Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan and Designation of Area For Air Quality Planning Purposes for Carbon Monoxide; State of Arizona

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ 072-0085; FRL-6511-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan and Designation of

Area For Air Quality Planning Purposes for Carbon Monoxide; State of

Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

[[Page 70661]]

SUMMARY: EPA is reproposing to redesignate the Tucson Air Planning Area

(TAPA) to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and to approve a maintenance plan that will

insure that the area remains in attainment.

EPA originally proposed to redesignate the TAPA to attainment for

CO on July 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 39258) and is reproposing to provide the

public with an opportunity to comment on additional information

submitted by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) in support of

the redesignation and on several other new issues that were raised

subsequent to publication of the original proposal.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be postmarked on or

before January 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office, (Air-

2), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

The technical support document and copies of other documents

relevant to this action can be found in the docket for this proposal.

The docket can be reviewed or copied during normal business hours at

the following locations between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on weekdays. You

may need to pay a fee for copying. US Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1159, Pima

County Department of Environmental Quality, 130 West Congress, Tucson,

Arizona 85701, (520) 740-3340.

Electronic Availability: This document is also available as an

electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/

region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), Air Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1159,

email: kapl[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 6, 1997 Arizona submitted a request to redesignate the

CO Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) nonattainment area to attainment for

the NAAQS and for approval of a maintenance plan. EPA proposed approval

of the request and maintenance plan on July 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 39258)

and provided for a 30-day public comment period.

In its original proposal, EPA found that the TAPA met all the

redesignation requirements specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), namely

The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS,

The area had met all relevant requirements under section

110 and part D of the Act,

The air quality improvement was due to permanent and

enforceable emission reductions, and

The area had a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175A of the Act.

With regard to the requirement for a fully approved maintenance

plan, since the TAPA had elected to take advantage of the Limited

Maintenance Plan (LMP) option provided for in EPA guidance,\1\ EPA

reviewed the TAPA LMP and found that the TAPA was eligible to use that

option and that the plan met the requirements specified in the EPA LMP

guidance. For a full discussion of EPA's evaluation of the TAPA

redesignation request and the maintenance plan, the reader is referred

to the original EPA proposal and to the Technical Support Document

(TSD) accompanying that proposal notice which may be found in the

docket.

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

\1\ Memorandum entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph W. Paisie,

Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina, October 6, 1995.

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

EPA received one set of comments during the 30-day comment period

provided under the original proposal. Those comments came from the

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) in a letter dated

August 21, 1998. EPA considered all of the comments from ACLPI and,

when it takes final action, will reply in detail to each of them and to

any public comments that may be received in response to the additional

issues contained in this reproposal.

However, EPA believed that additional information was required to

respond to one of ACLPI's comments which questioned the eligibility of

the TAPA for the LMP option. The LMP option rests on the assumption

that areas qualifying for the option will not experience so much growth

in the maintenance period that a violation of the CO NAAQs would

result. ACLPI questioned whether the projected growth in the TAPA

rendered it ineligible to use the LMP option. EPA therefore requested

additional information from the PAG relating to CO emissions

projections for the area for a 10-year maintenance period extending

through 2010. EPA received that information in a letter from PAG dated

June 18, 1999. The supplementary information contained in that letter

is being presented for public comment in section II of today's document

along with additional issues that have arisen since the original

proposal.

PAG provided growth projections for CO mobile source emissions,

population, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). EPA considered the growth

and CO emissions projections provided by the PAG and the summary of the

area's design values over the past few years and believes that the

data, in conjunction with the pre-violation action triggers and the

contingency measures provided for in the TAPA maintenance plan, provide

reasonable assurance that the area will not violate the NAAQS during

the maintenance period. EPA is therefore reproposing the redesignation

of the TAPA to attainment for the CO NAAQS and for approval of the

maintenance plan on the grounds that the area meets the requirements

for redesignation specified under the Clean Air Act and that it is

qualified to utilize the LMP option.

