Article 8) and directed Maricopa County to implement the 
program.
    The State submitted this program in its 1988 Carbon Monoxide Plan 
for the Maricopa County nonattainment area and EPA approved the program 
as part of its approval of that plan. 53 FR 30224 (August 10, 1988) and 
40 CFR 52.120(c)(65)(i)(A)(l). In 1990, EPA's approval of the 1988 CO 
plan was vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Delaney v. 
EPA, 898 F. 2d 687 (1990). EPA subsequently restored its approval of 
the control measures in that plan, including the trip reduction 
program. 56 FR 3219 (January 29, 1991).
    Since 1988, the legislature has revised the trip reduction program 
several times to tighten the trip reduction goals, decrease the 
threshold size of employers subject to the program from 100 to 50 
employees, extend the program to schools, and to otherwise revise the 
program. In addition, the legislature directed Maricopa County to 
``make and enforce'' an ordinance consistent with A.R.S. 49-588 
(Requirements for major employers). A.R.S. 49-474.01(B) (1993 6th 
Special Session, H.B. 2001, section 24). On May 26, 1994, in compliance 
with the statute, the County subsequently adopted Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (MCESD), Ordinance No. P-7 Maricopa 
County Trip Reduction Ordinance.

II. Maricopa County Trip Reduction Ordinance

    MCESD Ordinance No. P-7 was submitted as a SIP revision by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to EPA on August 31, 1995. 
The submittal became complete by operation of law under CAA section 
110(k)(1)(B) on February 29, 1996.
    The ordinance requires employers with 50 or more employees or 
schools with 50 or more employees or students to, among other things, 
conduct and submit annually an employee/student commute survey (section 
7(A)); disseminate information on alternative modes and other trip 
reduction measures (section 7(E)); develop and submit a trip reduction 
plan designed to meet target reductions in single-occupant-vehicle 
(SOV) trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (section 7(C)); and 
implement the trip reduction plan (section 7 (B) and (D)).
    Failure to meet trip reduction goals does not constitute a 
violation of the ordinance if the employer or school is attempting in 
good faith to meet the goals (section 13(C)(2)); however, failure to 
comply with other specific requirements of the ordinance, such as the 
failure to submit or to implement an approved trip reduction plan, do 
constitute violations of the ordinance and are subject to penalties as 
provided in A.R.S. 49-593(D).
    The Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program is staffed by the 
Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program Staff under MCESD. The 1996 
annual report on the program states that in 1996, 2,501 employment 
sites were processed, more than 570,000 employees and students were 
surveyed, and more than 1,500 trip reduction plans were reviewed. The 
report demonstrates that the program has been effective in reducing 
both SOV trips and VMT in the Maricopa area. See Annual Report 1996, 
Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program, MCESD.

III. Clean Air Act Requirements

    In determining the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the 
rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR 
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans).
    There are currently no Clean Air Act requirements mandating trip 
reduction programs (also known as employer commute options or ECO 
programs). The CAA Amendments of 1990 required severe and above ozone 
nonattainment areas and serious CO nonattainment areas to adopt ECO 
programs (see sections 182(d)(1)(B) and 187(b)(2), respectively, of the 
Clean Air Act as amended on November 15, 1990). However, prior to the 
July 1996 reclassification of the Maricopa area from a moderate to a 
serious CO nonattainment area, Congress passed legislation amending 
section 182(d)(1)(B) to make the adoption and implementation of ECO 
programs voluntary (Public Law 104-70, Sec. 1, 109 Stat. 773, signed 
into law on December 23, 1995). Therefore, to be approvable, the 
ordinance need only meet the general SIP provisions of CAA section 
110(a) (1) and (l) and EPA's regulations and policies implementing 
these provisions.

[[Page 64795]]

IV. EPA Evaluation

    EPA has evaluated the submitted ordinance and has determined that 
it is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Specifically, the ordinance is enforceable and there is evidence of 
sufficient personnel, funding, and authority under State law for 
Maricopa County to carry out the program. Finally, this ordinance is 
more stringent than the existing SIP-approved trip reduction program in 
both applicability (50 employee threshold versus 100 employee threshold 
in the SIP-approved rule) and in the overall trip and VMT reduction 
goals. As a result, this ordinance, if approved into the SIP, will 
strenghten the SIP and not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 110(l). Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to approve MCESD's Ordinance P-7, Maricopa County Trip 
Reduction Ordinance (May 26, 1994) under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA 
as meeting the requirements of section 110 (a) and (l).
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Carbon monoxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: December 1, 1997.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-32185 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P