[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48718-48739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18171]



[[Page 48717]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 52



Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--Maricopa 
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of 
the PM-10 Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 48718]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ092-002; FRL-7141-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for 
Attainment of the PM-10 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the serious area particulate matter (PM-10) 
plan for the Maricopa County portion of the metropolitan Phoenix 
(Arizona) PM-10 nonattainment area. We are also granting Arizona's 
request to extend the Clean Air Act deadline for attaining the annual 
and 24-hour PM-10 standards in the area from 2001 to 2006. Finally, we 
are approving Maricopa County Environmental Services Department's 
fugitive dust rules, Maricopa County's Residential Woodburning 
Restrictions Ordinance, and commitments by Maricopa County 
jurisdictions to implement PM-10 controls.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (415) 947-4155, email: 
[email protected].
    This document and the Technical Support Document are also available 
as electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means EPA. This supplementary information is organized as 
follows:

I. Summary of Today's Actions
II. The Serious Area PM-10 Plan for the Phoenix Area
III. Proposals for and Information Related to Today's Actions
    A. The Proposals for Today's Actions
    B. Already-Approved Elements of the Phoenix Serious Area PM-10 
Plan
    C. Effect of Today's Actions on the 1998 Federal PM-10 Plan for 
the Phoenix Area
    D. Clean Air Act Sanctions in the Phoenix Area
    E. EPA's Policies on Approving Serious Area PM-10 Plans and 
Granting Attainment Date Extensions
IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed Actions
    A. Comments on EPA's Policy on Approving Serious Area PM-10 
Plans and Granting Attainment Date Extensions
    B. Comments on EPA's Detailed Evaluation of the Phoenix Serious 
Area PM-10 Plan
V. Final Actions
    A. Approval of the Serious Area Plan
    B. Extension of the Attainment Date
    C. Approvals of Rules and Commitments
    D. Correction of Previous SIP Disapprovals
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of Today's Actions

    We are approving the serious area state implementation plan (SIP) 
for attainment of the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards in the 
metropolitan Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona, area. This action is 
based on our determination that this plan complies with the Clean Air 
Act's (CAA) requirements for attaining the PM-10 standards in serious 
PM-10 nonattainment areas such as the metropolitan Phoenix area.
    Specifically, we are approving the following elements of the plan 
as they address both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards:
     The base year emissions inventory of PM-10 sources;
     The demonstration that the plan provides for 
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) and best 
available control measures (BACM) for all source categories that 
contribute significantly to PM-10 standard violations;
     The demonstrations that attainment by the CAA deadline of 
December 31, 2001 is impracticable;
     The demonstrations that attainment will occur by the most 
expeditious alternative date practicable, in this case, December 31, 
2006;
     The demonstration that the plan provides for reasonable 
further progress and quantitative milestones;
     The demonstration that the plan includes to our 
satisfaction the most stringent measures found in the implementation 
plan of another state or are achieved in practice in another state and 
can feasibly be implemented in the area;
     The demonstration that major sources of PM-10 precursors 
such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do not contribute 
significantly to violations of the PM-10 standards;
     Contingency measures; and
     The transportation conformity mobile source emissions 
budget.
    We are also approving Maricopa County's fugitive dust rules, Rules 
310 and 310.01, and its residential woodburning restriction ordinance 
as well as commitments by the local jurisdictions in the Phoenix area 
to implement control measures.
    Finally, we are granting Arizona's request to extend the attainment 
date for both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards from December 31, 
2001 to December 31, 2006.
    With today's action, EPA has now approved all elements of the 
serious area PM-10 plan for the Phoenix area. Today's final approvals 
also correct disapprovals of previous Phoenix PM-10 plans that resulted 
in the imposition of one CAA sanction in the Phoenix area and a clock 
running for the imposition of another. With these approvals, the 
sanction is lifted and the clock stopped.
    This preamble summarizes our actions on the Phoenix serious area 
plan, gives some background to this action, and provides responses to 
the most significant comments we received on the proposals for this 
final action. We have not repeated the concise evaluation of the plan 
that we provided in the two proposals for today's action. We refer the 
reader to these proposals for this evaluation. See the annual standard 
proposal at 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) and the 24-hour standard 
proposal at 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001). Our complete evaluation can 
be found in our technical support document (EPA TSD) that accompanies 
this final action. The EPA TSD also includes our full responses to all 
comments received on both proposals. The EPA TSD can be downloaded from 
our website or obtained by calling or writing the contact person listed 
above.

II. The Serious Area PM-10 Plan for the Phoenix Area

    Arizona has made several submittals to address the CAA requirements 
for serious PM-10 nonattainment area plans in the Phoenix area. These 
submittals include the 1997 Microscale plan,\1\ the 1997 BACM 
submittal,\2\ the 2000 Revised Maricopa Association of Governments 
(MAG) plan,\3\ the 2001 Best Management Practices (BMP) submittal (BMP 
TSD),\4\ and a number of

[[Page 48719]]

rules.\5\ These submittals collectively comprise the full serious area 
PM-10 plan for the Phoenix area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard--Maricopa 
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ), May, 1997, submitted May 9, 1997, approved in part 
and disapproved in part on August 3, 1997 (62 FR 41856).
    \2\ Serious Area Committed Particulate Control Measures for PM-
10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area and Support Technical 
Analysis, MAG, December 1997, submitted December 11, 1997.
    \3\ Revised Maricopa Association of Governments 1999 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Nonattainment Area, February 2000, submitted February 16, 2000. On 
January 8, 2002, Arizona submitted revisions to the Maricopa 
County's commitments to improve its fugitive dust rule which were in 
this plan.
    \4\ Maricopa County PM-10 Serious Area State Implementation Plan 
Revision, Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP), ADEQ, June 
2000, submitted on June 13, 2001.
    \5\ These include the revised Maricopa County Environmental 
Services Department (MCESD) Rule 310, Fugitive Dust Sources (adopted 
February 16, 2000) and Rule 310.01, Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, 
Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways (adopted 
February 16, 2000), both submitted on March 2, 2000; the revised 
Maricopa County Residential Woodburning Restrictions Ordinance 
(adopted November 17, 1999) submitted on January 28, 2000; and the 
Agricultural BMP General Permit Rule submitted on July 11, 2000, 
approved October 11 2001 (66 FR 51869).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAG plan is the primary document for the serious area plan. It 
contains the base year inventory, the BACM demonstrations for all 
significant source categories (except agriculture) for both standards, 
the demonstration that attainment of both standards by 2001 is 
impracticable, the demonstration that attainment of the annual standard 
and the 24-hour standard (at all but four sites addressed by the 
microscale plan) will occur as expeditiously as practicable, the 
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and quantitative 
milestones for the annual standard, contingency measures for the annual 
standard, the transportation conformity budget, and the request and 
supporting documentation--including the most stringent measure analysis 
(except for agriculture)--for an attainment date extension for both 
standards under CAA section 188(e).
    The BMP TSD updates the MAG plan to reflect the State's May, 2000 
adoption of the agricultural general permit rule to control PM-10 from 
agricultural sources in Maricopa County. It includes a background 
document which provides the BACM and most stringent measure 
demonstrations for agricultural sources for both standards, the final 
demonstration of attainment and RFP for the 24-hour standard at two 
monitoring sites, quantitative milestones for the 24-hour standard, and 
revisions to the contingency measure provisions for both standards. It 
also includes documentation quantifying emission reductions from the 
agricultural general permit rule and documentation related to 
implementing this rule. The BMP TSD was prepared by ADEQ.
    The 1997 BACM submittal contains the initial commitments by the 
cities and towns in the Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix 
nonattainment area to implement BACM within their jurisdictions. These 
commitments were resubmitted in the revised MAG plan.
    The Microscale plan is a serious area PM-10 plan that includes 
BACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations for the 24-hour PM-10 standard 
at four Phoenix area monitoring sites: Salt River, Maryvale, Gilbert, 
and West Chandler. It was prepared and submitted by ADEQ in 1997 as a 
component of the overall serious area PM-10 plan for the Phoenix 
area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A complete history of the Microscale plan, including the 
reasons for its development, can be found in the proposal and final 
actions for that plan and in proposal for the 24-hour standard. See 
62 FR 31025 (June 6, 1997), 62 FR 41856 (August 4, 1997) and the 24-
hour standard proposal at 50254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposals for and Information Related to Today's Actions

A. The Proposals for Today's Actions

    Two proposals preceeded today's final action. The first proposal 
was published on April 13, 2000 (65 FR 19964) and addresses the Phoenix 
serious area plan's provisions for attaining the annual standard. The 
initial comment period for this proposal was 60 days but was extended 
twice and finally closed on July 27, 2000. We received 14 comments on 
this proposal from both public and private groups and from numerous 
private citizens.
    The second proposal was published on October 2, 2001 (66 FR 50252) 
and addresses the Phoenix serious area plan's provisions for attaining 
the 24-hour standard and contingency measures for both PM-10 standards. 
In this second proposal, we also revised and reproposed several 
findings from the annual standard notice. These reproposals were 
necessary because of SIP submittals made by Arizona after the April 
2000 proposal. The 30-day comment period for this proposal ended on 
November 1, 2001. We received one comment letter.

B. Already-Approved Elements of the Phoenix Serious Area PM-10 Plan

    Two important elements of the metropolitan Phoenix serious area PM-
10 plan have already been approved. These elements were submitted as 
either part of the Microscale plan or the BMP general permit rule and 
its TSD.
    We approved the Microscale plan in part and disapproved the plan in 
part on August 4, 1997. We approved provisions for implementing BACM 
for 3 of the 8 source categories found to be significant contributors 
to 24-hour exceedances in the Phoenix area and disapproved them for 5 
others. We also approved the attainment and RFP demonstrations for the 
Salt River and Maryvale sites because the Mircoscale plan demonstrated 
expeditious attainment at these sites but disapproved these 
demonstrations for the West Chandler and Gilbert sites because the plan 
did not demonstrate attainment at them. Except for our findings related 
to the implementation of BACM, we have not reevaluated and are not 
approving again those 24-hour provisions already approved as part of 
our actions on the Microscale plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to the approved serious area plan attainment 
demonstration in the Microscale plan, the Salt River site should not 
have violated the 24-hour PM-10 standard after May, 1998. The site, 
however, continues to violate the standard. Because there is already 
an approved serious area plan attainment demonstration, the remedy 
under the CAA for correcting this demonstration is for EPA to issue 
a formal request to the State to revise it SIP pursuant to section 
110(k)(5), a process known as a ``SIP call.'' We will be proposing 
that SIP call soon. However, because the elements of the Phoenix 
serious area plan that we are approving today do not address the 
attainment of the 24-hour standard at the Salt River site, the 
issues with the site's attainment demonstration do not affect 
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 11, 2001, we approved the State's agricultural BMP 
general permit rule and found that it provided for the implementation 
of RACM for the agriculture source category. See 66 FR 51869. We are 
today finding that the rule also provides for the implementation of 
BACM and meets the most stringent measure requirement in CAA section 
188(e). These latter findings are in addition to and not in 
substitution for the October 11, 2001 RACM finding.
    With today's action and these previous approvals, we have now 
approved all elements of the Phoenix serious area PM-10 plan.

C. Effect of Today's Actions on the 1998 Federal PM-10 Plan for the 
Phoenix Area

    On August 3, 1998, we promulgated a moderate area PM-10 federal 
implementation plan (FIP) for the Phoenix area. In the FIP, we included 
a rule for controlling fugitive dust from vacant lots, unpaved parking 
lots, and unpaved roads. See 40 CFR 52.128 (modified, December 21, 
1999). We also included a commitment to adopt and implement RACM for 
agricultural source categories. See 40 CFR 52.127 as published at 63 FR 
41326, 41350 (August 3, 1998) (withdrawn at 64 FR 34726 (June 29, 
1999)). With the Federal fugitive dust rule and commitment and already 
approved State and local controls, we demonstrated that the Phoenix 
area had in place RACM on all significant source categories, that the 
area would make reasonable further progress toward attainment but that 
attainment by 2001 was impracticable. See 63 FR 41326.
    On June 29, 1999, we replaced the federal commitment to develop 
agricultural controls in the FIP with a

[[Page 48720]]

State commitment to adopt best management practices for the 
agricultural sources. 64 FR 34726.
    Today's actions do not withdraw or otherwise modify the 
demonstrations in the FIP or the federal fugitive dust rule.

D. Clean Air Act Sanctions in the Phoenix Area

    In the 1998 FIP, we also disapproved the RACM and attainment 
demonstrations for the annual PM-10 standard in the 1991 MAG moderate 
area PM-10 plan. See 63 FR 41326 (August 3, 1998, effective September 
2, 1998). Under CAA section 179(a), once we disapprove a SIP provision 
because it fails to meet a CAA requirement, a State has 18 months from 
the effective date of the disapproval to correct the deficiency before 
the first of two sanctions goes into place. If the state still has not 
corrected the deficiency within 24 months of the effective date of the 
disapproval, the second sanction goes into place.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The two CAA sanctions are a limitation on certain highway 
approvals and funding and an increase in the emissions offset ratio 
to 2 to 1 for any major new stationary source or major modification. 
See CAA section 179(b). Our sanctions regulations provide that the 
first sanction to be imposed is the offset ratio unless we have 
established at the time of the disapproval that the highway sanction 
will be first. 40 CFR 52.31(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2000, before Arizona could submit and we could act to 
approve substitute RACM and attainment demonstrations, the 18-month 
clock expired and the 2:1 offset sanction went into place in the 
Phoenix area. The second clock for the highway funding limitations was 
set to expire on September 2, 2000.
    Under section 179(a) and our sanctions regulations at 40 CFR 
52.31(d)(1), we must approve a SIP revision that corrects the 
deficiencies to permanently end the sanctions clocks and lift any 
imposed sanctions. However, we may temporarily stay the clocks and any 
imposed sanctions if we have proposed to approve a SIP revision that 
corrects the deficiencies and have issued an interim final 
determination that the State has corrected the deficiencies. 40 CFR 
52.31(d)(2)(i).
    We proposed to approve the RACM and attainment demonstrations for 
the annual standard on April 13, 2000. 65 FR 19964. In a rule published 
concurrently with that proposal, we issued an interim final 
determination that stayed both the offset sanction and the clock 
running on the highway sanctions. 65 FR 19992.
    With today's action, we are fully approving the State's substitute 
RACM and attainment demonstrations for the annual standard. These full 
approvals correct the deficiencies that resulted in the disapproval and 
permanently end the offset sanction and stop the clock for the highway 
sanctions.
    The serious area plan for the Phoenix area was due on December 10, 
1997; however, Arizona submitted only a partial plan. On February 6, 
1998, we made a finding that the State had failed to submit a required 
SIP (published on February 25, 1998 at 63 FR 9423). This finding also 
started sanctions clocks and a two-year clock under CAA section 110(c) 
for EPA to promulgate a substitute federal implementation plan if the 
State did not have a fully approved one.
    On July 8, 1999, Arizona submitted the full serious area plan, and 
on August 4, 1999, we found the plan complete. This finding stopped the 
sanction clocks for failure to submit; however, it did not stopped the 
FIP clock. Under section 110(c), the FIP clock continues until we 
approve the full serious area plan. Today's action approves the plan 
and ends our obligation to promulgate a serious area PM-10 FIP for the 
Phoenix area.

