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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ059-0005; FRL-5933-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County Environmental Services

Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Maricopa County's Ordinance P-7,

Maricopa County Trip Reduction Ordinance, as a revision to the Arizona

State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA's final approval of this proposed

rule will incorporate it into the federally approved SIP. EPA has

evaluated the rule and is proposing to approve it under provisions of

the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national

primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Frances Wicher, Office of Air

Planning, (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the ordinance and EPA's evaluation of the ordinance is

available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal

business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Office Of Air Planning

(AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Maricopa County is designated nonattainment and classified as a

serious area for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter.

See 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997), 61 FR 39343 (July 29, 1996) and 60

FR 30046 (June 7, 1995). Emissions from motor vehicles contribute

substantially to exceedances of the national ambient air quality

standards for all three pollutants in the Maricopa area. Over the years

the State has adopted a comprehensive motor vehicle emission control

program including a number of transportation control measures to

address this problem.

In 1988, the Arizona legislature adopted a trip reduction program

for Maricopa County (see 1988 Session, Arizona House Bill (H.B.) 2206,

section 23, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 49,

Chapter 3, Article 8) and directed Maricopa County to implement the

program.

The State submitted this program in its 1988 Carbon Monoxide Plan

for the Maricopa County nonattainment area and EPA approved the program

as part of its approval of that plan. 53 FR 30224 (August 10, 1988) and

40 CFR 52.120(c)(65)(i)(A)(l). In 1990, EPA's approval of the 1988 CO

plan was vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Delaney v.

EPA, 898 F. 2d 687 (1990). EPA subsequently restored its approval of

the control measures in that plan, including the trip reduction

program. 56 FR 3219 (January 29, 1991).

Since 1988, the legislature has revised the trip reduction program

several times to tighten the trip reduction goals, decrease the

threshold size of employers subject to the program from 100 to 50

employees, extend the program to schools, and to otherwise revise the

program. In addition, the legislature directed Maricopa County to

``make and enforce'' an ordinance consistent with A.R.S. 49-588

(Requirements for major employers). A.R.S. 49-474.01(B) (1993 6th

Special Session, H.B. 2001, section 24). On May 26, 1994, in compliance

with the statute, the County subsequently adopted Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department (MCESD), Ordinance No. P-7 Maricopa

County Trip Reduction Ordinance.

II. Maricopa County Trip Reduction Ordinance

MCESD Ordinance No. P-7 was submitted as a SIP revision by the

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to EPA on August 31, 1995.

The submittal became complete by operation of law under CAA section

110(k)(1)(B) on February 29, 1996.

The ordinance requires employers with 50 or more employees or

schools with 50 or more employees or students to, among other things,

conduct and submit annually an employee/student commute survey (section

7(A)); disseminate information on alternative modes and other trip

reduction measures (section 7(E)); develop and submit a trip reduction

plan designed to meet target reductions in single-occupant-vehicle

(SOV) trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (section 7(C)); and

implement the trip reduction plan (section 7 (B) and (D)).

Failure to meet trip reduction goals does not constitute a

violation of the ordinance if the employer or school is attempting in

good faith to meet the goals (section 13(C)(2)); however, failure to

comply with other specific requirements of the ordinance, such as the

failure to submit or to implement an approved trip reduction plan, do

constitute violations of the ordinance and are subject to penalties as

provided in A.R.S. 49-593(D).

The Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program is staffed by the

Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program Staff under MCESD. The 1996

annual report on the program states that in 1996, 2,501 employment

sites were processed, more than 570,000 employees and students were

surveyed, and more than 1,500 trip reduction plans were reviewed. The

report demonstrates that the program has been effective in reducing

both SOV trips and VMT in the Maricopa area. See Annual Report 1996,

Maricopa County Trip Reduction Program, MCESD.

III. Clean Air Act Requirements

In determining the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the

rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

There are currently no Clean Air Act requirements mandating trip

reduction programs (also known as employer commute options or ECO

programs). The CAA Amendments of 1990 required severe and above ozone

nonattainment areas and serious CO nonattainment areas to adopt ECO

programs (see sections 182(d)(1)(B) and 187(b)(2), respectively, of the

Clean Air Act as amended on November 15, 1990). However, prior to the

July 1996 reclassification of the Maricopa area from a moderate to a

serious CO nonattainment area, Congress passed legislation amending

section 182(d)(1)(B) to make the adoption and implementation of ECO

programs voluntary (Public Law 104-70, Sec. 1, 109 Stat. 773, signed

into law on December 23, 1995). Therefore, to be approvable, the

ordinance need only meet the general SIP provisions of CAA section

110(a) (1) and (l) and EPA's regulations and policies implementing

these provisions.

[[Page 64795]]

IV. EPA Evaluation

EPA has evaluated the submitted ordinance and has determined that

it is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Specifically, the ordinance is enforceable and there is evidence of

sufficient personnel, funding, and authority under State law for

Maricopa County to carry out the program. Finally, this ordinance is

more stringent than the existing SIP-approved trip reduction program in

both applicability (50 employee threshold versus 100 employee threshold

in the SIP-approved rule) and in the overall trip and VMT reduction

goals. As a result, this ordinance, if approved into the SIP, will

strenghten the SIP and not interfere with any applicable requirement

concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other

applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 110(l). Therefore, EPA

is proposing to approve MCESD's Ordinance P-7, Maricopa County Trip

Reduction Ordinance (May 26, 1994) under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA

as meeting the requirements of section 110 (a) and (l).

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

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

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that it does

not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,

preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry

into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act

forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union

Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Carbon monoxide, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

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

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-32185 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P