![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Finding of State Implementation Plan Inadequacy; Arizona--Salt River Monitoring Site; Metropolitan Phoenix; PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 75)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19148-19151]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ap02-21]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ-076-SIP; FRL-7172-5]
Finding of State Implementation Plan Inadequacy; Arizona--Salt
River Monitoring Site; Metropolitan Phoenix; PM-10 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find that the State implementation plan
(SIP) for the Metropolitan Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona PM-10
nonattainment area is substantially inadequate to attain the 24-hour
particulate (PM-10) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) at
the Salt River monitoring site, a small subarea of the nonattainment
area. As a result, EPA is proposing to require the State of Arizona to
submit a SIP revision to correct the inadequacy.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received in writing by May 20,
2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to: Frances Wicher, Office of Air
Planning (AIR-2), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
This document and information on the PM-10 plans for the
metropolitan Phoenix area are also available as electronic files on
EPA's Region 9 Web Page at www.epa.gov/region09/air.
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. E-mail:
wicher.frances@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Note: In this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
``CAA or the Act'' refers to the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
and subsequently. ``PM-10'' refers to particulate matter with a
diameter of 10 microns or less. ``24-hour standard'' refers to the
24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM-10 established
at 40 CFR 50.6(a). ``SIP'' or ``plan'' refers to a state
implementation plan. ``ADEQ'' is the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. ``BACM'' and ``RFP'' are acronyms,
respectively, for best available control measure and reasonable
further progress.
I. Summary of Today's Proposal
In 1997, we approved an attainment demonstration as part of the
Metropolitan Phoenix serious area PM-10 SIP that showed the 24-hour PM-
10 standard would not be violated at the
[[Page 19149]]
Salt River site after 1998. However, data from the ambient air quality
monitor located at the Salt River site\1\ shows continuing violations
of the 24-hour standard. Based on these continuing violations, we
propose to find that the SIP is substantially inadequate to provide for
attainment of the 24-hour standard at the Salt River site. Under CAA
section 110(k)(5), once we determine that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain a national ambient air quality
standard, we must require that state to revise its SIP to correct the
inadequacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Salt River site is located in south Phoenix next to the
Salt River. The Salt River site is the area centered around the Salt
River monitor located near 19th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the proposed finding of inadequacy, we are also proposing
to require that the State of Arizona revise its serious area PM-10 SIP
to assure expeditious attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard for the
Salt River monitoring site and submit these revisions to EPA no later
than 18 months after publication of the final rule for this proposal.
II. Background to Today's Proposals
A. The Metropolitan Phoenix Serious Area PM-10 Plan
The Phoenix area violates both the annual PM-10 standard of 50
µg/m\3\ and the 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m\3\. 40 CFR
50.6. In 1996, the Phoenix area was classified as a serious PM-10
nonattainment area under the CAA and required to develop a
nonattainment plan that provided for expeditious attainment of both
standards and met the other applicable CAA plan requirements for
serious areas. See 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996). Since 1996, Arizona has
made several SIP submittals that collectively address these planning
requirements and we have acted on them in several rulemakings. For more
background on the Phoenix PM-10 SIP and our actions on it, please see
65 FR 19964, 19965 (April 13, 2000) and 66 FR 50252, 50253 (October 2,
2001) and the Technical Support Documents for these actions.
In today's proposal, we are concerned with the Phoenix PM-10 SIP's
provisions for attaining the 24-hour standard. In May, 1997, ADEQ
submitted the Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard--
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area, as a SIP revision. This plan,
known as the microscale plan, included attainment and RFP
demonstrations for the 24-hour PM-10 standard at the Salt River air
quality monitoring site as well as three other ``microscale''
monitoring sites in the Phoenix area (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West
Chandler). The demonstration for the Salt River site showed that, with
additional controls adopted by the local air quality agencies, Maricopa
County Environmental Services Department, attainment at the site would
occur by May 1998. We approved the attainment and RFP demonstrations
for the Salt River site and Maricopa County's controls on August 4,
1997. See 62 41856.
Since 1997, Arizona has made two other submittals to address 24-
hour exceedances in the Phoenix area. The two submittals are the 1999
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) PM-10 plan and the June 2001
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) plan. The MAG plan is the
principal part of the overall Phoenix serious area plan and uses the
urban airshed model (UAM) to evaluate 24-hour exceedances in the
Phoenix nonattainment area and includes additional detailed analysis
for the two microscale sites which were impacted by agricultural
sources. Regarding the Salt River monitoring site, the plan states that
it presents a unique situation that is difficult to model with UAM. See
MAG plan, Appendix A, Exhibit 7, p. VI-11. The MAG plan, however, does
not further evaluate the 24-hour violations at the Salt River site,
relying instead on the approved attainment demonstration in the 1997
microscale plan.
The BMP plan revises the microscale analysis in the MAG plan by
demonstrating that the Arizona's agricultural BMP rule provides
sufficient emission reductions to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour
PM-10 standards at the two microscale sites, Gilbert and West Chandler,
impacted by agricultural source. The BMP plan did not include any
analysis of the Salt River site.