E. EPA's Policies on Approving Serious Area PM-10 Plans and Granting 
Attainment Date Extension

    We have issued a General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992), and Addendum to the General Preamble 
(``Addendum''), 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), describing our 
preliminary views on how we intend to review SIPs submitted to meet the 
Clean Air Act's requirements for PM-10 plans. The General Preamble 
mainly addresses the requirements for moderate areas and the Addendum, 
the requirements for serious areas.
    In the proposal for the 24-hour standard, we also provided our 
preliminary interpretation of and policy on granting an extension of 
the attainment date under CAA section 188(e). We are finalizing this 
extension policy today only as it relates specifically to our action on 
the attainment date extension requested by the State of Arizona for the 
Phoenix area.

IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed Actions

    The following are our responses to the most significant comments 
that we received on the proposals for today's actions. In section 7 of 
the EPA TSD, we provide more detailed responses to these comments as 
well as responses to all comments received. A copy of the EPA TSD may 
be downloaded from our website or obtained by writing or calling the 
contact listed above.

A. Comments on EPA's Policies for Approving Serious Area PM-10 Plans 
and Granting Attainment Date Extensions

    Comment: EPA interprets the CAA to not require a state to apply 
BACM to any source or source category that it has demonstrated to be de 
minimis. See 59 FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994). In its July 2000 
comments on the annual standard proposal, ACLPI disagrees that EPA can 
exempt de minimis sources from the Act's BACM requirement. ACLPI argues 
that there are no exceptions to the Act's requirement that serious area 
plans include ``provisions to assure that the best available control 
measures for the control of PM-10 shall be implemented.'' ACLPI 
incorporates by reference its arguments in its Brief for the 
Petitioners in Ober v. Whitman (9th Cir., No. 98-71158) (Ober II) at 
pp. 21-19, noting that although Ober II involves a challenge to our 
exemption of de minimis sources from the RACM requirement, the same 
reasoning applies to invalidate the BACM exemption as well.
    Response: Ober II was a challenge to our 1998 PM-10 moderate area 
FIP for the Phoenix area. In the FIP, we exempted from the RACM 
requirement, source categories with de minimis impacts on PM-10 levels. 
We established a de minimis threshold of 1 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual 
standard and 5 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour standard, initially taking 
these thresholds from the new source review (NSR) program for 
attainment areas. We showed that these were the correct thresholds for 
determining which source categories were de minimis for the RACM 
requirement by showing that the application of RACM on the de minimis 
source categories would not make the difference between attainment and 
nonattainment by the applicable attainment deadline. See 63 FR 41326, 
41330 (August 3, 1998). In Ober II, ACLPI challenged our ability to 
exempt de minimis source categories from the RACM requirement and the 
specific thresholds that we used.
    In March, 2001 (well after the close of the comment period on the 
annual standard proposal), the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in Ober 
II. Ober v. Whitman, 243 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2001). The court held that 
we have the power to make de minimis exemptions to control requirements 
under the Clean Air Act and that our use of the de minimis levels from 
the NSR program is appropriate. In addition, the Court determined that 
it is appropriate for us

[[Page 48721]]

to use, as a criterion for identifying de minimis sources, whether 
controls on the sources would result in attainment by the attainment 
deadline. Ober II at 1198
    In finding that EPA had the authority to exempt de minimis source 
categories of PM-10 from CAA control requirements, the Court wrote:

    Courts have refused to allow de minimis exemptions where the 
statutory language does not allow it. * * * There is no explicit 
provision in the Clean Air Act prohibiting the exemption from 
controls for de minimis sources of PM-10 pollution. Nor is the 
statutory language uncompromisingly rigid. The Act provides that a 
plan must include ``reasonably'' available control measures to bring 
the area into attainment unless attainment is ``impracticable.'' 
Those terms allow for the exercise of agency judgment. * * * We 
conclude that EPA, in discharging its duty to enforce the Act, is 
permitted under [Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)] to exempt de minimis sources of 
PM-10 from pollution controls.

Ober II at 1194 (internal cites and quotes omitted).

    The Court's reasoning is equally applicable to the BACM 
requirement. Like the RACM requirement, there is no explicit provision 
in the Act prohibiting the exemption from the BACM requirement for de 
minimis sources of PM-10 pollution. Nor is the language in section 
189(b)(1)(B) requiring the implementation of BACM ``uncompromisingly 
rigid.'' Like RACM, the Act and EPA policy provide that a PM-10 plan 
must include the ``best'' available control measures to bring the area 
into attainment unless attainment is ``impracticable.'' The term 
``best''--no less than the term ``reasonably''--allows for the exercise 
of agency judgment.
    In Ober II, the Court also upheld the procedures and criteria we 
used to determine what constituted a de minimis source or source 
category for RACM. Ober II at 1198. We have applied exactly the same 
procedures and criteria for BACM. For BACM, we proposed the same NSR 
thresholds as a starting point for determining what constitutes a de 
minimis source category. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50281. We 
also required the State to demonstrate that its identified de minimis 
sources are in fact de minimis by showing that controls on them would 
not make the difference between attainment and nonattainment by the 
applicable deadline. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50281.
    Finally, we note that we invoke a de minimis exemption from the 
Act's general but open-ended control requirements like RACM, BACM, and 
MSM as a means of ensuring that states focus their always limited 
resources on the controls most likely to result in real air quality 
benefits. It is more likely to harm air quality than to help it if 
these limited resources are diverted away from more substantive 
measures into the adoption and implementation of measures with trivial 
impacts.
    Nowhere is the need to concentrate resources on the most 
significant sources more necessary then in large urban areas dominated 
by PM-10 fugitive dust sources, such as the metropolitan Phoenix area. 
Adequate controls in these types of areas require very large 
investments of both financial and human resources because of the number 
of sources and the type of needed controls.\9\ As the court has 
recognized in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C.Cir. 
1979), ``[c]ourts should be reluctant to apply the literal terms of a 
statute to mandate pointless expenditures of effort. * * * The ability 
* * * to exempt de minimis situations from a statutory command is not 
an ability to depart from the statute, but rather a tool to be used in 
implementing the legislative design.'' Cited in Ober II at 1194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There are literally thousands of sources subject to fugitive 
dust controls in the Phoenix area, including constructions sites, 
agricultural fields, vacant lots, unpaved roads, and paved roads. 
For example, MCESD issued 2500 construction permits in 1999; we 
mailed 50,000 letters to owners of vacant lots as part of our 1999 
outreach on the PM-10 FIP. Effective fugitive dust control from many 
of these sources requires either an ongoing and extensive compliance 
and enforcement presence or large capital expenditures (e.g., paving 
unpaved roads, purchasing and operating PM-10 street sweepers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In its July 2000 comments on the annual standard proposal, 
ACLPI argues that our de minimis exception violates the Act's central 
mandate for attainment of the PM-10 standards by December 31, 2001 or 
as expeditiously as possible thereafter because it allows us and the 
states to eschew otherwise available control measures based on an 
arbitrary de minimis test even if the aggregate effect of implementing 
controls on all ``de minimis'' sources would hasten attainment. It 
further comments that even if the de minimis exception is allowed, the 
thresholds set by EPA are arbitrary because they were not based on 
actual PM-10 conditions in the nonattainment area, but on levels 
borrowed from the wholly unrelated new source review (NSR) program.
    Response: ACLPI misstates the scope of the BACM de minimis 
exemption. We do not consider a source category or groups of source 
categories to be de minimis if applying BACM to it or them would 
meaningfully expedite attainment in areas demonstrating attainment by 
December 31, 2001 or would make the difference between attainment and 
nonattainment by December 31, 2001 in areas requesting an extension. 
See 24-hour standard proposal at 50281 and Addendum at 42011.
    Under our de minimis policy, whether the NSR thresholds are 
appropriate for an area depends on the specific facts of that area's 
PM-10 nonattainment problem, that is, it depends on the actual PM-10 
conditions in the nonattainment area. We do not accept the NSR 
thresholds as the correct de minimis thresholds without first requiring 
a conclusive showing that they do not adversely affect the area's 
ability to show expeditious attainment. See Addendum at 42011.
    We used these NSR thresholds in our 1998 FIP. ACLPI raised the same 
objections to their use there for the RACM requirement as it does here 
for the BACM requirement. Ober II at 1196. The Ninth Circuit in 
reviewing the FIP found that it was permissible for us to adopt the PM-
10 de minimis thresholds already in place in the new source review 
program to identify de minimis sources for the RACM requirement. Ober 
II at 1196. Our reasoning for applying those thresholds for BACM is the 
same as our reasoning for applying them for RACM; therefore, we believe 
that the NSR thresholds are an appropriate starting point for 
determining which source categories are significant and which are de 
minimis for the purposes of applying BACM.
    Comment: Under the section 188(e) extension provisions, a state 
must show that it has complied with all requirements and commitments in 
its implementation plan. We interpret this requirement to apply only to 
the control measures in the state's previously submitted PM-10 
implementation plans. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50282. ACLPI 
argues that in addition to fully implementing the control measures in 
the SIP revisions that it has submitted, a state must also show that it 
has implemented other provisions of its SIP. ACLPI also comments that 
EPA's attempt to limit this requirement to PM-10 commitments has no 
basis in the Act.
    Response: We believe that this criterion's purpose is to assure 
that a state is not rewarded with additional time to attain the PM-10 
standards if it has not implemented earlier commitments and 
requirements to reduce PM-10 levels. Given this purpose, the focus of 
the test to determine if a state has met this

[[Page 48722]]

criterion should be on the implementation of PM-10 emission reducing 
control measures rather then on the implementation of programs, such as 
monitoring and permitting, that make up the overall air quality 
program's infrastructure but are not emission reducing measures 
themselves.
    Limiting the section 188(e) review to just the PM-10 implementation 
plan is firmly based on the structure, purpose and language of the Act. 
The attainment date extension provisions are located in title I, part 
D, subpart 4 ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter 
Nonattainment Areas.'' Hence, any reference to the implementation plan 
within this subpart is to the PM-10 implementation plan, absent 
specific language to the contrary. The criterion ``the State has 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area 
in the implementation plan'' in section 188(e) (emphasis added) 
contains no language that implies a reference to all of an area's 
implementation plans. Moreover, section 188(e) addresses setting the 
most expeditious attainment date for meeting the PM-10 air quality 
standards. There is at best a tenuous and strained connection between 
the implementation status of plans for attaining other air quality 
standards (e.g., ozone or carbon monoxide) and the appropriate and most 
expeditious date for attaining the PM-10 standard.
    The language in section 188(e) is almost identical to the language 
in section 188(d) that allows a one-year extension of the moderate area 
attainment date if, in part, ``the State has complied with all 
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable 
implementation plan.'' In interpreting and applying section 188(d), we 
have always considered ``the applicable implementation plan'' in 
question to be the State's SIP for PM-10. See Memorandum, Sally L. 
Shaver, OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, ``Criteria for Granting 1-
Year Extensions of Moderate Area Attainment Dates, Making Attainment 
Determinations, and Reporting on Quantitative Milestones,'' November 
14, 1994. See also, 66 FR 32752, 32754 (June 18, 2001) (Attainment date 
extensions for Utah's PM-10 nonattainment areas).
    Comment: EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to exempt from the 
most stringent measures requirement in section 188(e) any source or 
source category that it has demonstrated to be de minimis. 24-hour 
standard proposal at 50283. ACLPI disagrees that EPA can exempt de 
minimis sources of PM-10 from the Act's MSM requirement, arguing that 
the Act requires areas seeking an extension of the serious area PM-10 
attainment deadline to demonstrate that their plans include the most 
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any 
State or achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be 
implemented in the area,'' and that there is no de minimis exception to 
this explicit mandate.
    Response: As stated above in response to a similar comment 
regarding the exemption of de minimis sources from the BACM 
requirement, we believe the Ober II Court's reasoning in upholding that 
exemption for the RACM requirement is also applicable to the MSM 
requirement. Again, we invoke a de minimis exemption from the Act's 
general but open-ended control requirements like RACM, BACM, and MSM as 
a means to ensure that states focus their always limited resources on 
the controls most likely to result in real air quality benefits.
    Like the RACM requirement, there is no explicit provision in the 
Act prohibiting a de minimis source category exemption from the MSM 
requirement. Nor is the language in section 188(e) ``uncompromisingly 
rigid.'' In fact, the phrase--``to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator''--in the MSM provision specifically calls for the Agency 
to exercise its judgement in deciding how exactingly to apply the 
requirement. See Ober II at 1194.
    In our policy on the MSM requirement, we are using the same 
principles for determining when a source is considered de minimis under 
the MSM requirement that we used for the RACM requirement upheld by the 
Ober II Court. In doing so, we have carefully constructed the de 
minimis exemption for the MSM requirement to prevent states from 
eliminating any controls on sources or source categories that alone or 
together would result in more expeditious attainment of the PM-10 
standards. See annual standard proposal at 19967 and 24-hour standard 
proposal at 50583. We note that the Phoenix serious area plan did not 
reject any potential MSM on de minimis grounds.
    Comment: ACLPI argues that EPA's proposed de minimis exception 
violates the Act's requirement that states seeking an extension 
demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious alternative date 
practicable because it allows EPA and the states to reject otherwise 
available control measures based on an arbitrary de minimis test even 
if the aggregate effect of implementing MSM on all de minimis sources 
would hasten attainment. It also argues EPA's proposal to determine an 
appropriate de minimis level by determining whether applying MSM to 
proposed de minimis source categories would ``meaningfully hasten 
attainment'' is vague and fails to comport with the Act.
    Response: ACLPI misstates the scope of the MSM de minimis 
exemption. We do not consider a source category or groups of source 
categories to be de minimis if applying MSM to it or to them would 
hasten attainment. We stated this clearly in both the proposal for the 
annual standard provisions and for the 24-hour standard provisions: 
Annual standard proposal at 19969; 24-hour standard proposal at 50583.
    In Ober II, the Court found:

    Using the [attainment] deadline to determine whether controls 
must be imposed makes sense. The deadline is not an arbitrary date 
unrelated to air quality concerns. * * * In this case, the [FIP] 
concludes that the deadline will not be met even if these small 
sources of PM-10 were controlled. Under those circumstances, it is 
reasonable to decline to control the de minimis sources of 
pollution.

Ober II at 1198.

