[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70660-70665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32761]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[AZ 072-0085; FRL-6511-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan and Designation of
Area For Air Quality Planning Purposes for Carbon Monoxide; State of
Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70661]]
SUMMARY: EPA is reproposing to redesignate the Tucson Air Planning Area
(TAPA) to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and to approve a maintenance plan that will
insure that the area remains in attainment.
EPA originally proposed to redesignate the TAPA to attainment for
CO on July 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 39258) and is reproposing to provide the
public with an opportunity to comment on additional information
submitted by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) in support of
the redesignation and on several other new issues that were raised
subsequent to publication of the original proposal.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be postmarked on or
before January 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office, (Air-
2), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
The technical support document and copies of other documents
relevant to this action can be found in the docket for this proposal.
The docket can be reviewed or copied during normal business hours at
the following locations between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on weekdays. You
may need to pay a fee for copying. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1159, Pima
County Department of Environmental Quality, 130 West Congress, Tucson,
Arizona 85701, (520) 740-3340.
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: Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), Air Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1159,
email: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 6, 1997 Arizona submitted a request to redesignate the
CO Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) nonattainment area to attainment for
the NAAQS and for approval of a maintenance plan. EPA proposed approval
of the request and maintenance plan on July 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 39258)
and provided for a 30-day public comment period.
In its original proposal, EPA found that the TAPA met all the
redesignation requirements specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), namely
The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS,
The area had met all relevant requirements under section
110 and part D of the Act,
The air quality improvement was due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions, and
The area had a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the Act.
With regard to the requirement for a fully approved maintenance
plan, since the TAPA had elected to take advantage of the Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) option provided for in EPA guidance,\1\ EPA
reviewed the TAPA LMP and found that the TAPA was eligible to use that
option and that the plan met the requirements specified in the EPA LMP
guidance. For a full discussion of EPA's evaluation of the TAPA
redesignation request and the maintenance plan, the reader is referred
to the original EPA proposal and to the Technical Support Document
(TSD) accompanying that proposal notice which may be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received one set of comments during the 30-day comment period
provided under the original proposal. Those comments came from the
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) in a letter dated
August 21, 1998. EPA considered all of the comments from ACLPI and,
when it takes final action, will reply in detail to each of them and to
any public comments that may be received in response to the additional
issues contained in this reproposal.
However, EPA believed that additional information was required to
respond to one of ACLPI's comments which questioned the eligibility of
the TAPA for the LMP option. The LMP option rests on the assumption
that areas qualifying for the option will not experience so much growth
in the maintenance period that a violation of the CO NAAQs would
result. ACLPI questioned whether the projected growth in the TAPA
rendered it ineligible to use the LMP option. EPA therefore requested
additional information from the PAG relating to CO emissions
projections for the area for a 10-year maintenance period extending
through 2010. EPA received that information in a letter from PAG dated
June 18, 1999. The supplementary information contained in that letter
is being presented for public comment in section II of today's document
along with additional issues that have arisen since the original
proposal.
PAG provided growth projections for CO mobile source emissions,
population, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). EPA considered the growth
and CO emissions projections provided by the PAG and the summary of the
area's design values over the past few years and believes that the
data, in conjunction with the pre-violation action triggers and the
contingency measures provided for in the TAPA maintenance plan, provide
reasonable assurance that the area will not violate the NAAQS during
the maintenance period. EPA is therefore reproposing the redesignation
of the TAPA to attainment for the CO NAAQS and for approval of the
maintenance plan on the grounds that the area meets the requirements
for redesignation specified under the Clean Air Act and that it is
qualified to utilize the LMP option.
II. New Issues For Public Comment
The issues described below are being presented for public comment
in this reproposal. EPA is not re-opening the comment period for any
other issues relating to the TAPA redesignation request.
A. Additional Information Received From PAG
A summary of the additional information provided by PAG is
contained in Tables I and II below. The full text of the PAG letter is
contained in the TSD accompanying this document.
[[Page 70662]]
Table 1.--PAG Projections for CO Mobile Emissions and VMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO mobile
emissions
Year (population) (tpd) tons per VMT Population
day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................................ 444.8 15,491,995 666,880
1995............................................................ .............. 17,915,850 766,172
1999 (2000)..................................................... 325.8 20,243,419 854,329
2003 (2005)..................................................... 325.1 22,873,378 943,795
2010............................................................ 367.2 27,286,950 1,031,623
2020............................................................ 428.7 32,760,981 1,206,244
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Ambient Air Concentrations--1990-1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambient Air
Year Concentration
---------------------------------------------------------------\2\------
1990.................................................. 6.5
1991.................................................. 5.7
1992.................................................. 5.8
1993.................................................. 6.0
1994.................................................. 5.5
1995.................................................. 5.9
1996.................................................. 5.1
1997.................................................. 4.4
1998.................................................. 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year.