In January, 2002,\2\ we approved the MAG plan, the BMP plan, and
several rules which, combined with the earlier microscale plan,
constituted the Phoenix serious area plan. With these approvals, we
have approved all the CAA-required provisions in the Phoenix serious
area PM-10 plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The final approval was signed on January 14, 2002 but has
not been published in the Federal Register as of the signature date
on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Provisions for Inadequate SIPs
To assure that SIPs provide for timely attainment, section
110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to find that a SIP is substantially inadequate
to meet a CAA requirement, and to require (``call for'') the State to
submit, within a specified period not to exceed 18 months, a SIP
revision to correct the inadequacy. This requirement for a SIP revision
is known as a ``SIP call.'' Specifically, section 110(k)(5) provides,
in relevant part:
Whenever the Administrator finds that the applicable
implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate to
attain or maintain the relevant [NAAQS]
* * *, the Administrator
shall require the State to revise the plan as necessary to correct
such inadequacies. The Administrator shall notify the State of the
inadequacies, and may establish reasonable deadlines (not to exceed
18 months after the date of such notice) for the submission of such
plan revisions.
III. The Proposed Inadequacy Finding and Call for a SIP Revision
According to the approved attainment demonstration in the Phoenix
serious area plan, the Salt River site should not have violated the 24-
hour PM-10 standard after May, 1998. See 62 FR 31026, 31035. The site,
however, continues to violate the standard.\3\ Based on data recorded
in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the Salt River
monitor had 51 expected exceedances in 1999, 43 expected exceedances in
2000, and 19 expected exceedances through 3 quarters in 2001 or an
average of at least 37 expected exceedances per year over the past
three years. \4\ The 24-hour PM-10 standard is violated when the
expected number of exceedances average more than 1 per year over a
three year period. See 40 CFR 50.6(a). These continuing violations
clearly show that the existing attainment demonstration is flawed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Salt River site, approximately 32 square miles in area
or about 1 percent of the 2880 square mile Phoenix nonattainment
area, is located in an industrial area and its 24-hour violations
are most likely due in large part to the industrial sources that
surround it. This is in marked contrast to other monitoring sites in
the rest of the Phoenix nonattainment area where 24-hour exceedances
are almost exclusively due to windblown fugitive dust. The recently-
approved provisions of the Phoenix serious area plan discussed above
focused on windblown fugitive dust sources and adequately addressed
24-hour exceedances in the great majority of the Phoenix
nonattainment area.
\4\ Ambient concentrations of PM-10 are generally not measured
daily but rather are measures only one day in every six, the minimum
monitoring schedule for most PM-10 monitors in EPA's regulations.
See 40 CFR 58(d)(1). To account for the unmonitored days, the number
of recorded exceedances is adjusted by multiplying it by six. See 40
CFR part 50, appendix K. Therefore, one exceedances at a monitor
operating one day in six equals, in the most simple case, six
expected exceedance days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the attainment demonstration approved into the Phoenix area
PM-10 SIP in 1997 is clearly faulty and there has been no substitute
attainment demonstration submitted to date, we
[[Page 19150]]
propose to find that the Phoenix area PM-10 SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain the 24-hour PM-10 standard at the Salt River site.
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), we propose to require the
State of Arizona to submit a revision to the Phoenix area SIP that
corrects this deficiency and complies with all other applicable CAA
requirements as described below.
IV. The Proposed Schedule and Requirements for the Revised SIP
Submittal
A. Submittal Schedule
Under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA, we have the authority to
establish the date by which a state must respond to a SIP call. This
date can be no later than 18 months after the SIP call is issued.
We propose that the date for submitting the revisions to the Salt
River attainment demonstration and related provisions described below
be 18 months after publication of the final rule, or approximately late
October, 2003. This date is appropriate in light of the substantial
technical work that must precede the submittal, including a year of
detailed monitoring and inventory work to identify contributing
sources; preparation and validation of air quality modeling; research
on and development and adoption of necessary controls; and a public
hearing and opportunity for public comment.
B. SIP Requirements
CAA section 172(d) requires that any SIP revision for a
nonattainment area that is required to be submitted in response to a
SIP call must correct the deficiency that is the basis for the SIP call
and must also meet all other applicable plan requirements of section
110 and title 1, part D.
We are proposing to find deficient a specific but limited provision
of the Phoenix area's approved serious area SIP. The identified
deficiency--the attainment demonstration for the Salt River site--will
necessitate revisions to other provisions of the approved SIP but does
not require that the State revise its entire plan for attaining the 24-
hour standard in the metropolitan Phoenix nonattainment area.
A PM-10 attainment demonstration consists of two components: a
control strategy and a technical evaluation, using an air quality
model, of the effect of that control strategy on future air quality. A
deficient attainment demonstration means that there are problems in one
or both of these components; therefore, to correct a deficient
attainment demonstration a state must evaluate and revise, as
necessary, both components. Additionally, for PM-10 plans, the
demonstration of reasonable further progress and the quantitative
milestones required by CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(c) are derived
from the control strategy and the attainment demonstration and must
also be revised when they are revised.