II. New Issues For Public Comment

The issues described below are being presented for public comment

in this reproposal. EPA is not re-opening the comment period for any

other issues relating to the TAPA redesignation request.

A. Additional Information Received From PAG

A summary of the additional information provided by PAG is

contained in Tables I and II below. The full text of the PAG letter is

contained in the TSD accompanying this document.

[[Page 70662]]

Table 1.--PAG Projections for CO Mobile Emissions and VMT

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

CO mobile

emissions

Year (population) (tpd) tons per VMT Population

day

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

1990............................................................ 444.8 15,491,995 666,880

1995............................................................ .............. 17,915,850 766,172

1999 (2000)..................................................... 325.8 20,243,419 854,329

2003 (2005)..................................................... 325.1 22,873,378 943,795

2010............................................................ 367.2 27,286,950 1,031,623

2020............................................................ 428.7 32,760,981 1,206,244

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

Table 2.--Ambient Air Concentrations--1990-1998

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

Ambient Air

Year Concentration

---------------------------------------------------------------\2\------

1990.................................................. 6.5

1991.................................................. 5.7

1992.................................................. 5.8

1993.................................................. 6.0

1994.................................................. 5.5

1995.................................................. 5.9

1996.................................................. 5.1

1997.................................................. 4.4

1998.................................................. 4.0

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

\2\ As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air

quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10

milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to

be exceeded more than once per year.

The information in Table 1 indicates that despite projected

increases in population and VMT for the years 1990 through 2010, CO

emissions drop from 444.8 tons per day in 1990 to 367.2 in 2010 rising

again to a projected 428.7 tons per day in 2020, but still below the

1990 figure. PAG also provided information, shown in Table 2, on

ambient air CO concentrations for the years 1990 through 1998. The

figure for ambient air CO concentrations, or design value, is the

highest of the second highest eight-hour concentrations observed at any

site in the area and is the value on which the determination of

attainment or nonattainment is based. The data here indicates that the

design value for the TAPA for 1993-1995 was 6.0 or 67% of the NAAQS

standard for CO. The design value for the years 1996 through 1998

dropped to 5.1 or 57% of the NAAQS standard.

EPA attributes the downward trend of ambient CO levels in the TAPA

in spite of the growth in VMT and population to several factors.

Current control measures are having a positive effect that exceeds the

negative effects of growth. Those control measures include the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control program, the State's winter oxyfuels program and

the State Vehicle Emissions inspection (VEIP) program. The downward

trend of CO mobile source emissions despite growth in VMT and

population that has been experienced in the TAPA is consistent with

what EPA has been observing in other areas of the country. For example,

the Colorado Springs, Colorado area, a moderate CO nonattainment area

that was redesignated to attainment for CO in August 1999 (64 FR

46279), provided data showing a decrease in CO emissions from 264.20

tons per day in 1993 to a projected 173.22 tons per day in 2010,

despite a projected increase in population in the same period from

434,324 to 481,013 and a projected increase in VMT from 8,813,543 to

13,076,951. Looking ahead, other factors that are likely to contribute

to the downward trend of CO mobile source emissions in the future

include the National Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) program and the Tier 2

emissions standards for new cars.

EPA believes that the following comprise additional safeguards

against the possibility of a violation of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA

during the maintenance period:

The pre-violation action triggers contained in the TAPA

LMP which set in motion a process designed to forestall a future

violation of the CO NAAQS.

The design values for the TAPA listed in Table II which

were at 57% of the CO NAAQS standard for the years 1996-1998, provide

an ample margin of safety and time to take action in the event of a

possible violation of the CO NAAQS in the future.

In summary, based on the information contained in the TAPA

redesignation request and LMP and the additional information provided

by PAG, EPA finds that the TAPA qualifies for the LMP option and meets

the assumptions of that option: (1) that an area beginning the

maintenance period at or below 85% of exceedance levels will continue

to meet the standard for another ten years and (2) that it is

unreasonable to expect that an area qualifying for the LMP option will

experience so much growth in the maintenance period that a violation of

the CO NAAQS would result.

