Jump to main content.

Interim Final Determination that State has Corrected the Plan Deficiency and Stay of Sanctions; Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Arizona

Related Material

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

[Federal Register: April 13, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19992-19993]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap00-18]

[[Page 19992]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ092-002; FRL-6575-2]


Interim Final Determination that State has Corrected the Plan
Deficiency and Stay of Sanctions; Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area,
Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to
approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions of the Revised MAG
1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County
(Phoenix, Arizona) Nonattainment Area (MAG plan), February 2000, and
control measures on which it relies, that address the annual
particulate matter (PM-10) national ambient air quality standard. Based
on this proposed approval, we are making an interim final determination
that the State of Arizona has corrected the deficiencies in the PM-10
state implementation plan for the Phoenix area for which a sanctions
clock began on September 2, 1998. This action will stay the imposition
of the offset sanction and defer the imposition of the highway
sanction. Although this action is effective upon publication, we will
take comment and will publish a final rule taking into consideration
any comments received on this interim final determination.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective April 13, 2000.
    Comments must be received by June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Frances Wicher at the
Region 9 office listed below.
    A copy of docket No. AZ-MA-00-001, containing material relevant to
this action and our proposed approval of the MAG plan, is available for
public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal business
hours.
    A copy of the docket is also available for inspection at:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 N. Central
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 207-2217.
Maricopa Association of Governments, 302 North 1st Street, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003, (602) 254-6300.

Electronic Availability

    This document, our proposed approval of the MAG plan and the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the approval, are also available
as an electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/
region09/air.

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, Telephone:
(415) 744-1248, Email: wicher.frances@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 3, 1998, we disapproved the provisions for implementing
reasonably available control measure (RACM) for the annual standard in
the 1991 MAG Moderate Area PM-10 Plan because the plan failed to
implement RACM for a number of significant sources of PM-10. We also
disapproved the attainment demonstration because the failure to
implement RACM meant the plan no longer conclusively demonstrated that
attainment of the PM-10 standard by the end of 1994, the moderate area
attainment date, was impracticable. 63 FR 41326.
    Our 1998 disapprovals started sanction clocks under CAA section
179(a). Under section 179(a), once we disapprove a state plan provision
because it fails to meet a CAA requirement, a State has 18 months to
correct the deficiency that resulted in the disapproval before the
first of two sanctions goes into place.\1\ If the state still has not
corrected the deficiency with 24 months, the second sanction goes into
place. The offset sanction was imposed in the Phoenix nonattainment
area on March 2, 2000. It will be followed by the imposition of a
second sanction, highway funding and approval limitations, on September
2, 2000 if we do not defer or stop the sanction clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The two CAA sanctions are a limitation on certain highway
approvals and funding and an increase in the offset ratio to 2 to 1
for any major new stationary source or major modification. See CAA
section 179(b). Our sanction 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 February 16, 2000, Arizona submitted the revised MAG serious
area PM-10 plan, Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-
10 for the Maricopa County (Phoenix, Arizona) Nonattainment Area,
February 2000. In the Proposed Rule section of today's Federal
Register, we are proposing to approve the plan's provisions for the
implementation of RACM and the attainment demonstration as they pertain
to the annual standard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the plan must now
provide for both the implementation of RACM and best available
control measures (BACM) under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and
(b)(1)(B). While we also proposed to approve the BACM provisions of
the MAG serious area plan, that determination is not relevant to the
sanction issue addressed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our proposed approval of the annual standard provisions in
the MAG plan elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we believe that it
is more likely than not that Arizona has corrected the original
deficiencies that prompted our disapprovals. Therefore, we are taking
this interim final rulemaking action finding that the State has
corrected the deficiencies. However, we are also providing the public
with a opportunity to comment on this interim final action. If, based
on the comments on this action and the comments on our proposed
approval of the State's submittal, we determine that the State's
submittal does not comply with the CAA's requirements for RACM and
attainment and this interim final action was inappropriate, we will
propose to disapprove the State's submittal and will take interim final
action finding that the State has not corrected the original
disapproval deficiency. Upon a final disapproval of the State's
submittal, we would finalize the interim final finding, finding that
the State has not corrected the deficiency.
    This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this
area on September 2, 1998, the effective date of our disapproval.
However, this action will stay the imposition of the offset sanction
and will defer the imposition of the highway sanction. See 40 CFR
51.31(d)(2)(i). If we take final action approving the MAG plan's
implementation of RACM and attainment demonstration provisions for the
annual standard, such action will stop the sanctions clock and will
lift any imposed, stayed or deferred sanctions. However, if at any time
we determine that the State, in fact, did not correct the deficiencies,
as appropriate, we either will withdraw this interim final
determination or take final action finding that the State has not
corrected the deficiencies. Such action will retrigger the sanctions
consequences as described in the sanctions rule. 40 CFR 52.31.

II. EPA Action

    We are taking interim final action finding that the State has
corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clock. Based on
this action, imposition of the offset sanction will be stayed and

[[Page 19993]]

imposition of the highway sanction will be deferred until we take final
action fully approving the MAG plan's implementation of RACM and
attainment demonstration provisions for the annual standard or finally
disapproving these provisions.
    Because we have preliminarily determined that Arizona has an
approvable plan, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, we are invoking the good cause exception to the
30-day notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act because
the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1).

III. 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. This action
merely stays and defers federal sanctions. 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
only stays an imposed sanction and defers the imposition of another, 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). For the same reason, this rule also
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May
10, 1998). This 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 stays a sanction and
defers another one, 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 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This rule does not contain technical standards, 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. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    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. 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. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency
promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established an effective date of April 13, 2000.
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. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 3, 2000.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-8832 Filed 4-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.