    In interpreting the MSM requirement to allow exemptions on de 
minimis grounds, we are also using the applicable attainment date to 
determine whether controls should be imposed. At the time a state 
submits its application for an attainment extension, (including the 
showing that its plan includes MSM), it must also submit a 
demonstration that attainment will occur by the ``most expeditious 
alternative date practicable.'' See CAA section 188(e). If it can be 
shown that including a certain set of potential MSM would not result in 
more expeditious attainment, then it is consistent with the Act to not 
require their inclusion as a condition of approval.
    What constitutes ``meaningfully hastening attainment'' depends on 
the actual PM-10 conditions in the nonattainment area and the 
particular PM-10 standard under consideration.\10\ Because of this 
dependence, we cannot in policy specify a time period that is 
appropriate in all situations. We can propose the appropriate time 
period only within the context of acting on a specific extension 
request. For today's rulemaking, the plan did not invoke a de minimis 
exemption for evaluating MSM; therefore, we did not need to propose the 
time period we would

[[Page 48723]]

consider meaningful for evaluating its de minimis exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This is similar to the de minimis thresholds which we also 
cannot specify in advance because they too must be set based on the 
actual PM-10 conditions in the nonattainment area and the particular 
PM-10 standard under the consideration. See Addendum at 42011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Under our policy on MSM, a state may reject a measure as 
infeasible for the area on economic grounds. See 24-hour standard 
proposal at 50283. ACLPI disagrees that a state can take economic 
considerations into account when determining the feasibility of MSM for 
the purposes of the MSM demonstration required under section 188(e). 
ACLPI argues that the Act only allows for the rejections of an MSM if 
it cannot feasibly be implemented in the area and any measure that is 
included in another SIP or achieved in practice in another state is by 
definition economically feasible because it is capable of being done or 
carried out if sufficient resources are devoted to it. ACLPI also 
argues that only its interpretation of MSM fits within the Act's 
strategy of offsetting longer attainment time frames with more 
stringent control requirements and that by allowing for the rejection 
of MSM based on cost, EPA has made MSM virtually indistinguishable from 
BACM.
    Response: We believe that Congress very clearly intended that the 
phrase ``feasible in an area'' in section 188(e) to include economic 
considerations. Section 188(e) lists five criteria that we may consider 
in determining whether to grant an extension and the length of an 
extension, the last of which is ``the technological and economic 
feasibility of various control measures.'' Emphasis added. The term 
``various control measures'' clearly refers back, in part, to the 
requirement in the first part of section 188(e) that contains the 
requirement that the plan include ``the most stringent measures that * 
* * can feasibly be implemented in the area.''
    By allowing us to consider the economic feasibility of measures in 
judging whether to grant an extension and how long an extension to 
grant, Congress necessarily also allowed states to consider economic 
feasibility in demonstrating the need for an extension of a given 
length. If section 188(e) compelled states to adopt all MSM that were 
technologically feasible no matter their cost, then there would be no 
economic feasibility issues for us to review in exercising our 
discretion to grant an extension. ACLPI's position would read the very 
explicit criterion--the technological and economic feasibility of 
various control measures--out of section 188(e). A statute should not 
be interpreted to render any provision of that statute meaningless. See 
Northwest Forest & Resource v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir. 
1996). See also Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 115 S. Ct. 1061, 1067 (1995) 
(no Act of Congress should ``be read as a series of unrelated and 
isolated provisions.''); Department of Revenue of Oregon v. ACF 
Industries, 114 S. Ct. 843, 848 (1994) (``a statute should be 
interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative'') (quotation 
omitted).
    We agree that the Act's general strategy is to offset longer 
attainment time frames with more stringent control requirements. We do 
not agree that the MSM requirement in section 188(e) is the primary 
mechanism that assures that increasingly stringent control requirements 
are adopted in areas requesting an extension. In fact, the most 
stringent control measure provision in section 188(e) will not 
necessarily result in the adoption of any additional control measures 
above and beyond those already adopted by the state to provide for BACM 
and expeditious attainment.
    The MSM provision is written to assure that a state consider the 
most effective controls from elsewhere in the country for 
implementation in the area requesting an attainment date extension. The 
results of the analysis are completely dependent on how well other 
areas have controlled their PM-10 sources. If other areas have not 
controlled a particular source category well, then the resulting MSM 
for that source category will not be the more effective level of 
control than what is actually feasible for the area. The MSM provision, 
however, does not require a state to determine if the feasibility of 
controlling a source category at a level greater than the most 
stringent level from another area. In other words, it does not require 
states to determine the maximum level of control that could be applied 
to a source category given local conditions and the additional 
implementation time afforded by an extension.
    In considering the MSM provision, there is a tendency to assume 
that there are always better controls elsewhere than there are in the 
local area. This assumption is unwarranted, especially for an area that 
has already gone through a systematic process of identifying and 
adopting BACM for their significant sources. These areas are likely to 
have already evaluated the best controls from other areas (as Arizona 
did, see MAG plan, Chapter 5) and either adopted them as BACM or 
rejected them as not feasible for their area. As a result, the 
likelihood of uncovering substantial new controls during a MSM 
evaluation is low.
    More important than the MSM provision for assuring adoption of 
additional controls is the requirement in CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A)(ii) 
and 188(e) that the PM-10 plan demonstrate attainment by the most 
expeditious alternative date practicable but no later than December 31, 
2006. The SIP revision containing this demonstration must accompany any 
request for extension of the attainment date under section 188(e). 
Because we are required to grant the shortest possible extension, a 
state must demonstrate that it has adopted the set of control measures 
that will result in the most expeditious date practicable for 
attainment. This requirement may mean that a state must adopt controls 
that go beyond the most stringent measures adopted or implemented 
elsewhere.
    Comment: ACLPI disagrees with EPA's interpretation of the phrase 
``to the satisfaction of the Administrator'' in section 188(e). 
Specifically, ACLPI rejects the notion that by using this phrase, 
Congress intended to grant EPA discretion to accept an MSM 
demonstration even if it falls short of having every MSM possible 
because this interpretation contradicts the express language of section 
188(e) as well as the requirement that the area achieve attainment by 
the most expeditious date practicable. ACLPI argues that the Act uses 
the phrase to grant EPA the authority to determine whether a state has 
adequately demonstrated that its plan includes the most stringent 
measures that are feasible, not to give the agency carte blanche to 
circumvent the will of Congress by ignoring the State's failure to meet 
this requirement.
    Response: First, the Act does not require states to adopt every 
possible MSM. There is nothing in the express language of section 
188(e) that requires such an outcome. The MSM requirement in section 
188(e) is not phrased as ``all most stringent measures'' or as ``every 
most stringent measure practicable or possible.''
    Our interpretation of the MSM requirement is consistent with how we 
have historically interpreted the general RACM requirement in CAA 
section 172(c)(1), a requirement which does use the word ``all.'' This 
section requires that nonattainment area plans ``provide for the 
implementation of all reasonably available control measures * * * ''. 
(emphasis added). In interpreting this requirement, we have long held 
that a state is not obligated to adopt and implement measures that will 
not contribute to expeditious attainment.\11\

[[Page 48724]]

We established this position in a policy that predates the CAA 
Amendments of 1990. 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979). Congress did 
not revise the RACM requirement in the 1990 Amendments and thereby 
endorsed our position. We reaffirmed this position in 1992, see General 
Preamble at 13560 (April 16, 1992). The court has also endorsed this 
position in the specific context of the section 189(a) RACM requirement 
where the court found that using the attainment deadline to determine 
whether controls must be reasonable ``makes sense.'' Ober II at 1198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We would not consider a measure to be reasonable if it does 
not contribute to expeditious attainment. See General Preamble at 
13560; 63 FR 15920, 15932 (April 1, 1998) (proposed Phoenix area PM-
10 FIP); and 66 FR 26913, 26929 (May 15, 2001) (approval of the 
Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area plan). Similarly, for 
the purposes of the MSM requirement, we would not consider such a 
measure to be feasible for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are interpreting the MSM requirement using the same principle. 
We are again using the applicable attainment date to determine whether 
the MSM provision requires a particular control or set of controls to 
be imposed. Before we can grant an attainment date extension, the state 
must show that its plan will result in attainment by the ``most 
expeditious alternative date practicable.'' See CAA sections 188(e) and 
189(b)(1)(A)(ii). If a state can be shown that including a certain set 
of potential MSM would not result in more expeditious attainment, then 
it is reasonable and consistent with the Act not to require their 
inclusion as a condition of approval.
    Second, Congress did not need to add the phrase ``to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator'' to grant us the authority to review 
the adequacy of a state's MSM demonstration. It had already given it to 
us by granting us the discretionary authority under section 188(e) to 
grant or to deny a state's extension request. By attaching the phrase 
specifically to the MSM requirement, Congress emphasized EPA's 
administrative authority to determine an appropriate interpretation of 
what is conceivably a very open-ended and exacting requirement.
    Finally, in reviewing whether Arizona has appropriately excluded an 
otherwise feasible measure or group of feasible measures in its MSM 
analysis, we have invoked only one criterion: whether or not the 
measure or group of measures are necessary for attainment by the 
earliest alternative date practicable. Given that this is our sole 
criterion, our interpretation of ``to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator'' does not conflict with the Act's requirement for 
attainment by the earliest alternative date practicable.
    Comment: ACLPI argues that EPA's proposed methodology for 
determining MSM is flawed because it apparently does not require states 
to quantify expected emission reductions from measures for purposes of 
making MSM demonstrations.
    Response: We do not believe that quantification is always necessary 
or possible or can always be done accurately enough to be meaningful 
and therefore cannot be required as the sole means of determining 
relative stringency. Often, control measures are easily comparable 
without quantification. In these cases, quantification adds no 
additional information and is unnecessary. In other cases, 
quantification is not possible or cannot be done accurately enough 
because there is no methodology and/or insufficient data to calculate 
the difference in emissions reductions between measures.
    Because quantification is often problematic, we have not 
established in our policy on the MSM provision a specific method that a 
state must use to compare the stringency of measures, rather we expect 
a state to select the best method for making this comparison on a case-
by-case basis taking into account the need to provide a clear and 
conclusive demonstration. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50284.

B. Comments on EPA's Detailed Evaluation of the Phoenix Serious Area 
PM-10 Plan

    Comment: ACLPI disagrees with EPA's statement that the Act does not 
require the metropolitan Phoenix serious area plan to address the 
adequacy of the PM-10 monitoring network, asserting that section 
110(a)(2)(B)(i) specifically mandates this.
    Response: Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) in title 1, part A of the CAA 
requires implementation plans to provide for the establishment and 
operation of a system to monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient 
air quality. These systems must necessarily be in place and operating 
long before a state can develop a nonattainment area plan under title 
I, part D of the CAA (such as the Phoenix serious area plan) because it 
is the data from this monitoring network which establish the area's 
nonattainment status and its initial classification as well as the 
degree of control needed to attain the applicable standard. Therefore, 
SIP monitoring provisions are addressed separately and well in advance 
of the development of nonattainment area plans.
    Nonattainment area plans are not, in general, required to address 
how the area's air quality network meets our monitoring regulations. 
Nor do we generally approve or disapprove monitoring networks as part 
of nonattainment area plans. These plans are submitted too infrequently 
to serve as the vehicle for assuring that monitoring networks remain 
adequate and current. Instead, our monitoring regulations in 40 CFR 
part 58 require states to submit reports on the adequacy of their 
ambient air quality monitoring networks annually. We discuss the 
adequacy of the monitoring network as part of our proposed action on 
the Phoenix plan to support our finding that the plan appropriately 
evaluates the PM-10 problem in the area. Reliable ambient data is 
necessary to validate the base year air quality modeling which in turn 
is necessary to assure sound attainment demonstrations. The network, 
however, does not need to meet all our regulatory requirements to be 
found adequate to support air quality modeling. A good spatial 
distribution of sites, correct siting, and quality-assured and quality-
controlled data are the most important factors for generating adequate 
data for air quality modeling.
    Comment: Several times in its comments, ACLPI asserts that the 
Phoenix serious area plan fails to includes a specific measure and also 
fails to provide a reasoned justification for the rejection of the 
measures and that this violates both the CAA and EPA guidance, which 
require serious area PM-10 SIP revisions to provide for the 
implementation of all BACM or provide a reasoned justification for 
their rejection.
    Response: ACLPI is incorrectly characterizing both the CAA's BACM 
requirement and our guidance regarding it. Neither requires the 
implementation of all BACM. CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that SIPs 
include ``provisions to assure that the best available control measures 
for the control of PM-10 shall be implemented * * *'' There is nothing 
in this express language of this section that requires the 
implementation of all BACM; the requirement is not phrased as ``all 
best available control measures'' or as ``every best available control 
measure possible.''
    In our serious PM-10 nonattainment area planning guidance (Addendum 
at 42014), we have interpreted the BACM requirement to mean that a 
state must only provide for the implementation of BACM on its 
significant source categories: ``in summary [of the process for 
selecting BACM for area sources], the State must document its selection 
of BACM by showing what control measures applicable to each source 
category (not shown to be de minimis)