B. Proposed Approval of SIP Revisions Submitted After Publication of

the Original Proposal

Table III below provides a summary of the Arizona statutes that

were amended after the publication of the original redesignation

proposal.

[[Page 70663]]

Table 3

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

Arizona statutes

SIP revision date involved Provisions

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

August 11, 1998............... A.R.S. 49-401 and Revised these

49-406. statutes to expand

the authority of the

State and local

certified

metropolitan

planning

organizations to

develop plans and to

implement and

enforce control

measures for

maintenance areas.

September 1, 1999............. A.R.S. 41-796.01 Clarifies the

41-2121, 49- applicability of

401.01, 49-402, control measures to

49-404. Area B (Tucson Air

Planning Area)

following EPA

approval of the TAPA

as a maintenance

area.

September 1, 1999............. A.R.S. 41- Continues the State's

3009.01, 49- vehicle emissions

541.01, 49-542, inspection program

49-545, 49-557, through December 31,

49-573, 41-803, 2008.

401.01.

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

In the original redesignation proposal published July 22, 1998, EPA

proposed to approve Arizona's request for redesignation to attainment

for the TAPA if, prior to the final action, ADEQ submitted a SIP

revision amending Arizona statutes 49-401 and 49.406. EPA believed

these amendments were necessary in order to expand the authority of

State and local certified metropolitan planning organizations to

develop plans and to implement and enforce control measures in

attainment as well as nonattainment areas. Prior to the amendments, the

statutes referred only to nonattainment areas. Amend- ments to A.R.S.

49-401 and 49-406 were signed into law on June 2, 1998 and were

received as SIP revisions on August 11, 1998.

Subsequent to the adoption of amendments to A.R.S. 49-401 and 49-

406, other sections of Arizona statutes were found that needed to be

revised to ensure continued implementation of committed SIP control

measures following redesignation. A SIP revision received on September

9, 1999 contains amendments to various Arizona statutes (1) expanding

the definition of Tucson from a CO ``non-attainment area'' to a CO

``nonattainment/maintenance'' area and (2) amending various statutes

relating to the State's Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP)

extending the expiration date of that program from 2001 to 2008.

With regard to the VEIP sunset date of 2008, which is two years

short of the requirement for a ten-year maintenance period, in a letter

to EPA, dated August 23, 1998, ADEQ states that Arizona Revised

Statutes 41-2955 limits to ten years the existence of an agency before

it undergoes a sunset review and therefore the VEIP has been extended

for the maximum time allowed under this statute, i.e., ten years. The

letter supplies a recent history of legislative changes to the VEIP,

concluding that ``The VEIP has consistently received support for

necessary program updates from the Legislature''. EPA therefore

believes that, on the basis of this legislative history, it is

reasonable to assume that the program will be extended when it expires

in 2008. The full text of the letter from ADEQ is attached to the TSD

accompanying this document which is available at the addresses noted

above.

C. Proposed Removal of Existing SIP Disapprovals

EPA is proposing to remove the Agency's disapprovals (56 FR 5459,

February 11, 1991) of the attainment demonstration and contingency

measures that were contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP revision for

Pima County. Those disapprovals were based on the finding of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals on March 1, 1990 in Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d

687 (9th Cir. 1990) that the Arizona plans for Maricopa and Pima

Counties did not fully comply with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977

and with EPA guidance issued pursuant to that law. See 4 FR 7182

(January 21, 1981).

EPA is proposing to remove the disapproval of the attainment

demonstration contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP on the grounds that

the maintenance demonstration provided by the TAPA in the LMP supplants

that attainment demonstration. The maintenance demonstration in the LMP

shows that there has been no exceedance of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA for

the years 1993 through 1995. In addition, data from AIRS indicates that

there has been no exceedance of the CO NAAQS from 1995 to the present.