The information in Table 1 indicates that despite projected
increases in population and VMT for the years 1990 through 2010, CO
emissions drop from 444.8 tons per day in 1990 to 367.2 in 2010 rising
again to a projected 428.7 tons per day in 2020, but still below the
1990 figure. PAG also provided information, shown in Table 2, on
ambient air CO concentrations for the years 1990 through 1998. The
figure for ambient air CO concentrations, or design value, is the
highest of the second highest eight-hour concentrations observed at any
site in the area and is the value on which the determination of
attainment or nonattainment is based. The data here indicates that the
design value for the TAPA for 1993-1995 was 6.0 or 67% of the NAAQS
standard for CO. The design value for the years 1996 through 1998
dropped to 5.1 or 57% of the NAAQS standard.
EPA attributes the downward trend of ambient CO levels in the TAPA
in spite of the growth in VMT and population to several factors.
Current control measures are having a positive effect that exceeds the
negative effects of growth. Those control measures include the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control program, the State's winter oxyfuels program and
the State Vehicle Emissions inspection (VEIP) program. The downward
trend of CO mobile source emissions despite growth in VMT and
population that has been experienced in the TAPA is consistent with
what EPA has been observing in other areas of the country. For example,
the Colorado Springs, Colorado area, a moderate CO nonattainment area
that was redesignated to attainment for CO in August 1999 (64 FR
46279), provided data showing a decrease in CO emissions from 264.20
tons per day in 1993 to a projected 173.22 tons per day in 2010,
despite a projected increase in population in the same period from
434,324 to 481,013 and a projected increase in VMT from 8,813,543 to
13,076,951. Looking ahead, other factors that are likely to contribute
to the downward trend of CO mobile source emissions in the future
include the National Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) program and the Tier 2
emissions standards for new cars.
EPA believes that the following comprise additional safeguards
against the possibility of a violation of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA
during the maintenance period:
The pre-violation action triggers contained in the TAPA
LMP which set in motion a process designed to forestall a future
violation of the CO NAAQS.
The design values for the TAPA listed in Table II which
were at 57% of the CO NAAQS standard for the years 1996-1998, provide
an ample margin of safety and time to take action in the event of a
possible violation of the CO NAAQS in the future.
In summary, based on the information contained in the TAPA
redesignation request and LMP and the additional information provided
by PAG, EPA finds that the TAPA qualifies for the LMP option and meets
the assumptions of that option: (1) that an area beginning the
maintenance period at or below 85% of exceedance levels will continue
to meet the standard for another ten years and (2) that it is
unreasonable to expect that an area qualifying for the LMP option will
experience so much growth in the maintenance period that a violation of
the CO NAAQS would result.
B. Proposed Approval of SIP Revisions Submitted After Publication of
the Original Proposal
Table III below provides a summary of the Arizona statutes that
were amended after the publication of the original redesignation
proposal.
[[Page 70663]]
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona statutes
SIP revision date involved Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 11, 1998............... A.R.S. 49-401 and Revised these
49-406. statutes to expand
the authority of the
State and local
certified
metropolitan
planning
organizations to
develop plans and to
implement and
enforce control
measures for
maintenance areas.
September 1, 1999............. A.R.S. 41-796.01 Clarifies the
41-2121, 49- applicability of
401.01, 49-402, control measures to
49-404. Area B (Tucson Air
Planning Area)
following EPA
approval of the TAPA
as a maintenance
area.
September 1, 1999............. A.R.S. 41- Continues the State's
3009.01, 49- vehicle emissions
541.01, 49-542, inspection program
49-545, 49-557, through December 31,
49-573, 41-803, 2008.
401.01.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the original redesignation proposal published July 22, 1998, EPA
proposed to approve Arizona's request for redesignation to attainment
for the TAPA if, prior to the final action, ADEQ submitted a SIP
revision amending Arizona statutes 49-401 and 49.406. EPA believed
these amendments were necessary in order to expand the authority of
State and local certified metropolitan planning organizations to
develop plans and to implement and enforce control measures in
attainment as well as nonattainment areas. Prior to the amendments, the
statutes referred only to nonattainment areas. Amend- ments to A.R.S.
49-401 and 49-406 were signed into law on June 2, 1998 and were
received as SIP revisions on August 11, 1998.
Subsequent to the adoption of amendments to A.R.S. 49-401 and 49-
406, other sections of Arizona statutes were found that needed to be
revised to ensure continued implementation of committed SIP control
measures following redesignation. A SIP revision received on September
9, 1999 contains amendments to various Arizona statutes (1) expanding
the definition of Tucson from a CO ``non-attainment area'' to a CO
``nonattainment/maintenance'' area and (2) amending various statutes
relating to the State's Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP)
extending the expiration date of that program from 2001 to 2008.