[[Page 48725]]

were considered. The control measures selected should preferably be 
measures that will prevent PM-10 emissions rather than temporarily 
reduce them.'' See also Addendum at 42011 (De Minimis Source 
Categories). Again, this guidance does not require the implementation 
of all BACM.
    Comment: ACLPI notes that the Arizona legislature repealed the 
remote sensing program during the 2000 regular session and thus the 
plan fails to demonstrate adequate legal authority for that measure. 
ACLPI also notes that the September 10, 2001 ruling by the Arizona 
Federal District Court found the State's repeal and discontinuation of 
the RSD program a violation of the CAA and asked that the ruling be 
included in the record for this rulemaking. Finally, ACLPI asserts that 
as a measure that has been implemented in the State for 3 years, it is 
a MSM and thus required under CAA section 188(e).
    Response: The remote sensing (RSD) program is not a measure 
developed specifically for the MAG serious area PM-10 plan, but rather 
one Arizona adopted in 1994 as part of its carbon monoxide and ozone 
plans. In the MAG PM-10 plan, Arizona used the RSD program in the same 
manner as it used a number of other existing measures: to support its 
demonstration that the State has provided for the implementation of 
BACM for the on-road motor vehicle category.
    In the 24-hour standard proposal, we reviewed the plan's BACM and 
MSM demonstrations for this source category assuming that the RSD 
program was no longer in place and determined that the plan still 
provided for the implementation of BACM and inclusion of MSM without 
it. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50259. Arizona has in place one of 
the nation's most comprehensive programs to address on-road motor 
vehicle emissions. With the additional measures in the serious area 
plan (including a more stringent diesel I/M program and measures both 
encouraging and requiring diesel fleet turnover), we believe the plan 
easily provides for the implementation of BACM and inclusion of MSM for 
on-road motor vehicle exhaust. See 24-hour proposal at 50258.
    The plan included a very small NOX benefit of 4 kg per 
day, 0.003 percent of the daily NOX inventory. See email, 
Cathy Arthur (MAG) to Frances Wicher (EPA), ``Impact of Removal of 
Remote Sensing Program on NOX in 2006,'' October 2, 2001. 
While not calculated in the serious area plan, a rough estimate of 
potential directly-emitted PM-10 reductions from the program is no more 
than one-half ton per year (or 2.6 lbs per day). Neither the 
NOX benefit nor the directly-emitted PM-10 benefit would 
contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM-10 standards in the 
Phoenix area, so the State did not need to include the measure to 
assure expeditious attainment.
    Arizona stopped implementing the RSD program because of its high 
cost per ton of reductions, in the order of thousands of dollars per 
ton of pollutant reduced; that is, its economic infeasibility. See 
ADEQ, Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and 
Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Program, June 2001, 
p. 26. Under EPA's MSM policy, economic infeasibility is a valid reason 
for rejecting a measure as MSM. See 24-hour standard proposal at 50283.
    Because we have determined that the Metropolitan Phoenix serious 
area plan provides for the implementation of BACM, inclusion of MSM and 
expeditious attainment without the RSD program, any deficiency in legal 
authority for the program does not affect our approving the plan or 
granting an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e).
    Comment: ACLPI disagrees that the plan provides a reasoned 
justification for the rejection of CARB diesel which ACLPI claims both 
EPA and MAG conceded is an MSM. ACLPI asserts that EPA did not accept 
the State's justification and developed its own justification for the 
failure to adopt the measure. Citing Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 695 (9th 
Cir. 1990), ACLPI states that it is not EPA's role to supply 
justifications that the state has not itself claimed. ACLPI also 
asserts that BACM cannot be excused if it would not advance the 
attainment date by one year; a measure must be adopted if it would 
advance the attainment date by even one day.
    Response: Neither EPA nor MAG concedes that CARB diesel is a most 
stringent measure that is feasible for the Phoenix area. The serious 
area plan rejects CARB diesel as infeasible for the Phoenix area based 
on costs. MAG plan, p. 9-46. Noting the uncertainties regarding this 
cost estimate, we could not judge whether this justification was 
reasonable or not. Annual standard proposal at 19973. The question then 
was whether we could still approve the MSM demonstration without CARB 
diesel and absent a reasoned justification for not including it.
    Our sole criterion for determining if the plan provides for MSM is 
whether it has excluded any feasible MSM or a group of feasible MSM 
that, if adopted and implemented early, would result in attainment of 
the PM-10 standards more expeditiously. On-road and nonroad engines 
(the source categories that would be affected by CARB diesel) are not 
implicated in 24-hour exceedances of the PM-10 standard. Microscale 
plan, tables 3-2 to 3-5. Except for the Salt River monitoring site with 
its fugitive dust generating industrial sources, 24-hour exceedances in 
the Phoenix area are due exclusively to windblown dust from disturbed 
ground. Microscale plan, p. 16. Introducing CARB diesel would not 
contribute to expeditious attainment of the 24-hour standard.
    Annual standard exceedances are also dominated by fugitive dust 
sources with on-road and nonroad engines contributing little to annual 
PM-10 levels in the area. The small emission reduction associated with 
the introduction of CARB diesel would not advance the attainment date 
in the area, either by itself or in combination with other measures. It 
takes a reduction of more than 4 metric tons per day to advance the 
annual standard attainment by a year in the Phoenix area. EPA TSD 
section ``Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones.'' 
The MAG plan estimates reductions from introducing CARB diesel at less 
than 0.8 mtpd in 2006. MAG plan, p. 10-37. Advancing attainment by one 
year is the appropriate increment for judging whether a measure would 
expedite attainment of the annual standard. One year is the smallest 
increment of time that one can advance attainment of the annual 
standard because the annual standard is measured over a calendar year, 
from January 1 to December 31. See 40 CFR part 50.
    Because the including CARB diesel would not result in more 
expeditious attainment of either PM-10 standard, we find that the 
Phoenix serious area plan has meet the MSM requirement without it and 
without including a reasoned justification for rejecting it ACLPI's 
reliance on Delaney is misplaced. In that case, the Court found that 
EPA's 1979 guidance explicitly provided that certain measures were 
presumptively reasonably available and that it was the state's burden 
to overcome that presumption. In 1992, we repealed the provisions of 
the 1979 guidance at issue in Delaney and added provisions specifically 
for PM-10 that establishes no presumption for those measures. See 
General Preamble at 13560. Here, there was no EPA policy presumption 
that CARB diesel was a feasible measure for the Phoenix area which 
Arizona had to overcome.
    Comment: ACLPI argues that the metropolitan Phoenix plan improperly 
rejects various TCMs related to congestion management and idling

[[Page 48726]]

reduction on the grounds that individually each measure would have a 
relatively small impact on PM-10 emissions because the CAA does not 
contain a ``small impact'' exception from BACM and the plan's purported 
justification for rejecting the TCMs does not comport with EPA's BACM 
guidance. ACLPI also argues that the omission of these measures based 
solely on the amount of their individual impact violates the 
requirement of attainment as expeditiously as practicable because 
collectively, the measures might have a significant impact.
    Response: Table TCM-3 in the EPA TSD lists four congestion 
management or idling measures that were identified as potential BACM 
but were not adopted as part of the plan: off-peak movement of goods, 
truck restrictions during peak times, limit excessive car dealership 
vehicle starts, and limit idling time to 3 minutes. Contrary to ACLPI's 
assertions, the plan did not reject these measures on ``small impact'' 
grounds. Rather, it provides no clear justification for rejecting any 
of these measures.
    Prior to the development of the serious area plan, the Phoenix area 
already had in place a comprehensive set of TCMs. See EPA TSD, Table 
TCM-2. With the additional measures in the serious area plan (including 
additional traffic light synchronization, transit improvements, and 
bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements), we believe the plan 
easily provides for the implementation of BACM for on-road motor 
vehicles even without the four measures listed above. See annual 
standard proposal at 19974 and 24-hour standard proposal at 50260. In 
addition, these measures have little PM-10 benefit; therefore, their 
adoption and implementation would not contribute to expeditious 
attainment of the PM-10 standards in the Phoenix area.
    As we have discussed previously, neither the CAA nor EPA guidance 
requires the implementation of all BACM, only that a state provide for 
the implementation of best available control measures on its 
significant source categories. See CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and the 
Addendum at 42014. Moreover, we do not believe that the CAA requires us 
to reject an otherwise sound plan because of minor issues that do not 
affect the principal purposes of the plan: implementation of BACM and 
progress towards and expeditious attainment. Because the measures would 
not contribute to expeditious attainment and the State has provided for 
the implementation of BACM without them, we do not believe that the 
lack of these measures or a reasoned justifications for rejecting the 
measures is grounds for disapproving the plan.
    Comment: Several times in its comment letter, ACLPI states that 
some jurisdictions in the nonattainment area have not made commitments 
to adopt certain measures when other jurisdictions have and that the 
plan provides no explanation as to why the implementation of these 
measures by all jurisdictions is infeasible. ACLPI asserts that EPA 
guidance indicates that BACM should be adopted and implemented 
throughout a serious PM-10 nonattainment area unless 100 percent 
implementation is infeasible. ACLPI also contents that because some 
jurisdictions have committed to more stringent control measures than 
other jurisdictions, their measures must be considered BACM/MSM and the 
plan must either provide for these measures' implementation by all 
jurisdictions or demonstrate why this is infeasible.
    Response: ACLPI cites our serious PM-10 nonattainment area planning 
guidance at Addendum at 42014 to support its first premise. This 
guidance states:

    When evaluating economic feasibility, States should not restrict 
their analysis to simple acceptance/rejection decisions based on 
whether full application of a measure to all sources in a particular 
category is feasible. Rather, a State should consider implementing a 
control measure on a more limited basis, e.g., for a percentage of 
the sources in a category if it is determined that 100 percent 
implementation of the measure is infeasible. This would mean, for 
example, that an area should consider the feasibility of paving 75 
percent of the unpaved roadways even though paving all of the roads 
may be infeasible.

    Contrary to ACLPI's assertion, this guidance does not demand states 
implement a measure 100 percent unless 100 percent implementation is 
infeasible. Rather, it suggests that states not consider ``full 
implementation on all sources in the nonattainment area'' as the only 
possible implementation scenario for evaluating a measure's economic 
feasibility and that, before it rejects a measure as economically 
infeasible, it should first consider less extensive implementation.
    The CAA's requirements to implement BACM and include MSM apply to 
the nonattainment area as a whole and not to each individual 
jurisdiction within that nonattainment area.\12\ Consequently, we have 
reviewed whether the combined effect of all controls adopted in the 
metropolitan Phoenix area for a particular source category results in 
the implementation of BACM and the inclusion of MSM for that source 
category. Because BACM and MSM are nonattainment area-wide 
requirements, the actions of one jurisdiction within the nonattainment 
area cannot set a standard for BACM and/or MSM that must either be 
implemented by all other jurisdictions within the area or demonstrated 
to be infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This is clear from the language of the applicable CAA 
sections. CAA section 189(b)(1)(b) requires that ``a state in which 
all or part of a serious area is located shall submit an 
implementation plan for such area that includes * * * provisions to 
assure that [BACM] * * * shall be implemented * * * '' CAA section 
188(e) requires that ``the State [requesting an extension of the 
attainment date] demonstrates * * * that the plan for that [serious] 
area includes the most stringent measures * * * '' The requirements 
in both sections apply to the serious area and not to the individual 
jurisdictions within the serious area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several times in its comment letter, ACLPI states that 
some jurisdictions in the nonattainment area have not made commitments 
to adopt certain measures when other jurisdictions have. In this 
context, ACLPI asserts that CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that 
plans provide assurances of adequate personnel, funding and authority 
to implement control measures.
    Response: ACLPI is incorrectly applying CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). 
Under this section, a state needs to provide assurances of adequate 
personnel, funding and authority only for those control measures that 
it has included in its submitted implementation plan. It does not need 
to provide such assurances for control measures that are not included 
in its submitted implementation plan, whether or not an argument could 
be made that such measures should have been included to meet another 
CAA provision. This is clear from the language of the section: ``[e]ach 
implementation plan submitted by a State * * * shall * * * provide (i) 
necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel, 
funding, and authority under State * * * law to carry out such 
implementation plan.'' (emphasis added). Therefore, where a 
jurisdiction has not committed to implement a measure, it is not 
required to provide assurances of adequate resources as part of its 
submittal in order to have it approved under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
    Comment: For a number of reasons, ACLPI asserts that Rule 310.01 
weakens the FIP rule requirements for disturbed vacant lots and unpaved 
roads. ACLPI further asserts that EPA's conclusion that the differences 
between the FIP rule

[[Page 48727]]

and Rule 310.01 will not have a significant impact on emission 
reductions is unsupported by quantification or analysis of the relative 
emission reductions and thus EPA's approval of the rule change as 
sufficient to provide the same level of control as the FIP rule is 
therefore arbitrary and capricious and violates the Act and EPA 
guidance that require BACM to go beyond existing RACM-level controls.
    Response: We are not withdrawing or modifying the FIP fugitive dust 
rule in this action. Therefore, comments regarding the effect of 
approving Rule 310.01 on the FIP rule are not germane.
    Neither the CAA nor EPA guidance mandates that a BACM-level control 
measure always go beyond the existing RACM-level control measure. While 
both the CAA and EPA guidance intend a greater level of stringency to 
apply in areas that are required to implement BACM than in those areas 
required only to implement RACM, the intent is that the overall PM-10 
control strategy for a category should, in general, be more stringent 
rather than that every individual control measure in that strategy be 
more stringent.
    A state can show that it has implemented BACM in more than one way. 
It can show it by demonstrating that its BACM-level control measures 
for a source category collectively go beyond existing RACM-level 
measures for that category. Addendum at 42013. It can also show it by 
demonstrating that its adopted measures meet the definition of BACM. 
Addendum at 42010. Thus, if a state has already adopted measures to 
meet the RACM requirement that are collectively the ``maximum degree of 
emissions reduction achievable from a source or source category which 
is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering energy, economic and 
environmental impacts'' then it need not strengthen the measures 
further to meet the BACM requirement.
    We also emphasize that a BACM demonstration is done source category 
by source category and not measure by measure. In determining whether a 
state has provided for the implementation of BACM on a particular 
source category, we need to look at all the control measures for that 
category. In this particular instance, Rule 310.01 alone does not 
constitute the entire BACM-level control strategy for vacant lots and 
unpaved roads. Rather, it is the combination of Rule 310.01, Rule 310, 
and city and town commitments that constitute the BACM strategy for 
this category. See annual standard proposal at 19977 and 19978 and 24-
hour standard proposal at 50263 and 50264.
    Comment: ACLPI comments that EPA's approval of the BACM/MSM 
demonstration for construction sites is contingent upon commitments by 
MCESD to add additional control requirements for dust suppression and 
to make other changes to MCESD Rule 310. While ACLPI agrees that Rule 
310 needs strengthening, it asserts that a commitment to make 
unspecified changes to the rule to achieve a BACM/MSM level of control 
is inadequate because it does not meet the requirements of the Act for 
enforceable measures no later than June 10, 2000 (BACM) or as 
expeditiously as practicable (MSM) and offers no assurances that 
adequate changes will ever be adopted. ACLPI claims that the techniques 
for controlling emissions from construction activities and sites are 
well known.
    ACLPI further asserts that EPA may only approve a plan based on a 
commitment pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4) and then only if the state 
commits to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but 
not later than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revisions. 
ACLPI claims that MCESD's commitments to improve Rule 310 do not meet 
the requirements of CAA section 110(k)(4) because it does not commit to 
adopt specific enforceable measures but only to ``research, develop and 
incorporate'' additional unspecified measures for dust suppression 
practices/equipment into Rule 310 or the dust control plans required 
under that rule. Finally, ACLPI states that the serious area plan must 
include the BACM/MSM measures identified from South Coast, Clark County 
and Imperial County or provide a reasoned justification for their 
rejection and it is not enough for Maricopa County to commit to 
studying these measures.
    Response: We are approving MCESD's commitments under CAA section 
110(k)(3) and not section 110(k)(4). We believe--consistent with past 
practice--that the Act allows approval of enforceable commitments under 
section 110(k)(3) that are limited in scope where circumstances exist 
that warrant the use of commitments in place of adopted measures. These 
commitments are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively, 
CAA sections 113 and 304 of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the past, we have approved enforceable commitments and 
courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to 
comply with those commitments. See, for example, American Lung 
Association of New Jersey v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), 
affirmed, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept. of 
Environmental Conservation, 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y.1987); 
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 
reconsideration granted in part, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); 
Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, CARB, and EPA, No. CV 97-6916 HLH, (C.D. Cal. 
August 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 
we can make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under Section 
179(a), which would start an 18-month period for the State to begin 
implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(4) provides for the conditional approval of State 
commitments; however, these commitments do not need to be enforceable. 
Commitments approved under section 110(k)(3) are not enforceable by 
either EPA or citizens, rather the Act provides that the conditional 
approval will convert to a disapproval if ``the State fails to comply 
with such commitment.''
    MCESD's commitments have been adopted by the Maricopa County Board 
of Supervisors after appropriate public notice and hearing and meet 
Arizona state requirements for the adoption of enforceable SIP 
commitments by local jurisdictions. See A.R.S. 49-406 G. and Maricopa 
County Resolutions. Once we have approved them into the SIP under CAA 
section 110(k)(3), the commitments are fully enforceable against MCESD 
and the Board under CAA sections 113 and 304.
    We are allowing the use of these enforceable commitment here 
because it is the only approach available at this time to assure the 
needed improvements to Rule 310. The information needed to make these 
improvements and to specify the details of these improvements does not 
currently exist and must be developed through additional research and 
investigation.
    While the general techniques for controlling dust from construction 
activities are well known (e.g. watering), the most effective 
applications of these general techniques for controlling emissions from 
any particular construction site in Maricopa County (e.g., how much 
water and when to apply it) are not well known. Construction sites 
differ in soils (affecting the quantity of water needed for effective 
control), meteorological conditions (affecting the frequency with which 
water must be applied), equipment size/use (affecting quantity and 
plume characteristics of dust generated), project phase (affecting 
quantity and time period of dust generated), and level of activity 
(affecting quantity of dust generated). The specifics of how controls 
should be applied to meet the 20 percent opacity standard and other 
applicable Rule 310 standards will vary depending on these and other 
site and activity parameters.