The CAA establishes specific minimum requirements for control
strategies in serious area PM-10 plans. Section 189(b)(1)(B) requires
that such plans provide for the implementation of BACM. Pursuant to CAA
section 188(e), we have granted Arizona's request to extend the
attainment date for the 24-hour standard in the Phoenix nonattainment
area to December 31, 2006. For such extension areas, section 188(e)
requires that SIP include to our satisfaction the most stringent
measures found in other states' implementation plans or achieved in
practice.
Thus, in response to a final SIP call on the Salt River attainment
demonstration, Arizona will need to submit the following:
(a) A demonstration based on air quality modeling that the plan
will provide for attainment no later than December 31, 2006 at the Salt
River site. CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e).
(b) Provisions for implementing BACM as expeditiously as
practicable on all sources or source categories that contribute
significantly to exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10 standard in the Salt
River area. CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).\5\ In the SIP revision, Arizona
need only provide for the implementation of BACM on those significant
sources or source categories for which we have not already approved
BACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), BACM is to be implemented no
more than 4 years after an area is reclassified from moderate to
serious for PM-10, or June 10, 2000 for the Phoenix area. Because
this deadline is now passed, the applicable deadline become ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' under Delaney v. EPA 898 F.2d 687
(1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A demonstration that the revised SIP includes, and provides for
expeditious implementation of, the most stringent measures found in the
implementation plan or achieved in practice that are feasible for the
Phoenix nonattainment area for each significant source or source
category for which we have not approved a MSM showing.
(d) A demonstration that the revised SIP provides for reasonable
further progress in the Salt River area. The SIP revision must also
provide for quantitative milestones for the Salt River area which are
to be achieved every 3 years and which are consistent with the RFP
demonstration. To be consistent with the serious area plan, the
milestone dates should be December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2006.
The SIP revision must also meet the general requirements applicable
to all SIPs including reasonable notice and public hearing under
section 110(l), necessary assurances that the implementing agencies
have adequate personnel, funding and authority under section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280 to carry out the SIP; and the
description of enforcement methods for the adopted controls as required
by 40 CFR 51.111.
Finally, any controls adopted to demonstrate attainment at the Salt
River site or to meet the BACM or MSM requirements must be applied to
all similar sources in the Phoenix nonattainment area. The Salt River
monitor, as with all the microscale monitors, was sited for two
purposes: first, to measure air quality in the local area and second,
to be representative of air quality at other sites in the Phoenix
nonattainment area with similar sources. See Microscale plan, Appendix
A, p. 2-1. The requirement to adopt controls necessary to demonstrate
attainment at the Salt River site addresses the first purpose, to
reduce PM-10 levels in the local area to healthy levels, while the
requirement to apply those controls to similar sources in other areas
of the nonattainment area addresses the second purpose, to reduce PM-10
levels in similar, but unmonitored, areas.
If Arizona fails to submit the required SIP revisions in response
to a final SIP call, we are required to issue a finding that the State
failed to make a required SIP submittal under section 179(a), a finding
which starts a 18 month clock for the implementation of sanctions under
the CAA and a two year clock for a federal implementation plan. See 40
CFR 52.31.
V. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
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
[[Page 19151]]
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) 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 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 on the States, 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. This proposed SIP
call is required by the Clean Air Act because the current SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the 24-hour PM-10 standard.
Arizona's direct compliance costs will not be substantial because the
SIP call requires Arizona to submit only those revisions necessary to
address the SIP deficiency and applicable Clean Air Act requirements.
Finally, EPA has consulted with the State and local agencies prior to
making this proposal.
This proposed rule, if finalized, 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, because it is in keeping with the
relationship and the distribution of power and responsibilities between
EPA and the States as established by the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
proposed rule.
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.'' Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this proposed rule because the proposed rule, if finalized, will not
effect any tribal government or any tribal lands and thus will have no
tribal implications.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule, if finalized,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory
flexibility analysis only when small entities will be subject to the
requirements of the rule. See, Motor and Equip. MFRS. Ass'n v. Nichols,
142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
This proposed SIP call, if finalized, will not establish
requirements applicable to small entities. Instead, it will require
Arizona to develop, adopt, and submit an attainment demonstration and
related requirements but will leave entirely to Arizona the tasks of
determining how to obtain the emission reductions necessary to show
attainment, including which entities to regulate, and of adopting the
necessary regulations. Because the rule, if finalized, will not
establish requirements applicable to small entities, I certify that
this action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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 in any one year. 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
for any rule requiring a budgetary impact statement. 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 this proposed rule does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more in any one year to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector and has therefore not prepared
a budgetary impact statement. This proposed rule, if finalized, will
not significantly or uniquely impact any small governments.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
In making a finding of SIP deficiency, EPA's role is to review
existing information against previously established standards (in this
case, what constitute a violation of the 24-hour PM-10 standard). In
this context, there is no opportunity to use VCS. Thus, the
requirements of NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 10, 2002.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-9494 Filed 4-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P