Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment Area; Carbon Monoxide

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AZR92-0004; FRL-5503-8]

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment

Area; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the Phoenix, Arizona carbon monoxide

(CO) nonattainment area has not attained the CO national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) by the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated attainment

date for moderate nonattainment areas, December 31, 1995. This proposed

finding is based on EPA's review of monitored air quality data for

compliance with the CO NAAQS. If EPA takes final action on this

proposed finding, the Phoenix CO nonattainment area will be

reclassified by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area. The

intended effect of such a

[[Page 21416]]

reclassification would be to allow the State additional time to submit

a new State implementation plan (SIP) providing for attainment of the

CO NAAQS by no later than December 31, 2000, the CAA attainment

deadline for serious CO areas.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by June 10,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Wallace Woo, Chief,

Plans Development Section, A-2-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

The rulemaking docket for this notice, Docket No. 96-AZ-PL-002, may

be inspected and copied at the following location between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying

parts of the docket.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics

Division, Plans Development Section, A-2-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

Copies of the docket are also available at the State office listed

below: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 North

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, A-2-2, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Concerning Designation and

Classifications

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) were enacted on November

15, 1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each carbon monoxide

(CO) area designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990

Amendments, such as the Phoenix area, was designated nonattainment by

operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section

186(a) of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section

107(d) was also classified by operation of law as either ``moderate''

or ``serious'' depending on the severity of the area's air quality

problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per

million (ppm), such as the Phoenix area, were classified as moderate.

These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in

40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

States containing areas that were classified as moderate

nonattainment by operation of law under section 107(d) were required to

submit State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to attain the CO

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 1995.1

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

\1\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section

187(a) of the Act and differ depending on whether the area's design

value is below or above 12.7 ppm. The Phoenix area has a design

value below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR part 81.303.

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

B. Reclassification to a Serious Nonattainment Area

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and

186(b)(2) of the CAA, of determining, within six months of the

applicable attainment date whether the Phoenix area has attained the CO

NAAQS. Under section 186(b)(2)(A), if EPA finds that the area has not

attained the CO NAAQS, it is reclassified as serious by operation of

law. Pursuant to section 186(b)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA must publish a

notice in the Federal Register identifying areas which failed to attain

the standard and therefore must be reclassified as serious by operation

of law.

EPA makes attainment determinations for CO nonattainment areas

based upon whether an area has two years (or eight consecutive

quarters) of clean air quality data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of the Act

states that the attainment determination must be based upon an area's

``air quality as of the attainment date.'' Consequently, EPA will

determine whether an area's air quality has met the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1995 based upon the most recent two years of air quality

data entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)

data base.

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

\2\ See generally memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, Director, Air

Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air

Office Directors, entitled ``Criteria for Granting Attainment Date

Extensions, Making Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of

Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment Areas,''

October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).

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

EPA determines a CO nonattainment area's air quality status in

accordance with 40 CFR part 50.8 and EPA policy.3 EPA has

promulgated two NAAQS for CO: an 8-hour average concentration and a 1-

hour average concentration. Because there were no violations of the 1-

hour standard in the Phoenix area in 1994 and 1995, this notice

addresses only the air quality status of the Phoenix area with respect

to the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour CO NAAQS requires that not more than

one non-overlapping 8-hour average per year per monitoring site can

exceed 9.0 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and they are

not considered exceedances). The second exceedance of the 8-hour CO

NAAQS at a given monitoring site within the same year constitutes a

violation of the CO NAAQS.

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

\3\ See memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical

Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations'', June 18, 1990. See also Shaver memorandum.

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

C. Attainment Date Extensions

If a state does not have the two consecutive years of clean data

necessary to show attainment of the NAAQS, it may apply, under section

186(a)(4) of the CAA, for a one year attainment date extension. EPA

may, in its discretion, grant such an extension if the state has: (1)

Complied with the requirements and commitments pertaining to the

applicable implementation plan for the area, and (2) the area has

measured no more than one exceedance of the CO NAAQS at any monitoring

site in the nonattainment area in the year preceding the extension

year. Under section 186(a)(4), EPA may grant up to two such extensions

if these conditions have been met.

II. Today's Action

By today's action, EPA is proposing to find that the Phoenix CO

nonattainment area has failed to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS

by December 31, 1995. This proposed finding is based upon air quality

data showing violations of the CO NAAQS during 1994 and 1995.