[[Page 48728]]

    One of the enforceable commitments by MCESD is to develop 
parameters that address various site conditions and are sufficient to 
ensure that Rule 310's performance standards are met more consistently. 
The concern captured in this enforceable commitment is that, while it 
is important for sites to have some flexibility in selecting which 
control measure(s) to implement, there are field circumstances where 
the technique must be implemented in a certain manner to be effective. 
For example, where hydrophobic soils exist under dry meteorological 
conditions, it may be necessary to water several days prior to ground 
disturbance to allow water to penetrate to the depth of cut. In some 
other situations, a tackifyer or surfactant needs to be added to the 
water for better penetration. However, these approaches may be needed 
only under certain field conditions. MCESD needs additional time to 
investigate when and where it would be appropriate to require more 
specific controls and what those controls should be.
    Another one of MCESD's commitments is to modify Rule 310's existing 
opacity standard/test method or add an additional opacity standard(s)/
test method(s), so that they better characterize fugitive dust sources 
that create intermittent plumes. Information on how to do this most 
effectively is currently lacking. While derivations on EPA Reference 
Method 9 (the standard opacity test method) observations have been 
adopted in Rules 310 and 310.01 for unpaved roads and unpaved parking 
areas to better accommodate the temporal nature of plumes from vehicle 
passes, additional field research is needed to determine how 
observation intervals and other aspects of opacity readings can be 
better tailored to the variety of intermittent plumes generated by 
construction equipment and activities.
    Once we determine that circumstances warrant the use of an 
enforceable commitment, we believe that three factors should be 
considered in determining whether to approve the enforceable 
commitments: (1) whether the commitment addresses a limited portion of 
the statutorily-required program; (2) whether the state is capable of 
fulfilling its commitment; and (3) whether the commitment is for a 
reasonable and appropriate period of time.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In 1994, in considering EPA's authority under section 
110(k)(4) to conditionally approve unenforceable commitments, the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down an 
EPA policy that would allow States to submit (under limited 
circumstances) commitments for entire programs. Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994). While we do 
not believe that case is directly applicable here, we agree with the 
Court that other provisions in the Act contemplate that a SIP 
submission will consist of more than a mere commitment. See NRDC, 22 
F.3d at 1134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, MCESD's commitments address a very limited portion of the 
CAA's requirements for the implementation of BACM and the inclusion of 
MSM. In this case, MCESD's commitments are improvements to aspects of 
the already-adopted and implemented Rule 310; improvements that, we 
again emphasize, cannot be made at this time because additional 
research is needed.\15\ Second, MCESD has committed resources adequate 
to fulfill its commitments and has provided information on its work 
plan for completing the necessary technical work. See Maricopa County 
commitments as revised December 19, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As we will discuss later, MCESD has also committed to adopt 
a rule for certain types of charbroilers. This commitment does not 
change our analysis here because, even when combined with the 
commitments to improve Rule 310, it is a very small part of the 
demonstration that the plan includes MSM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final factor is whether the commitment is for a reasonable and 
appropriate period. All but one of the commitments have deadlines of 
December 2002, less than a year after their approval. The other 
commitment is the implementation of a second level of dust control 
education that will begin in the March to June 2003 time frame. See 
Maricopa County commitments as revised December 19, 2001. Given the 
complexity of the tasks required by the commitments, we believe that 
these schedules are expeditious. Moreover, they are consistent with the 
attainment and RFP demonstrations in the plan.
    Our approach here of accepting enforceable commitments that are 
limited in scope is not new. We have historically recognized that under 
certain circumstances, issuing a full approval may be appropriate for a 
submission that consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. See 
e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187 (January 8, 1997) (ozone attainment 
demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 
2000) (revisions to attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air 
Basin); 63 FR 41326 (August 3, 1998) (federal implementation plan for 
PM-10 for Phoenix); 48 FR 51472 (State Implementation Plan for New 
Jersey).
    Nothing in the Act speaks directly to the approvability of 
enforceable commitments. However, we believe that our interpretation is 
consistent with its provisions. For example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 
provides that each SIP ``shall include enforceable emission limitations 
and other control measures, means or techniques * * * as well as 
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 
appropriate to meet the applicable requirement of the Act.'' (Emphasis 
added.) The emphasized terms mean that enforceable emission limitations 
and other control measures do not necessarily need to be fully adopted 
to meet the Act's applicable requirements for the implementation of 
BACM and inclusion of MSM. Rather, the emissions limitations and other 
control measures may be supplemented with other SIP rules--for example, 
the enforceable commitments we are approving today--as long as the 
entire package of measures and rules provides for BACM and MSM.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Our interpretation that the Act allows for an approval of 
limited enforceable commitments has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, as well as by other circuits. See Kamp v. 
Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Seabrook v. EPA, 
659 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1981); Connecticut Fund for the Environment 
v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035 (1982); 
Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d 1118 (2d Cir. 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: ACLPI comments that the CAA requires that SIPs must 
provide for the implementation of all RACM and that the Governor's 
Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee identified a variety 
of available and feasible control measures which are included in the 
agricultural general permit rule as BMPs. ACLPI asserts that the Rule 
does not meet the CAA requirement for all RACM because it only requires 
the implementation of one BMP from each of three categories of farm 
activities even if the implementation of more than one BMP would be 
technologically and economically feasible.
    Response: This comment is neither germane to today's action nor 
timely. In today's action, we have addressed only whether Arizona's BMP 
general permit rule provides for the implementation of BACM and the 
inclusion of MSM. We have not addressed whether it also provided for 
the implementation of RACM because we have already done so in an 
earlier rulemaking that was finalized on October 11, 2001. The 
appropriate time for ACLPI to raise issues regarding whether the 
general permit rule meets the CAA's RACM requirement for agricultural 
sources in the Phoenix area was during the comment period on this 
earlier rulemaking. ACLPI made comments on this earlier rulemaking, and 
we fully addressed those comments in the final

[[Page 48729]]

action. See 66 FR 51869, 51871. See also, 66 FR 34598 (June 29, 2001).
    Comment: ACLPI asserts that the metropolitan Phoenix area plan 
fails to include the most stringent measures as required by CAA section 
188(e) because it does not uniformly require the cessation of tilling 
on high wind days as South Coast Rule 403 rule does but rather includes 
it as one measure among several that a farmer may choose to implement. 
ACLPI further asserts that ADEQ's attempt to justify this deviation by 
stating that ``no research currently exists which demonstrates that 
cessation of high wind tilling when gusty winds exceed 25 mph in the 
Maricopa County area is more effective at reducing PM-10 then the 
agricultural PM-10 general permit * * *'' is irrelevant because the 
appropriate inquiry is whether the cessation of tilling on high wind 
days combined with the implementation of at least one other BMP would 
be more effective at reducing PM-10 which ACLPI claims, without 
support, it would be.
    Response: South Coast Rule 403 does not require cessation of 
tilling on high wind days. Rule 403 includes a list of optional 
measures an affected source can use to reduce PM-10. For agricultural 
sources affected by Rule 403, the South Coast AQMD developed a series 
of farming practices that can be used by a grower as alternative means 
to comply with the requirements of Rule 403. These practices are listed 
in ``Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook: Measures to Reduce Dust from 
Agricultural Operations in the South Coast Air Basin'' (``Handbook''). 
If a grower decides to opt for compliance with the Rule by utilizing 
the dust control practices in the Handbook, the grower must cease 
tilling and soil preparation operations when winds are over 25 mph.
    The requirement to cease tilling on high wind days is found in Rule 
403.1 (``Wind Entrainment of Fugitive Dust''). The requirement is 
applicable only to the Coachella Valley (Palm Springs area) of the 
South Coast air basin and has a number of exemptions. See South Coast 
Rule 403.1, sections (a), (d)(4), and (h)(4).
    The BMP general permit includes ``limited activity during high wind 
events'' among the list of BMPs from which a grower can select. The BMP 
Committee and Arizona decided not to require cessation of tilling on 
high wind days as a provision in the general permit for a number of 
technical and practical reasons, the main ones being the infrequency of 
high wind events in the Phoenix area, especially in comparison to the 
frequency of high wind events in the Coachella Valley.
    Based on local meteorological data, MAG estimated that there were 
11 days in 1995 with winds greater than 15 mph. In the Phoenix 
nonattainment area, the State determined that a small percentage (i.e., 
15 percent) of tilling occurs during the high wind season (i.e., March 
through September). Within the high wind season, only 4 percent of days 
have wind speeds greater than 15 mph.\17\ The Coachella Valley is much 
more windy, typically experiencing high wind greater than 25 mph on 47 
days per year.\18\ Based on this information, the BMP Committee and the 
State determined that an agricultural requirement developed 
specifically for Coachella Valley high wind conditions was not 
appropriate for the Phoenix area and that requiring cessation of 
tilling on high wind days would not be reasonable because since it 
would impact a small number of growers and provide minimal reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In fact, when using mean hourly wind speed observations 
averaged over all monitoring sites in the Maricopa County 
nonattainment area for 1995, it was estimated that there 29 hours 
with wind speeds between 15 and 19.9 mph, 7 hours with wind speeds 
between 20 and 24.9 hours, and only one hour with wind speeds over 
25 mph. MAG TSD, Appendix II, Exhibit 7 ``Wind Criteria and 
Associated Emissions for Regional Particulate Matter Modeling,'' 
Updated April 13, 1999, p. 3.
    \18\ The Coachella Valley is not the only agricultural area in 
the South Coast district. Riverside (outside of the Coachella 
Valley) and San Bernardino Counties are the predominant agricultural 
areas in the region. These areas experience winds greater than 25 
mph approximately 25 and 23 days per year, respectively, yet the 
South Coast does not impose the cessation of tilling requirement in 
these areas unless a grower opts to use the practices listed in the 
Handbook as the means of complying with Rule 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arizona has provided a reasonable justification for not requiring 
cessation of tilling during high wind events. In the Microscale plan, 
the State shows that it was windblown dust from an already tilled 
agricultural field and not the active tilling of that field that 
contributed to the 24-hour exceedance at West Chandler. See Microscale 
plan, pp. 16. In the serious area plan, the State demonstrates that the 
BMP general permit rule as adopted in combination with other adopted 
measures provides for expeditious attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 
standard in the Phoenix area and is not necessary for expeditious 
attainment of the annual standard in the area. Finally, the State 
through its BMP committee has determined that the requirement for one 
BMP per category is the most effective economically and technologically 
feasible control measure for agricultural sources in the Phoenix area. 
Given all of this, the State has reasonably declined to mandate the 
cessation of tilling during high winds when faced with an absence of 
data that it would make the BMP rule more effective.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ We note that one exemption from Rule 403.1's cessation of 
tilling requirement is when tilling activities result in a net 
reduction of wind blown fugitive dust, an exemption that is 
applicable only if wind blown fugitive dust is not visible from 
tilled soil, but is visible from untilled soil within the same 
agricultural parcel. Rule 403.1 (h)(4)(B). This exemption shows that 
there are some situations when cessation of tilling during a high 
wind event is actually counter-productive and thus it is not always 
more effective to combine it with another BMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: ACLPI asserts that because Arizona is seeking an extension 
of the PM-10 nonattainment date to December 31, 2006, it must show that 
its plan includes the most stringent measure for each source category, 
including agriculture, citing CAA section 188(e). It then contends that 
South Coast Rule 403 is significantly more stringent than the general 
permit rule, noting that Rule 403 establishes six categories of 
management practices and requires operators to implement at least one 
of the listed practices in 5 of 6 categories (i.e., Active, Farm Yard 
Area, Track-Out, Unpaved Roads, and Storage Pile) and three measures in 
the ``Inactive'' category. ACLPI claims that when the cessation of 
tilling on high wind days is included, each commercial farmer is 
required to implement a minimum of nine control measures and that 
Arizona's program only requires a total of three control measures. To 
qualify and obtain an extension of the attainment date, the Arizona SIP 
must include agricultural measures that are at least as stringent as 
Rule 403.
    Response: Neither the CAA nor EPA policy requires that areas 
seeking attainment date extensions include without exception the most 
stringent measures for each source category. The CAA requires only that 
the plan include the most stringent measures found in the 
implementation plan of other States or used in practice that are 
feasible in the area. See CAA section 188(e). We interpret the MSM 
provision to not require any measure that is infeasible on 
technological or economic grounds, any measure for insignificant source 
categories, and any measure or group of measures that would not 
contribute to expeditious attainment. See 24-hour standard proposal at 
50282-84.
    ACLPI is not correctly characterizing the requirements of the South 
Coast's agricultural control measures (which are found in Rules 403 and 
403.1). Agricultural operations are required to comply with the 
provisions of Rule 403 unless the person responsible for such

[[Page 48730]]

operations voluntarily implements the conservation practices contained 
in the most recent Rule 403 Handbook. See Rule 403 (h)(1)(B). The 
Handbook, and not the rule itself, has the requirement to implement at 
least one of the listed practices in 5 of 6 categories and three 
measures in the Inactive category. A grower, however, only has to 
implement practices for those categories of agricultural operations 
that they actually have; thus if s/he does not have one of the activity 
categories and/or inactive fields then the number of practices s/he 
must implement is fewer. As we have noted above, the requirement for 
cessation of tilling on high wind days applies only in the Coachella 
Valley portion of the South Coast district and is a requirement on all 
agricultural operations in the other portion of the district only when 
a grower opts for using the Handbook to comply with Rule 403. 
Therefore, ACLPI exaggerates the requirements of the South Coast 
agricultural control program when it claims the program requires each 
commercial farmer to implement a minimum of nine management 
practices.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We also note that for inactive fields, the Handbook allows 
agricultural operators to comply with local jurisdiction 
requirements in lieu of implementing three practices (Handbook, 
section II, p. 4.) and that a field which has been withdrawn from 
agricultural use in the Phoenix area becomes subject to MCESD Rule 
310.01's BACM/MSM-level requirements for open areas and vacant lots. 
All these control options demonstrate that the six categories/nine 
practices versus three categories/three practices comparison is 
misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that in general Rule 403 (or the Handbook) is likely to be 
more stringent than the general permit rule. We, however, also agree, 
as discussed below, with the State's assessment that the South Coast 
requirements are infeasible for the Phoenix area and that the general 
permit rule represents the most stringent economically and 
technologically feasible agricultural control program for the area.
    In assessing South Coast's requirements, the BMP Committee and ADEQ 
determined that because of the lack of adequate technical information 
concerning BMP costs and effectiveness, requiring at least one BMP for 
the three agricultural categories adequately addressed agricultural 
sources of PM-10 in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. ADEQ 
concluded that:

    The agricultural general permit cannot mirror South Coast Rule 
403 for a variety of reasons. One main reason is that agriculture in 
Maricopa area is primarily flood irrigated. The South Coast has 
dryland, irrigated, and sprinkler irrigated agriculture. The actual 
amount of irrigation water and frequency of irrigation can effect 
wind erosion estimates and the effectiveness of different control 
measures under different conditions. Therefore, the BMPs for 
Maricopa County were based on practical applications during those 
times when the fields were not flooded. Also, because the 
application of more than one BMP at a time for a selected category 
would only provide incremental PM-10 reductions, sometimes at an 
uneconomical cost, flexibility was provided in the rule to allow the 
expert (the farmer) to decide what BMP should be applied when and 
where.

