[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