A. Ambient Air Monitoring Data

The following table lists each of the monitoring sites in the

Phoenix CO nonattainment area where the 8-hour CO NAAQS has been

exceeded during 1994 and 1995.

[[Page 21417]]

Exceedances of 8-hour CO NAAQS for Phoenix Nonattainment Area

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

1994 1995

Monitoring site ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concentration Date Concentration Date

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

3847 W. Earll Drive................. 9.6 ppm.................... 12/3

(1)None recorded.

10.0 ppm................... 12/17 .........................

1845 E. Roosevelt Street............ 9.7 ppm.................... 12/17

(1)None recorded.

2710 N.W. Grand Avenue.............. ........................... .......

(1)None recorded

9.89 ppm................... 11/23

10.23 ppm.................. 12/2

9.5 ppm.................... 12/3

3315 W. Indian School Road.......... 9.7 ppm.................... 12/2 10.1 ppm................... 12/2

10.4 ppm................... 12/3 9.5 ppm.................... 12/3

10.5 ppm................... 12/17

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

1. 1994 Data

In a March 1995 letter to EPA,4 Arizona requested that the

1994 exceedances of the CO NAAQS at the West Indian School Road

monitoring site be ``flagged'' as affected by ``exceptional events'' as

those terms are defined in EPA guidance.5 In the same letter, the

State requested that the December 17, 1994 exceedance at the West Earll

Drive monitoring site be invalidated because that monitor had failed an

audit. In response, EPA requested more information to evaluate the

exceptional event claims at the West Indian School Road monitoring site

and disapproved the State's request to invalidate the December 17, 1994

exceedance at the West Earll Drive monitoring site.6

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

\4\ See letter from Edward Z. Fox, Director, Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality to David P. Howekamp, Director, Air &

Toxics Division, EPA, Region IX, March 31, 1995.

\5\ EPA has established criteria and procedures to identify or

flag data which may be affected by exceptional events (e.g.,

structural fires or industrial accidents) in its ``Guideline on the

Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional

Events,'' July 1986. Under the flagging system, state and local air

pollution control agencies are responsible for initially identifying

and documenting data influenced by exceptional events. These

agencies are expected to develop the appropriate background

information necessary to support a decision to flag an individual

piece of data. The agencies must then submit the information to EPA

for concurrence. Flagging a piece of data or data set does not

exclude that data from being used for nonattainment designations or

classifications. The actual exclusion would only be allowed if, as a

result of a public review process, the responsible government

agency, in this case EPA, determines that the data are inappropriate

for use in a specific regulatory activity.

\6\ See letter from David P. Howekamp, Director, EPA, to Russell

F. Rhoades, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

November 27, 1995.

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

In response to EPA's request for more information, on March 25,

1996, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted

to EPA additional documentation, prepared by the Maricopa Association

of Governments (MAG), on the West Indian School Road exceedances.7

On April 12, 1996, EPA responded to ADEQ's submittal by concluding that

MAG's claims that these 1994 exceedances were affected by exceptional

events (unusual traffic conditions and air stagnation conditions) were

not supported by the submitted documentation. EPA stated that minor

traffic accidents are common in any metropolitan area and that air

stagnation conditions routinely occur during the CO season in the

Phoenix area. See letter from David P. Howekamp, EPA, to Russell

Rhoades, ADEQ, April 12, 1996.

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

\7\ See letter from Russell F. Rhoades, ADEQ, to David Howekamp,

EPA, March 25, 1996.

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

Furthermore, as demonstrated in the table above, even if the West

Indian School Road exceedances were deemed to be exceptional events and

ultimately rejected for use in the Phoenix area's attainment status

determination, there would still be two exceedances in 1994 at West

Earll Drive since EPA disapproved the State's request to invalidate the

December 17, 1994 exceedance. As discussed in section I.B. of this

notice, the second exceedance at a given monitoring site in the same

year constitutes a violation. Therefore, based on the 1994 data alone,

EPA has concluded that the Phoenix area cannot be deemed to have

attained the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.