    As we discussed in the proposal for the 24-hour standard (see 24-
hour standard proposal at 50268) and as we concluded in our original 
FIP measure for the agricultural sector (63 FR 41332), the BMP 
Committee found that agricultural PM-10 strategies must be based on 
local factors because of the variety, complexity, and uniqueness of 
farming operations and because agricultural sources vary by factors 
such as regional climate, soil type, growing season, crop type, water 
availability, and relation to urban centers.
    While the Committee surveyed measures adopted in other geographic 
areas, including South Coast, these measures were of limited utility in 
determining what measures are available for the Maricopa County area. 
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 
technologically justified and could cause an unnecessary economic 
burden to farmers. BMP TSD, p. 18.
    Adding to concerns about the economic feasibility of requiring more 
BMPs per farming activity is the general uncertainty regarding the cost 
of the BMPs and continued viability of agriculture in Maricopa County. 
Between 1987 and 1997, the number of farms operating in Maricopa County 
declined by approximately 30 percent and the amount of land farmed 
declined by approximately 50 percent. This trend is expected to 
continue. Finally, in order to justify additional requirements for 
farming operations in the area beyond those in the general permit rule, 
the BMP Committee determined that a significant influx of money and 
additional research would be needed.
    Based on all of these factors, the BMP Committee concluded that the 
Handbook's control requirements were neither technologically nor 
economically feasible for agricultural sources in Maricopa County and 
therefore are not feasible for the Phoenix area. BMP TSD, p. 18.
    We agree with the analysis of the BMP Committee. As noted 
previously, the development of the general permit rule was a multi-year 
endeavor involving an array of agricultural experts familiar with 
Maricopa County agriculture. Maricopa County is only the second area in 
the country where formal regulation of PM-10 emissions from the 
agricultural sector has ever been attempted. We conclude that the Rule 
403's and the Handbook's requirements are neither technologically nor 
economically feasible for Maricopa County and thus Arizona need not 
include them in the Phoenix serious area plan in order for us to grant 
an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e).
    Comment: ACLPI claims that there is no justification for relaxing 
the stringency of Rule 403 because virtually all of the control 
measures listed in Rule 403 are in the Arizona rule and so it is clear 
that their implementation is feasible. ACLPI asserts that Arizona's 
contention that ``the application of more than one BMP at a time for a 
selected category would only provide for incremental PM-10 reductions 
sometimes at an uneconomical cost,'' is not supported by any competent 
data, improperly delegates regulatory discretion to the regulated 
community, and ignores the clear mandates of the Act.
    Response: We agree that the many of the individual best management 
practices in the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook are also feasible 
practices for the Phoenix area. Arizona, through the BMP committee, 
also agreed and incorporated many of them into the general permit rule. 
However, the feasibility and adoption of any one BMP has little 
relevance here because neither Rule 403, the Handbook, nor the general 
permit rule requires the implementation of any specific BMP, rather 
they require the implementation of at least one BMP from a list of 
possible BMPs for each of several categories of farm operations.
    As has been noted many times before, little data is available on 
the cost of implementing specific BMPs in the Phoenix area. Using what 
little data was available and the technical expertise of local farmers, 
state and federal agricultural agencies,\21\ and agricultural experts 
from the University of Arizona, Arizona determined that requiring the 
implementation at least one BMP for each of the three categories of

[[Page 48731]]

agricultural activities is the most stringent level of control that is 
economically and technologically feasible for the Phoenix area. This 
conclusion was arrived at only after a lengthy and open process and 
only after taking into consideration South Coast's approach to 
agricultural control. See 66 FR 3458, 34601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The BMP Committee is composed of five local farmers, the 
Director of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not agree that the general permit rule improperly delegates 
regulatory discretion to the regulated community. The general permit 
rule follows the same general control format as Rules 310 and 310.01. 
This format allows the regulated entity (e.g., construction site 
operator, vacant lot owner, unpaved parking lot owner, etc.) to choose 
from a list of options for controlling its source.\22\ For example, an 
unpaved parking lot owner may pave, gravel, or apply a chemical 
stabilizer. See Rule 310.01, section 303.1. This control format is the 
standard model for fugitive dust rules and has developed over time 
because of the need to impose effective but reasonable and feasible 
controls on a large number of similar but distinct sources. For the 
Phoenix serious area plan, we have found that the control measures 
using this format provide for the implementation of BACM and the 
inclusion of MSM for a number of significant source categories. As much 
as (if not more so than) an unpaved parking lot owner or a vacant lot 
owner, a grower is in the best position to determine which BMPs are 
best and most effective for the conditions on his/her farm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This control format is also used in South Coast's fugitive 
dust rules, including Rules 403, 403.1, and 1186. We approved these 
rules on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67784).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: ACLPI asserts that because the general permit rule fails 
to require any specific control requirements, there is no way that the 
State can know or meaningfully predict what the effect of the rule will 
be and thus any estimated emissions reduction is entirely speculative 
and thus inadequate under the CAA.
    Response: As we noted in a previous comment, the general permit 
rule follows the same standard control format used by many fugitive 
dust rules, such as Rules 310 and 310.01 (and Rule 403 and the Rule 403 
Agricultural Handbook). This format allows the regulated entity to 
choose from a list of options for controlling its source.
    Emission reductions from these types of rules need to be quantified 
because they often constitute the primary control strategy needed to 
demonstrate attainment and/or RFP. The accepted methodology for 
quantifying them is to assume that some fraction of the regulated 
sources will choose a particular control option. For example, the 
assumption used in the Phoenix plan to quantify emission reductions 
from the unpaved parking lot measure is that one third of the regulated 
lots will be paved, one-third will be graveled, and one-third will be 
chemically stabilized. See MAG TSD, p. V-17. Provided that the 
assumptions are reasonable, we accept the resulting emission reductions 
estimate.
    To prepare the emission reductions estimates for the general permit 
rule, ADEQ hired URS. To estimate the reductions, URS determined the 
most likely implementation scenario. This scenario was based on 
available data on the crops grown and their acreage in the Phoenix area 
as well as on interviews of growers in the Phoenix area about which 
BMPs they would most likely use in certain situations. The growers, 
having intimate knowledge of the crops and growing conditions in the 
area, are the technical experts on how the BMP rule will be 
implemented. By going to the technical experts, URS and Arizona reduced 
the level of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates to the 
extent practicable.
    We believe that their approach is reasonable given the situation. 
Most of the BMPs have never been applied in Maricopa County or 
elsewhere, and until the BMPs are fully implemented and ADEQ has had 
adequate time to evaluate their effectiveness, there will always be 
some degree of uncertainty regarding actual emission reductions. While 
it is possible that the reductions could be less than expected, it is 
equally plausible that the reductions will be greater than expected.
    We note that no matter how specifically a rule is written, no one 
can ever know for certain what the future emission reductions from it 
will be. Estimates of future emission reductions require assumptions 
about future activities that are always speculative to a degree. In 
making emission reduction estimates, we attempt to reduce the 
uncertainties to the extent possible, but we can never totally 
eliminate them.
    Quantification of emission reductions from rules is a necessary 
part of meeting the Act's requirements for reasonable further progress 
and attainment demonstrations and quantitative milestones. Beyond 
setting the requirements (and requiring attainment demonstrations be 
based on air quality modeling, see, for example, CAA section 
189(b)(1)(A)), the Act leaves it to EPA's expertise to determine what 
constitutes technically acceptable demonstrations. As we have discussed 
above, Arizona followed standard and accepted procedures for 
quantifying emission reductions from the BMP general permit rule and as 
a result we find the resulting estimates acceptable for the serious 
area plan.
    Comment: ACLPI disagrees with EPA's conclusion that the 
metropolitan Phoenix serious area plan adequately demonstrates that 
attainment by December 31, 2001 is impracticable because the plan fails 
to adopt all BACM for significant sources, fails to implement some 
measures in a timely manner or relies on mere commitments and 
improperly excludes BACM for de minimis sources. ACLPI asserts that the 
plan improperly fails to analyze whether the area would be in 
attainment by the 2001 deadline if all BACM were adopted and 
implemented on time.
    Response: We have carefully reviewed the plan and have found that 
it provides for the implementation of BACM, assures timely 
implementation of measures, and relies on enforceable commitments only 
where they are the only feasible means of providing for the 
implementation of BACM as required by CAA section 189(b)(1)(B). See 
annual standard proposal at 19984 and the 24-hour standard proposal at 
50273.
    As we have discussed previously, neither the CAA or EPA guidance 
requires the implementation of all BACM. Both only require that a state 
provide for the implementation of best available control measures on 
its significant source categories. Both also allow the de minimis 
sources to be exempted from the BACM requirement. See CAA section 
189(b)(1)(B) and the Addendum at 42014.
    Contrary to ACLPI's assertion, the plan does provide a clear 
demonstration that even with the implementation of BACM on all source 
categories including de minimis categories, the Phoenix area would not 
be in attainment of either PM-10 standard by the end of 2001. This 
demonstration is a necessary part of showing that the plan correctly 
determines which source categories are de minimis and which are 
significant. See MAG plan, pp. 9-9 to 9-15 and the section ``BACM 
Analysis--Step 2, Model to Identify Significant Sources'' in the EPA 
TSD.
    Comment: ACLPI disagrees with EPA's conclusion that the 
metropolitan Phoenix serious area plan adequately demonstrates 
attainment by the earliest date practicable after December 31, 2001 
because the plan fails to adopt all feasible MSM, fails to implement 
some measures in a timely manner or relies on mere commitments and 
improperly excludes MSM for de minimis sources. ACLPI asserts that the 
plan improperly

[[Page 48732]]

fails to analyze whether the area would be in attainment earlier if all 
MSM were adopted and implemented in a timely manner.
    Response: We have carefully reviewed the plan and have found that 
it includes all feasible MSM to our satisfaction, assures timely 
implementation of measures, and relies on enforceable commitments only 
where they are the only feasible means of providing for the 
implementation of MSM or other measures necessary for timely 
attainment. See annual standard proposal at 19984 and the 24-hour 
standard proposal at 50274. We note again that the Phoenix serious area 
plan did not exclude any MSM on the basis of de minimis source 
categories.
    Comment: ACLPI comments that the plan fails to include contingency 
measures, noting the purpose of contingency measures is to assure 
continued progress toward attainment while the SIP is being revised if 
a state fails to make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date. 
ACLPI asserts that if a state fails to make RFP or timely attain, the 
obvious conclusion is that the currently implemented control measures 
are insufficient and additional measures are needed and that this is 
true regardless of whether the implemented measures were relied upon in 
the RFP and attainment demonstrations and for this reason, EPA's 
suggestion that the contingency measure requirement can be satisfied by 
committed measures that are implemented but not relied upon in the 
demonstrations defeats the purpose. ACLPI contends that the proposed 
SIP must include contingency measures that will take effect without 
further action by the State or Administrator and the SIP does not 
include any such measures.
    Response: The metropolitan Phoenix serious area plan does contain 
contingency measures. For the annual standard, the plan relies on the 
agricultural BMP general permit rule as a contingency measure. For the 
24-hour standard, the plan relies on the paving or treatment of unpaved 
roads measure. Both measures are currently being implemented but the 
emission reductions from them are not necessary for demonstrating RFP 
and attainment for the annual standard (general permit rule) and 24-
hour standard (unpaved road measures).
    Failure to make RFP or attain does not necessarily mean that new 
controls must be adopted. Failure to make RFP or attain can be the 
result of the failure to implement already committed to or adopted 
controls, delays in the implementation of control measures, and 
noncompliance. In these cases, correcting the implementation problem or 
noncompliance corrects the RFP or attainment failure.
    There are a number of benefits to allowing and even encouraging the 
early implementation of contingency measures. The chief benefit is that 
their emission reductions and thus their public health benefit are 
realized early. Another is that it allows states to build uncredited 
cushions into their attainment and RFP demonstrations, a cushion which 
makes actual failures to make progress or attain less likely.
    Measures that have already been implemented clearly meet the 
section 172(c)(9) requirement that contingency measures take effect 
without further action by the State or Administrator.
    Comment: ACLPI asserts that the Agricultural BMP general permit 
rule cannot be used as a contingency measure because it is not a 
``specific measure[ ] to be undertaken if the area fails to make 
reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] * * *'' and there 
is nothing in the rule that is triggered upon a showing of failure to 
make RFP. ACLPI quotes EPA guidance at 60 FR 56129 that ``[c]ontingency 
measures should consist of other control measures that are not part of 
the area's control strategy.''
    Response: We note that the Agricultural BMP general permit rule is 
a contingency measure for the annual standard only. Emission reductions 
from the rule are not necessary to demonstrate RFP or expeditious 
attainment, and therefore, the rule is not part of Arizona's primary 
control strategy for attaining the annual standard. Emission reductions 
from the rule are necessary to demonstrate RFP and expeditious 
attainment of the 24-hour standard and the State chose a different 
measure, the unpaved road measure, to serve as the contingency measure 
for the 24-hour standard.
    Nothing in CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that contingency measure 
be triggered only if there is a failure to make RFP or to attain. 
Contingency measure must be undertaken if there is a failure to make 
RFP or attain but the Act does not bar a state from using other 
triggers as a reason to implement them, e.g., a determination that the 
measure is needed for attainment of another standard or to meet another 
CAA requirement. This is the case here; the BMP general permit rule is 
both needed for attainment of the 24-hour standard and to meet the 
CAA's BACM requirement.
    Areas that must meet the BACM, MSM, and ``attainment by the 
earliest alternative date practicable'' requirement are in a difficult 
position when it comes to contingency measures. Adopted but 
unimplemented contingency measures are likely to be feasible BACM and/
or MSM. We discussed this dilemma in the proposed approval for the 24-
hour standard at 24-hour standard proposal at 50279:

    Certain core control measure requirements such as RACM, BACM, 
and MSM may result in a state adopting and expeditiously 
implementing more measures than are strictly necessary for 
expeditious attainment and/or RFP. Because of this and because these 
core requirements effectively require the implementation of all non-
trivial measures that are technologically and economically feasible 
for the area, states are left with few, if any, substantive 
unimplemented control measures. In fact, under the Act's PM-10 
planning provisions, if there were a measure or set of measures that 
were technologically and economically feasible and could 
collectively generate substantial emission reductions, e.g., one 
year's worth of RFP, then a state would be hard pressed to justify 
withholding their implementation.
    If we read the CAA to demand that the only acceptable 
contingency measure are those that are adopted but not implemented, 
then states face a difficult choice: adopt the controls for 
immediate implementation and clearly meet the core control measure 
requirements but fail the contingency measure requirement or adopt 
the control measures but hold implementation in reserve to meet the 
contingency measure requirement but potentially fail the core 
control measure requirements.
    However, states do not need to face this difficult choice if we 
read the CAA to allow adopted and implemented measures to serve as 
contingency measures, provided that those measures' emission 
reductions are not needed to demonstrate expeditious attainment and/
or RFP. There is nothing in the language of section 172(c)(9) that 
prohibits this interpretation.