With regard to the VEIP sunset date of 2008, which is two years
short of the requirement for a ten-year maintenance period, in a letter
to EPA, dated August 23, 1998, ADEQ states that Arizona Revised
Statutes 41-2955 limits to ten years the existence of an agency before
it undergoes a sunset review and therefore the VEIP has been extended
for the maximum time allowed under this statute, i.e., ten years. The
letter supplies a recent history of legislative changes to the VEIP,
concluding that ``The VEIP has consistently received support for
necessary program updates from the Legislature''. EPA therefore
believes that, on the basis of this legislative history, it is
reasonable to assume that the program will be extended when it expires
in 2008. The full text of the letter from ADEQ is attached to the TSD
accompanying this document which is available at the addresses noted
above.
C. Proposed Removal of Existing SIP Disapprovals
EPA is proposing to remove the Agency's disapprovals (56 FR 5459,
February 11, 1991) of the attainment demonstration and contingency
measures that were contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP revision for
Pima County. Those disapprovals were based on the finding of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals on March 1, 1990 in Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d
687 (9th Cir. 1990) that the Arizona plans for Maricopa and Pima
Counties did not fully comply with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977
and with EPA guidance issued pursuant to that law. See 4 FR 7182
(January 21, 1981).
EPA is proposing to remove the disapproval of the attainment
demonstration contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP on the grounds that
the maintenance demonstration provided by the TAPA in the LMP supplants
that attainment demonstration. The maintenance demonstration in the LMP
shows that there has been no exceedance of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA for
the years 1993 through 1995. In addition, data from AIRS indicates that
there has been no exceedance of the CO NAAQS from 1995 to the present.
Although under the LMP option there is no requirement to project
emissions over the maintenance period, the TAPA maintenance plan and
the additional information provided by PAG show that the area has
attained the CO NAAQS and will continue at or below the standard for
the ten-year maintenance period.
EPA is also proposing to remove the disapproval of the contingency
measures contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP revision on the grounds
that the contingency provisions in the TAPA Limited Maintenance Plan
supplant those measures. The contingency plan included in the TAPA
maintenance plan identifies the measures which would be triggered by
specified events and provides a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the measures.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
A. New Proposals
1. SIP Revisions: EPA is proposing to approve the following SIP
revisions containing amendments to various Arizona statutes.
SIP revision submitted August 11, 1998 containing
amendments to A.R.S. 49-401 and 49-406: These statutory amendments
expand authority of State and local certified metropolitan planning
organizations to develop plans and to implement and enforce control
measures for attainment as well as maintenance areas as required by
Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA.
SIP revisions submitted to EPA on September 1, 1999
containing amendments to the following Arizona statutes: A.R.S. 41-
796.01, 41-2121, 49-401.01, 49-402-402, 49-404, 49-454, and 49-541.
These amendments, which were signed into law on May 18, 1999 insure
continued implementation of the control measures contained in these
statutes following redesignation to maintenance.
SIP revision submitted to EPA on September 1, 1999
containing amendments to Arizona Statutes 41-3009.01, 49-541.01, 49-
542, 49-545, 49-557, 49-573, 41-803, and 41-401.01 relating to the
continued implementation of the State's Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program (VEIP) through December 31, 2008.
2. EPA is proposing to remove the Agency's disapprovals (56 FR
5459, February 11, 1991) of the attainment demonstration and
contingency measures that were contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP
revision for Pima County on the grounds that they have been supplanted
by the maintenance demonstration and contingency plan
[[Page 70664]]
contained in the area's Limited Maintenance Plan.
B. Reproposals
1. EPA is reproposing to approve the TAPA CO maintenance plan
because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175A of the CAA
and the requirements of the LMP option contained in EPA guidance of
October 6, 1995.
2. EPA is reproposing to approve the Emissions Inventory for the
base year 1994 contained in the LMP as meeting the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
3. EPA is reproposing to approve the amendments to State
Legislation A.R.S. 41-2083, 41-2122 and 41-2125 relating to the State's
oxyfuels program in Area B, the Tucson area, including standards for
liquid fuels (A.R.S.
41-2083, standards for oxygenated fuel, volatility exemptions
(A.R.S. 41-2122) and oxygen content in the sale of gasoline (A.R.S.
41-2125) as control measures in the maintenance plan to be
implemented in the event of probable or actual violation of the CO
NAAQS in the TAPA. EPA is simultaneously reproposing to approve the
amendments to A.R.S. 2083, 2122 and 2125, which were included as
part of the LMP following a public hearing on August 20, 1997, as a
revision to the Arizona SIP.
4. Finally, EPA is reproposing to approve Arizona's request for
redesignation to attainment.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the additional issues
described in section II, ``New Issues For Public Comment'' of this
reproposal. Comments on these issues as well as the comments that were
received on the original proposal, will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal rule
making procedure by submitting written comments to the person and
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
document.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review.
B. Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule will not 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) Concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D 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
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act,
[[Page 70665]]
preparation of 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).
F. 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
annual 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 require- ments. 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 promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur Dioxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 9, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-32761 Filed 12-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P