2. 1995 Data

As demonstrated by the above table, the monitoring data indicate

that Phoenix area recorded violations of the CO NAAQS in 1995 at Grand

Avenue (three exceedances) and West Indian School Road (two

exceedances). To date, the State has made no claims to EPA that the

exceedances recorded at these monitoring sites are invalid for the

purpose of determining the area's attainment status. However, EPA is

aware that there have been ongoing communications between ADEQ and MAG

regarding potential exceptional events claims for all except one of

these exceedances (December 3, 1995 at West Indian School Road).8

MAG has recommended that ADEQ flag all 1995 exceedances at Grand Avenue

and the December 2, 1995 exceedance at West Indian School Road as being

affected by traffic accidents, freeway ramp closures, meteorological

considerations, and other events. In response, ADEQ stated that in

order to meet EPA's Exceptional Event Guideline, MAG would have to

submit appropriate documentation demonstrating a causal relationship

between the events and measured air quality, and referred MAG to EPA's

November 27, 1995 letter on the appropriate documentation regarding

traffic accidents. EPA concurs with ADEQ's assessment and refers the

reader for further detail to the correspondence between MAG and ADEQ.

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

\8\ See e.g., letter from Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to Russell F.

Rhoades, ADEQ, February 22, 1996; letter from Nancy Wrona, ADEQ, to

John DeBolske, MAG, March 29, 1996.

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

Based on the MAG/ADEQ correspondence, EPA believes that the 1995

exceedances are valid for use in determining the attainment status of

the Phoenix area. EPA is therefore proposing to find, based on the 1994

and 1995 CO violations discussed above, that the area did not attain

the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995. Similarly, because of the 1995

violations, EPA does not believe that the area could qualify for a one

year extension of the attainment deadline.9

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

\9\ On March 11, 1996, MAG requested that ADEQ flag as affected

by exceptional events (unusual traffic conditions and meteorological

considerations) CO NAAQS exceedances on January 10 and 13, 1996 at

Grand Avenue. See letter from Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to Russell F.

Rhoades, ADEQ, March 11, 1996, attached to letter from Russell F.

Rhoades to David Howekamp, March 25, 1996. In its March 25, 1996

letter to EPA, ADEQ submitted documentation from MAG in support of

these claims. These 1996 exceedances, while lending additional

support to EPA's proposed finding of failure to attain based on the

1994 and 1995 data, are relevant to today's proposal in only one

respect. If EPA were to conclude that the Phoenix area qualified for

a one year extension of the attainment date, the 1996 exceedances,

if validated as a NAAQS violation, would prevent the area from

obtaining a second one year extension. As stated above, EPA does not

believe the Phoenix area can qualify for the first extension.

Moreover, EPA does not believe that the 1996 exceedances were

affected by exceptional events. See letter from David P. Howekamp,

EPA to Russell Rhoades, ADEQ, April 12, 1996. Therefore, the 1996

data are not addressed further in this notice.

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

[[Page 21418]]

B. SIP Requirements for Serious CO Areas

CO nonattainment areas reclassified as serious under section

186(b)(2) of the CAA are required to submit, within 18 months of the

area's reclassification, SIP revisions demonstrating attainment of the

CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,

2000. The serious CO area planning requirements are set forth in

section 187(b) of the CAA. EPA has issued two general guidance

documents related to the planning requirements for CO SIPs. The first

is the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' that sets forth EPA's preliminary

views on how the Agency intends to act on SIPs submitted under Title I

of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070

(April 28, 1992). The second general guidance document for CO SIPs

issued by EPA is the ``Technical Support Document to Aid the States

with the Development of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans,''

July 1992.

If the Phoenix area is reclassified to serious, the State would

have to submit a SIP revision to EPA that, in addition to the

attainment demonstration, includes: (1) a forecast of vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year and provisions

for annual updates of these forecasts; (2) adopted contingency

measures; and (3) adopted transportation control measures and

strategies to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT or

number of vehicle trips. See CAA sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),

187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Upon reclassification, contingency

measures in the moderate area plan for the Phoenix area must be

implemented.

III. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to

determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore

should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the

requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria identified in

section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may ``have

an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely

affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.''

The Agency has determined that the finding of failure to attain

proposed today would result in none of the effects identified in

section 3(f). Under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure

to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon

air quality considerations and must occur by operation of law in light

of certain air quality conditions. They do not, in-and-of-themselves,

impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition,

because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to

the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are

automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered

by air quality values, findings of failure to attain and

reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact

on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

As discussed in section III of this notice, findings of failure to

attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas under section

186(b)(2) of the CAA do not in-and-of-themselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's proposed action does

not have a significant impact on small entities.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must assess whether various actions undertaken in association with

proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to

State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix; Carbon Monoxide 14

EPA believes, as discussed above, that the proposed finding of

failure to attain and reclassification of the Phoenix nonattainment

area are factual determinations based upon air quality considerations

and must occur by operation of law and, hence, do not impose any

Federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon monoxide.

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

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-11739 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P