Although under the LMP option there is no requirement to project

emissions over the maintenance period, the TAPA maintenance plan and

the additional information provided by PAG show that the area has

attained the CO NAAQS and will continue at or below the standard for

the ten-year maintenance period.

EPA is also proposing to remove the disapproval of the contingency

measures contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP revision on the grounds

that the contingency provisions in the TAPA Limited Maintenance Plan

supplant those measures. The contingency plan included in the TAPA

maintenance plan identifies the measures which would be triggered by

specified events and provides a schedule and procedure for adoption and

implementation of the measures.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

A. New Proposals

1. SIP Revisions: EPA is proposing to approve the following SIP

revisions containing amendments to various Arizona statutes.

SIP revision submitted August 11, 1998 containing

amendments to A.R.S. 49-401 and 49-406: These statutory amendments

expand authority of State and local certified metropolitan planning

organizations to develop plans and to implement and enforce control

measures for attainment as well as maintenance areas as required by

Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA.

SIP revisions submitted to EPA on September 1, 1999

containing amendments to the following Arizona statutes: A.R.S. 41-

796.01, 41-2121, 49-401.01, 49-402-402, 49-404, 49-454, and 49-541.

These amendments, which were signed into law on May 18, 1999 insure

continued implementation of the control measures contained in these

statutes following redesignation to maintenance.

SIP revision submitted to EPA on September 1, 1999

containing amendments to Arizona Statutes 41-3009.01, 49-541.01, 49-

542, 49-545, 49-557, 49-573, 41-803, and 41-401.01 relating to the

continued implementation of the State's Vehicle Emissions Inspection

Program (VEIP) through December 31, 2008.

2. EPA is proposing to remove the Agency's disapprovals (56 FR

5459, February 11, 1991) of the attainment demonstration and

contingency measures that were contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP

revision for Pima County on the grounds that they have been supplanted

by the maintenance demonstration and contingency plan

[[Page 70664]]

contained in the area's Limited Maintenance Plan.

B. Reproposals

1. EPA is reproposing to approve the TAPA CO maintenance plan

because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175A of the CAA

and the requirements of the LMP option contained in EPA guidance of

October 6, 1995.

2. EPA is reproposing to approve the Emissions Inventory for the

base year 1994 contained in the LMP as meeting the requirements of

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

3. EPA is reproposing to approve the amendments to State

Legislation A.R.S. 41-2083, 41-2122 and 41-2125 relating to the State's

oxyfuels program in Area B, the Tucson area, including standards for

liquid fuels (A.R.S.

41-2083, standards for oxygenated fuel, volatility exemptions

(A.R.S. 41-2122) and oxygen content in the sale of gasoline (A.R.S.

41-2125) as control measures in the maintenance plan to be

implemented in the event of probable or actual violation of the CO

NAAQS in the TAPA. EPA is simultaneously reproposing to approve the

amendments to A.R.S. 2083, 2122 and 2125, which were included as

part of the LMP following a public hearing on August 20, 1997, as a

revision to the Arizona SIP.

4. Finally, EPA is reproposing to approve Arizona's request for

redesignation to attainment.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the additional issues

described in section II, ``New Issues For Public Comment'' of this

reproposal. Comments on these issues as well as the comments that were

received on the original proposal, will be considered before taking

final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal rule

making procedure by submitting written comments to the person and

address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this

document.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces

Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input

by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies

that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism

implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations

that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of

government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a

regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless

the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA

consults with State and local officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the

Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the national government and the

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do

not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under

Executive Order 12866, and (2) Concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must

evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule

on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to

other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is

does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or

safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

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

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Clean Air Act,

[[Page 70665]]

preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry

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

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

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

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

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

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

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

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory require- ments. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

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

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

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

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

List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur Dioxide.

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

Dated: December 9, 1999.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99-32761 Filed 12-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P