    ACLPI cites as EPA guidance, our 1995 proposed approval of the 
moderate area PM-10 SIP for the Yakima, Washington nonattainment area. 
This proposal, however, simply affirms our position here. In this case, 
Washington State used as a contingency measure for the Yakima area, a 
wood stove buy back program. At the time we proposed to approve it as a 
contingency measure, the program had been in operation for more than 
two years and had already replaced 70 wood stoves. We proposed to 
approve it as a contingency measure because the emission reductions 
from the program were ``100 percent overcontrol,'' that is, not 
necessary for attainment. See 60 FR 56129, 56132 (November 7, 1995). We 
finalized this approval at 63 FR 5269 (February 2, 1998).

[[Page 48733]]

V. Final Actions

A. Approval of the Serious Area Plan

    We are taking final action to approve the following elements of the 
serious area PM-10 plan for the metropolitan Phoenix area.
    For the annual standard:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SIP submittal and     Cite for proposed
    CAA provision (cite)              date                approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emission inventory  MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 (section 172(c)(3)).          16, 2000.             proposal at 19970.
Demonstration that the plan
 provides for the
 implementation of RACM and
 BACM for each significant
 source category (sections
 189(a)(1)(c) and
 189(b)(1)(b)):
     On-road motor    MAG plan, February    Annual standard
     vehicles.                 16, 2000.             proposal at 19973
                                                     and 24-hour
                                                     standard proposal
                                                     at 50258.
     Non-road motor   MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     vehicles.                 16, 2000.             proposal at 20260.
     Paved road dust  MAG plan, February    Annual standard
                               16, 2000.             proposal at 50274.
     Unpaved parking  MAG plan, February    Annual standard
     lots.                     16, 2000.             proposal at 19976.
     Disturbed        MAG plan, February    Annual standard
     vacant lots.              16, 2000.             proposal at 19977.
     Unpaved roads..  MAG plan, February    Annual standard
                               16, 2000.             proposal at 19978.
     Construction     MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     activities and sites.     16, 2000.             proposal at 50265.
     Agriculture      BMP TSD, June 13,     24-hour standard
     (BACM only).              2001.                 proposal at 50268.
     Residential      MAG plan, February    Annual standard
     wood combustion.          16, 2000.             proposal at 19982.
     Secondary        MAG plan, February    Annual standard
     ammonium nitrate          16, 2000.             proposal at 19982.
     sources.
Demonstration of the          MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 impracticability of           16, 2000.             proposal 19984.
 attainment by 2001 where
 the State has applied for
 an attainment date
 extension under section
 188(e) (section
 189(b)(1)(A) (ii)).
Demonstration of attainment   MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 by the most expeditious       16, 2000.             proposal 19985.
 alternative date
 practicable (section
 189(b)(1)(A) (ii)).
Demonstration of reasonable   MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 further progress (section     16, 2000.             proposal 19988.
 172(c)(2)).
Quantitative Milestones       MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 (section 189(c)).             16, 2000.             proposal 19988.
Inclusion of the most         MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 stringent measures (section   16, 2000 (except      proposal at 19984
 188(e)).                      for agricultural      (except for
                               sources); BMP TSD,    agricultural
                               June 13, 2001         sources); 24-hour
                               (agricultural         standard proposal
                               sources).             at 50268
                                                     (agricultural
                                                     sources).
Demonstration that major      MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 sources of PM-10 precursors   16, 2000.             proposal 19971.
 such as nitrogen oxides and
 sulfur dioxide do not
 contribute significantly to
 violations (section 189(e)).
Contingency measures          MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 (section 172(c)(9)).          16, 2000 as revised   proposal at 50279.
                               by BMP TSD, June
                               13, 2001.
Transportation conformity     MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 budget (section 176(c)).      15, 2000.             proposal at 19970.
Provisions for assuring       MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 adequate resources,           16, 2000 (for all     proposal at 19988
 personnel, and legal          categories for both   (except for
 authority to carry out the    standards except      agriculture
 plan (section                 for agriculture       sources), 24-hour
 110(a)(2)(E)(i)).             sources).             standard proposal
                                                     at 50280.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        For the 24-hour standard:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emission inventory  MAG plan, February    Annual standard
 (section 172(c)(3)).          16, 2000.             proposal at 19970.
Demonstration that the plan
 provides for the
 implementation of RACM and
 BACM for each significant
 source category (sections
 189(a)(1)(c) and
 189(b)(1)(b)):
     On-road motor    MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     vehicles.                 16, 2000.             proposal at 50258
                                                     and 50259.
     Non-road motor   MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     vehicles.                 16, 2000.             proposal at 50259.
     Paved road dust  MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
                               16, 2000.             proposal at 50260.
     Unpaved parking  MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     lots.                     16, 2000.             proposal at 50263.
     Disturbed        MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     vacant lots.              16, 2000.             proposal at 50263.
     Unpaved roads..  MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
                               16, 2000.             proposal at 50264.
     Construction     MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     activities and sites.     16, 2000.             proposal at 50265.
     Agriculture      BMP TSD, June 13,     24-hour standard
     (BACM only).              2001.                 proposal at 50268.
     Residential      MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     wood combustion.          16, 2000.             proposal at 50271.
     Secondary        MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
     ammonium nitrate          16, 2000.             proposal at 50271.
     sources.
Demonstration of the          MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 impracticability of           16, 2000              proposal at 50273.
 attainment by 2001 where      (regional); BMP
 the State has applied for     TSD, June 13, 2001
 an attainment date            (Gilbert and West
 extension under section       Chandler).
 188(e) (section
 189(b)(1)(A) (ii)).
Demonstration of attainment   Mag plan, February    24-hour standard
 by the most expeditioius      16, 2000              proposal at 50275.
 alternative date              (regional); BMP
 practicable (section          TSD, June 13, 2001
 189(b)(1)(A)(ii)).            (Gilbert and West
                               Chandler).

[[Page 48734]]

 
Demonstration of reasonable   BMP TSD, June 13,     24-hour standard
 further progress (section     2001.                 proposal at 50278.
 172(c)(2)).
Quantitative Milestones       BMP TSD, June 13,     24-hour standard
 (section 189(c)).             2001.                 proposal at 50279.
Inclusion of the most         MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 stringent measures (section   16, 2000 except for   proposal at 50274.
 188(e)).                      (agricultural
                               sources) BMP TSD,
                               June 13, 2001
                               (agricultural
                               sources).
Demonstration that major      MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 sources of PM-10 precursors   16, 2000.             proposal at 50257.
 such as nitrogen oxides and
 sulfur dioxide do not
 contribute significantly to
 violations (section 189(e)).
Contingency measures          MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 (section 172(c)(9)).          16, 2000 as revised   proposal at 50279.
                               by BMP TSD, June
                               13, 2001.
Transportation conformity     MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 budget (section 176(c)).      15, 2000.             proposal at 50256.
Provisions for assuring       MAG plan, February    24-hour standard
 adequate resources,           16, 2000 (except      proposal at 50280.
 personnel, and legal          for agriculture
 authority to carry out the    sources).
 plan (section
 110(a)(2)(E)(i)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Extension of the Attainment Date

    As authorized by CAA section 188(e), we are granting Arizona's 
request for a five-year extension of the date for attaining both the 
annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards. Our decision to grant the extension 
is based on our determination that the State has met the necessary 
requirements for granting an extension of the attainment date under CAA 
section 188(e). See annual standard proposal at 19988 and 24-hour 
standard proposal at 50278. The five-year extension means that the 
statutory attainment date for both standards in the Phoenix 
nonattainment area is now December 31, 2006.

C. Approvals of Rules and Commitments

    We are also approving the following rules and commitments that we 
proposed for approval in the annual standard proposal at 65 FR 19964:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rule/commitment  (Date of adoption of
                 revision)                          Submittal date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD Rule 310 (Revised February 16, 2000).  March 2, 2000.
MCESD Rule 310.01 (Adopted February 16,      March 2, 2000.
 2000).
Maricopa County Residential Woodburning      January 28, 2000.
 Ordinance (Revised November 17, 1999).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also approving numerous resolutions adopted in 1997, 1998, 
and 1999 by the cities and town of the metropolitan Phoenix area as 
well as by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Regional Public 
Transportation Agency, and ADEQ. Finally, we are approving Maricopa 
County's commitments including the revised commitments adopted on 
December 19, 2001 and submitted on January 8, 2002.
    CAA section 110(l) prohibits us from approving a revision to the 
applicable implementation plan if that revision would interfere with 
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other 
applicable requirement of the Act. We interpret section 110(l) to mean, 
among other things, that we cannot approve a plan revision if that 
revision would mean that the state's plans would no longer provide for 
attainment or RFP as these are required by the CAA or if the revision 
would mean that the State's plans would no longer meet another 
applicable requirement of the Act.
    We are revising the Arizona SIP to incorporate the amended Rule 
310, Rule 310.01 and the Maricopa County Residential Woodburning 
Ordinance in place of the previous version of Rule 310 approved in 
August, 1997 and of the ordinance approved in November, 1999. In 
addition to the effect on attainment and RFP, the ``other applicable 
requirement of the Act'' that we are concerned with here are the Act's 
requirements for implementation of RACM and BACM and the inclusion in 
the plan of MSM.
    We are approving the expeditious attainment and RFP demonstrations 
for both PM-10 standards in the Phoenix serious area plan. These 
demonstrations are in part dependent on approval of the revised Rule 
310, Rule 310.01, and the woodburning ordinance.
    We are also finding that the Phoenix serious area plan provides for 
the implementation of RACM and BACM and the inclusion of the MSM for 
the sources subject to these rules and ordinance (construction sites, 
unpaved roads, unpaved parking lots, and disturbed vacant lands, and 
residential wood burning). Again, these findings are in large part 
dependent on approval of the revised Rule 310 and Rule 310.01. We, 
therefore, find that the approval of the revised Rule 310, Rule 310.01, 
and the Residential Woodburning Restrictions Ordinance will not 
interfere with Arizona PM-10 applicable implementation plan's 
compliance with the Clean Air Act's requirements for attainment, RFP, 
implementation of RACM and BACM, and inclusion of MSM.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Because the woodburning restrictions ordinance is also a 
provision in the State's carbon monoxide SIP, we have also 
considered the impact on the CO plan of approving the revised 
version. The revision to the ordinance strengthens its PM-10 
provisions but does not make changes to its CO provisions; 
therefore, its approval will not interfere CO SIP's provisions for 
attainment, RFP, or RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Correction of Previous SIP Disapprovals

    We are finding that Arizona has corrected the deficiencies that 
resulted in the following disapprovals:

[[Page 48735]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Disapproved element                  Date and cite of disapproval            Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of RACM and BACM for unpaved roads,  August 4, 1997 62 FR 41856,    Approved RACM and BACM
 unpaved parking lots, disturbed vacant lots, and    41862.                         demonstration for the
 agriculture (24-hour standard).                                                    affected categories.\1\
Demonstration of attainment and RFP for the West    August 4, 1997 62 FR 41856,    Approved attainment and RFP
 chandler site (24-hour standard).                   41862.                         demonstration.
Demonstration of attainment and RFP for the         August 4, 1997 62 FR 41856,    Approved attainment and RFP
 Gilbert site (24-hour).                             41862.                         demonstration.
Implementation of RACM (annual standard)..........  August 3, 1998 63 FR 41326,    Approved RACM demonstration.
                                                     41329.
Demonstration of attainment (moderate area          August 3, 1998 63 FR 41326,    Approved attainment
 deadline, annual standard).                         41329.                         demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We approved the RACM demonstration for agricultural sources on October 11, 2001 at 66 FR 51869.

    The correction of the deficiencies that caused the last two listed 
disapprovals also permanently lifts the offset sanction currently 
imposed but stayed on the Phoenix area and ends the clock for 
imposition of the highway funding sanction.
    The full approval of the metropolitan Phoenix serious area PM-10 
plan also ends the FIP clock started by the February 6, 1998 finding 
that the State had failed to submit the plan by the required deadline. 
See 63 FR 9423 (February 23, 1998).

VI. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 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 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 approves 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 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
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). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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). This action merely approves a state plan 
and rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 VCS 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. This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 14, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.


    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

[[Page 48736]]

Subpart D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(99), (100), 
(101), and (102) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (99) Plan revisions submitted on January 28, 2000 by the Governor's 
designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa County, Arizona.
    (1) Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance adopted on 
November 17, 1999.
    (100) Plan revisions submitted on February 16, 2000 by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa Association of Governments, Maricopa County, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution to Adopt the Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 
(including Exhibit A, 2 pages), adopted on February 14, 2000.
    (B) City of Avondale, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 1711-97; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Avondale, Maricopa County, Arizona, To Implement Measures in 
the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 
Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 14 pages), adopted on September 15, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 1949-99; A Resolution of the Council of the City 
of Avondale, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing Measures in the MAG 
1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Area (including Exhibit A, 7 pages), adopted on February 16, 1999.
    (C) Town of Buckeye, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 15-97; A Resolution of the Town Council of the 
Town of Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, To Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 5 pages), adopted on October 7, 1997.
    (D) Town of Carefree, Arizona.
    (1) Town of Carefree Resolution No. 97-16; A Resolution of the 
Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Carefree, Arizona, To Implement 
Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and 
MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 3 pages), adopted on September 2, 1997.
    (2) Town of Carefree Resolution No. 98-24; A Resolution of the 
Mayor and Common Council of the Town of Carefree, Arizona, To Implement 
Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for 
the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 4 pages), adopted on 
September 1, 1998.
    (3) Town of Carefree Ordinance No. 98-14; An Ordinance of the Town 
of Carefree, Maricopa County, Arizona, Adding Section 10-4 to the Town 
Code Relating to Clean-Burning Fireplaces, Providing Penalties for 
Violations (3 pages), adopted on September 1, 1998.
    (E) Town of Cave Creek, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution R97-28; A Resolution of the Mayor and Town Council 
of the Town of Cave Creek, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing 
Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and 
MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 4 pages), adopted on September 2, 1997.
    (2) Resolution R98-14; A Resolution of the Mayor and Town Council 
of the Town of Cave Creek, Maricopa County, Arizona, To Implement 
Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for 
the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 1 page), adopted on 
December 8, 1998.
    (F) City of Chandler, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 2672; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Chandler, Arizona To Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon 
Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 16 
pages), adopted on August 14, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 2929; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Chandler, Arizona, To Implement Measures in the MAG 1998 
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 9 pages), adopted on October 8, 1998.
    (G) City of El Mirage, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. R97-08-20; Resolution To Implement Measures in 
the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 
Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 8 pages), adopted on August 28, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. R98-08-22; A Resolution of the Mayor and Common 
Council of the City of El Mirage, Arizona, Amending Resolution No. R98-
02-04 To Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate 
Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 5 
pages), adopted on August 27,1998.
    (3) Resolution No. R98-02-04; A Resolution To Implement Measures in 
the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Area (including Exhibit A, 5 pages), adopted on February 
12,1998.
    (H) Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 1997-49; A Resolution of the Common Council of 
the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, Adopting the MAG 1997 Particulate 
Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the 
Maricopa County Area and Committing to Certain Implementation Programs 
(including Exhibit B, 5 pages and cover), adopted on October 2, 1997.
    (2) Town of Fountain Hills Resolution No. 1998-49; Resolution To 
Implement Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for 
PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 7 pages), 
adopted on October 1, 1998. [Incorporation Note: Incorporated materials 
are pages 4 to 10 of the 11-page resolution package; pages 1 and 2 are 
cover sheets with no substantive content and page 11 is a summary of 
measures previously adopted by the Town of Fountain Hills.]
    (I) Town of Gilbert, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 1817; A Resolution of the Common Council of the 
Town of Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona, Authorizing the 
Implementation of the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 
and the MAG Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County 
Area (including 15 pages of attached material), adopted on June 10, 
1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 1864; A Resolution of the Common Council of the 
Town of Gilbert, Arizona, Implementing Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Attachment A, 5 pages), adopted on November 25, 1997. [Incorporation 
note: Attachment A is referred to as Exhibit A in the text of the 
Resolution.]
    (3) Ordinance 1066; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the Town 
of Gilbert, Arizona Amending the Code of Gilbert by Amending Chapter 30 
Environment, by adding New Article II Fireplace Restrictions 
Prescribing Standards for Fireplaces, Woodstoves, and Other Solid-Fuel 
Burning Devices in New Construction; Providing for an Effective Date of 
January 1, 1999; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances; 
Providing for Severability (3 pages), adopted on November 25, 1997.
    (4) Resolution No. 1939: A Resolution of the Common Council of the 
Town of Gilbert, Arizona, Expressing its Commitment to Implement 
Measures in

[[Page 48737]]

the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 1998 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Attachment A, 5 pages), adopted on July 21, 1998. [Incorporation note: 
Attachment A is referred to as Exhibit A in the text of the 
Resolution.]
    (J) City of Glendale, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 3123 New Series; A Resolution of the Council of 
the City of Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing Measures 
in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 
Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 20 pages), adopted on June 10, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 3161 New Series; A Resolution of the Council of 
the City of Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing Measures 
in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the 
Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 6 pages), adopted on October 
28, 1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 3225 New Series; A Resolution of the Council of 
the City of Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing Measures 
in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the 
Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 9 pages), adopted on July 
28, 1998.
    (K) City of Goodyear, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 97-604 Carbon Monoxide Plan; A Resolution of the 
Council of the City of Goodyear, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing 
Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and 
MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 21 pages), adopted on September 9. [Incorporation 
note: Adoption year not given on the resolution but is understood to be 
1997 based on resolution number.]
    (2) Resolution No. 98-645; A Resolution of the Council of the City 
of Goodyear, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing Measures in the MAG 
1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Area (including Attachment III, 7 pages), adopted on July 27, 1998.
    (L) City of Mesa, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 7061; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona, to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious 
Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 13 pages plus index page), adopted on June 23, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 7123; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona, to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Area (including Exhibit A, 10 pages), adopted on December 1, 
1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 7360; A Resolution of the City Council of the 
City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona, to Implement Measures in the 
MAG Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Area (including Exhibit A, 8 pages), adopted on May 3, 1999.
    (4) Ordinance No. 3434; An Ordinance of the City Council of the 
City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona, Relating to Fireplace 
Restrictions Amending Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 Establishing a 
Delayed Effective Date; and Providing Penalties for Violations (3 
pages), adopted on February 2, 1998.
    (M) Town of Paradise Valley, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution Number 913; A Resolution of the Town of Paradise 
Valley, to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate 
Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the 
Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 9 pages), adopted on October 
9, 1997.
    (2) Resolution Number 945; A Resolution of the Mayor and Town 
Council of the Town of Paradise Valley, Arizona, to Implement Measures 
in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the 
Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 5 pages), adopted on July 
23, 1998.
    (3) Ordinance Number 454; An Ordinance of the Town of Paradise 
Valley, Arizona, Relating to Grading and Dust Control, Amending Article 
5-13 of the Town Code and Sections 5-13-1 Through 5-13-5, Providing 
Penalties for Violations and Severability (5 pages), adopted on January 
22, 1998. [Incorporation note: There is an error in the ordinance's 
title, ordinance amended only sections 5-13-1 to 5-13-4; see section 1 
of the ordinance.]
    (4) Ordinance Number 450; An Ordinance of the Town of Paradise 
Valley, Arizona, Adding Section 5-1-7 to the Town Code Relating to 
Clean-Burning Fireplaces, Providing Penalties for Violations (3 pages), 
adopted on December 18, 1997.
    (N) City of Peoria, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 97-37; A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of 
the City of Peoria, Arizona, to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area 
Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibits 
A, 5 pages, and B, 19 pages), adopted on June 17, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 97-113; A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of 
the City of Peoria, Arizona, to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area 
and Directing the Recording of This Resolution with the Maricopa County 
Recorder and Declaring an Emergency (including Exhibit A, 8 pages plus 
index page), adopted on October 21, 1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 98-107; A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of 
the City of Peoria, Arizona, to Approve and Authorize the Acceptance to 
Implement Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for 
PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 7 pages), 
adopted on July 21, 1998.
    (O) City of Phoenix, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 18949; A Resolution Stating the City's Intent to 
Implement Measures to Reduce Air Pollution (including Exhibit A, 19 
pages), adopted on July 2, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 19006; A Resolution Stating the City's Intent to 
Implement Measures to Reduce Air Pollution (including Exhibit A, 13 
pages), adopted on November 19, 1997.
    (3) Ordinance No. G4037; An Ordinance Amending Chapter 39, Article 
2, Section 39-7 of the Phoenix City Code by Adding Subsection G 
Relating to Dust Free Parking Areas; and Amending Chapter 36, Article 
XI, Division I, Section 36-145 of the Phoenix City Code Relating to 
Parking on Non-Dust Free Lots, adopted on July 2, 1997 (5 pages).
    (4) Resolution No. 19141; A Resolution Stating the City's Intent to 
Implement Measures to Reduce Particulate Air Pollution (including 
Exhibit A, 10 pages), adopted on September 9, 1998.
    (5) Ordinance No. G4062; An Ordinance Amending the Phoenix City 
Code By Adding A New Chapter 40 ``Environmental Protections,'' By 
Regulating Fireplaces, Wood Stoves and Other Solid-Fuel Burning Devices 
and Providing that the Provisions of this Ordinance Shall Take Effect 
on December 31, 1998 (5 pages), adopted on December 10, 1997.
    (P) Town of Queen Creek, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution 129-97; A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town 
of Queen Creek, Maricopa County, Arizona to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious 
Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 3 pages), adopted on June 4, 1997.
    (2) Resolution 145-97; A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town 
of

[[Page 48738]]

Queen Creek, Maricopa County, Arizona to Implement Measures in the MAG 
1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Area (including Exhibit A, 1 page), adopted on November 5, 1997.
    (3) Resolution 175-98; A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town 
of Queen Creek, Maricopa County, Arizona to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 9 pages), adopted on September 16, 1998.
    (Q) City of Scottsdale, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 4864; A Resolution of the City of Scottsdale, 
Maricopa County, Arizona, To Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon 
Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area: Stating the Council's 
Intent to Implement Certain Control Measures Contained in that Plan 
(including Exhibit A, 21 pages), adopted on August 4, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 4942; Resolution of the Scottsdale City Council 
To Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for 
PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 13 pages), 
adopted on December 1, 1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 5100; A Resolution of the City of Scottsdale, 
Maricopa County, Arizona, To Strengthen Particulate Dust Control and 
Air Pollution Measures in the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit 
A, 10 pages), adopted on December 1, 1998.
    (R) City of Surprise, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 97-29; A Resolution to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious 
Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 4 pages), adopted on June 12, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 97-67; A Resolution to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Area (including Exhibit A, 3 pages), adopted on October 23, 
1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 98-51; A Resolution to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Area (including Exhibit A, 6 pages), adopted on September 10, 
1998.
    (s) City of Tempe, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 97.39; Resolution to Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious 
Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 18 pages), adopted on June 12, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 97.71, Resolution of the Council of the City of 
Tempe Stating Its Intent to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 6 pages), adopted on November 13, 1997.
    (3) Resolution No. 98.42, Resolution of the Council of the City of 
Tempe Implementing Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate 
Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 8 
pages), adopted on September 10, 1998.
    (T) City of Tolleson, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 788, A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council 
of the City of Tolleson, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing 
Measures in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 1997 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon 
Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 12 
pages), adopted on June 10, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 808, A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council 
of the City of Tolleson, Maricopa County, Arizona, Implementing 
Measures in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 1998 Serious 
Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A), adopted on July 28, 1998.
    (3) Ordinance No. 376, N.S., An Ordinance of the City of Tolleson, 
Maricopa County, Arizona, Amending Chapter 7 of the Tolleson City Code 
by Adding a New Section 7-9, Prohibiting the Installation or 
Construction of a Fireplace or Wood Stove Unless It Meets the Standards 
Set Forth Herein (including Exhibit A, 4 pages), adopted on December 8, 
1998.
    (U) Town of Wickenburg, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 1308, Resolution To Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious 
Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 4 pages), adopted on August 18, 1997.
    (V) Town of Youngtown, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution No. 97-15, Resolution To Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1997 Serious Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area 
Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 
4 pages), adopted on September 18, 1997.
    (2) Resolution No. 98-15: Resolution To Implement Measures in the 
MAG 1998 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Area (including Exhibit A, 8 pages), adopted on August 20, 1998.
    (3) Resolution No 98-05: Resolution Stating Intent to Work 
Cooperatively with Maricopa County to Control the Generation of 
Fugitive Dust Pollution (including Exhibit A, 2 pages), adopted 
February 19, 1998.
    (W) Maricopa County, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1A998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide 
Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 16 pages), 
adopted on June 25, 1997. [Incorporation note: ``1A998'' error in the 
original.]
    (2) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 9 pages), adopted on November 19, 1997.
    (3) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 10 pages), adopted on February 17, 1999.
    (4) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1999 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 10 pages), adopted on December 15, 1999.
    (X) Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1997 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 Serious Area Carbon Monoxide 
Plan for the Maricopa County Area (including Exhibit A, 24 pages plus 
index page), adopted on June 20, 1997.
    (2) Resolution to Implement Measures in the MAG 1998 Serious Area 
Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area (including 
Exhibit A, 8 pages), adopted on July 17, 1998.
    (Y) Regional Public Transportation Authority, Phoenix, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution 9701: Resolution to Implement Measures in 
the MAG 1997 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 and MAG 1998 
Serious Area Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 23 pages), adopted on June 12, 1997.
    (Z) State of Arizona.
    (1) Arizona Revised Statute Section 49-542(F)(7) as added in 
Section 31 of Arizona Senate Bill 1002, 42nd Legislative Session, 7th 
Special Session (1996), approved by the Governor July 18, 1996.
    (101) Plan revisions submitted on March 2, 2000, by the Governor's 
designee.

[[Page 48739]]

    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.
    (1) Rule 310 revised on February 16, 2000.
    (2) Rule 310.01 adopted on February 16, 2000.
    (3) Appendix C revised on February 16, 2000.
    (102) Plan revisions submitted on January 8, 2002, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (1) Maricopa County, Arizona.
    (1) Resolution to Update Control Measure 6 in the Revised MAG 1999 
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Area 
(including Exhibit A, 2 pages), adopted on December 19, 2001.
* * * * *

    3. Section 52.123 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.123  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (j) The Administrator is approving the following elements of the 
Metropolitan Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area Serious Area PM-10 Plan 
as contained in Revised Maricopa Association of Governments 1999 
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 
Nonattainment Area, February 2000, submitted February 16, 2000 and 
Maricopa County PM-10 Serious Area State Implementation Plan Revision, 
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP), ADEQ, June 2000, 
submitted on June 13, 2001:
    (1) 1994 Base year emission inventory pursuant to Clean Air Act 
section 172(c)(3).
    (2) The Provisions for implementing on all significant source 
categories reasonably available control measures (except for 
agricultural sources) and best available control measures for the 
annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS pursuant to section Clean Air Act 
sections 189(a)(1)(c) and 189(b)(1)(b)).
    (3) The demonstration of the impracticability of attainment by 
December 31, 2001 for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    (4) The demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious 
alternative date practicable for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS 
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    (5) The demonstration of reasonable further progress for the annual 
and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 172(c)(2).
    (6) The quantitative milestones for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 189(c).
    (7) The inclusion of the most stringent measures for the annual and 
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 188(e).
    (8) The demonstration that major sources of PM-10 precursors do not 
contribute significantly to violations for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 189(e).
    (9) The contingency measures for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS 
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 172(c)(9).
    (10) The transportation conformity budget for the annual and 24-
hour PM-10 NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 176(c).
    (11) The provisions for assuring adequate resources, personnel, and 
legal authority to carry out the plan for the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
NAAQS pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).


Sec.  52.124  [Amended]

    4. Section 52.124 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b) and (c).

[FR Doc. 02-18171 Filed 7-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P