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-6125-6]

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.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 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. Under the 1990 amendments

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), designations can be revised if sufficient

data is available to warrant such revisions. In this action, EPA is

proposing to approve the TAPA redesignation as meeting the requirements

set forth in the CAA.

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

before August 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Eleanor Kaplan at the Region

9 address listed.

Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal business hours at the following

locations between 8:00 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 Division, Air

Planning Office, (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1159

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library 3033 N. Central

Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 207-2217

Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 130 West Congress,

Tucson, Arizona 85701, (520) 740-3340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), Air Division, United States US Environmental Protection

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

(415) 744-1159.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990

were enacted. Pub. L., 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.

Sections 7401-7671q. Section 107(d)(1)(C) of the amended Act provides

that each CO area designated nonattainment, attainment, or

unclassifiable immediately before the date of enactment of the Act is

designated, by operation of law, as a nonattainment, attainment, or

unclassifiable area, respectively. On November 6, 1991, the Tucson Area

of Pima County was classified by operation of law as nonattainment, not

classified. See 56 FR 56716 (November 6, 1991). The extent of the

Tucson Area is described in 40 CFR 81.303 as the Tuscon [sic] Area,

Pima County (part) by Township and Range.

EPA describes areas as ``not classified'' if they were designated

nonattainment both prior to enactment of the CAAA and (pursuant to

section 107(d)(1)(C)) at enactment, and if they did not violate the

primary NAAQS for CO in either year for the 2-year period 1988 through

1989. See 57 FR 13535 (April 16, 1992).

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG), as the designated air

planning agency for Pima County, has collected ambient monitoring data

that show no violation of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA during the years

1993 through the present. (See discussion in Section III below.)

Therefore, in an effort to comply with the CAA and to ensure continued

attainment of the NAAQS, on August 21, 1996 the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requested redesignation of the area to

attainment with respect to the CO NAAQS and submitted a CO limited

maintenance plan (LMP)for the TAPA. The PAG's Regional Council had

prepared and adopted the LMP on June 26, 1996. ADEQ submitted evidence

that public hearings were held on April 22, 1996 and June 20, 1996. In

accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act, the TAPA CO

redesignation request and maintenance plan was deemed complete by

operation of law on February 27, 1997. On October 6, 1997 ADEQ

submitted an amended CO LMP for the TAPA including evidence that a

public hearing was held on August 20, 1997 on the amendments to the

plan.

II. Redesignation Evaluation Criteria

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides specific requirements that

an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment.

1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;

2. the area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 and

part D of the Act;

3. the air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable;

and

4. the area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175A of the Act.

Section 107(d)(3)(D) allows a Governor to initiate the

redesignation process for an area to apply for attainment status.

III. Review of State Submittal

The Arizona redesignation request for the TAPA meets the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) noted above. The following is a

brief description of how the State has fulfilled each of these

requirements.

1. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

Arizona has quality assured ambient air monitoring data showing

that the TAPA has met the CO NAAQS. The Arizona request is based on an

analysis of quality assured CO air monitoring data which is relevant to

the maintenance plan and to the redesignation request. To attain the CO

NAAQS, an area must have complete quality-assured data showing no more

than one exceedance of the standard per year over at least two

consecutive years. The ambient air CO monitoring data for the period

from July 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995 relied upon by Arizona in

its redesignation request shows no exceedances of the CO NAAQS in the

TAPA. Additionally, based on data retrieved from the Aerometric

Information and Retrieval System (AIRS), there have been no exceedances

of the CO standard from 1995 to the present. Because the area has

complete quality assured data

[[Page 39259]]

showing no exceedance of the standard over at least two consecutive

years (1994 and 1995), and has not violated the standard since that

time, the area has met the first statutory criterion of attainment of

the CO NAAQS (40 CFR 50.8 and appendix C).

2. Meeting Applicable Requirements: Section 110 and Part D

For purposes of redesignation, to meet the requirement that the SIP

contain all applicable requirements under the Act, EPA has reviewed the

Arizona SIP to ensure that it contains all measures that were due under

the amended Act prior to or at the time the State submitted its

redesignation request, as set forth in EPA policy. 1 All of

the SIP requirements must be met by the TAPA and approved into the SIP

by EPA by the time the area is redesignated.

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

\1\ ''Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,'' John Calcagni, director, Air Quality Management

Division, September 4, 1992.

``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response

to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.

``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas

Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

on or after November 15, 1992'', Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator, September 17, 1993.

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

a. Section 110 Requirements

On April 16, 1982 EPA approved changes to the air pollution control

regulations of the Pima County Health Department submitted by the

Arizona Department of Health Services as revisions to the Arizona SIP.

See 47 FR 16326-16328 (April 16, 1982). In this action EPA found that

the rules, which were generally administrative in nature, were in

accordance with EPA policy and 40 CFR Part 51, ``Requirements For

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans''.

The maintenance plan submitted by the TAPA on October 6, 1997

states that the provisions of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 49-406

provide assurance that the control measures contained in the

maintenance plan would be implemented. A.R.S. 49-406 provides for state

assurances that emission control measure commitments in local

nonattainment area plans would be fully implemented as required by

Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA. Since the TAPA has applied for

redesignation to attainment and has submitted a maintenance plan for

approval, EPA requested clarification from Arizona that the provisions

of A.R.S. 49-406 apply to attainment as well as nonattainment areas.

The Arizona legislature on May 29, 1998 amended A.R.S. 49-406 to

include attainment as well as nonattainment areas. EPA is proposing in

this notice to take final action on the TAPA request for redesignation

and approval of a maintenance plan if, prior to that action, ADEQ

submits a SIP revision containing A.R.S. 49-406, as amended. EPA

proposes to approve the amendments to A.R.S. 49-406 if they are

submitted before final action. That SIP revision, together with the

Pima County SIP that was approved in 1982, will fulfill the requirement

that the area have an approved 110 SIP.

b. Part D Requirements

On August 10, 1988 EPA approved Arizona's SIP for the TAPA based on

the conclusion that the control measures and attainment demonstration

submitted with the plan met the requirements of Section 110(a) and Part

D of the CAA. See 53 FR 30220 (August 10, 1988). 2

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

\2\ The EPA approval was later vacated by an Order of the Ninth

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

f.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990) which directed EPA to disapprove the

Arizona CO SIP and to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

by January 28, 1991. In response to the court order, EPA promulgated

the Arizona FIP on January 28, 1991 and, at the same time, took

action to restore as approved parts of the Arizona SIP, the

individual control measures vacated by the Ninth Circuit in the

Delaney order. EPA took final action on February 11, 1991 to

disapprove only the attainment demonstration portions of the

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and Pima plans, rather

than the individual control measures, and to promulgate a FIP for

those areas. See FR 56 5459 (February 11, 1991). In May 1998

Congress passed the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Bill, Public

Law 105-174 (Title III, Chapter 8) which contains an amendment

providing that no requirements set forth in any CO FIP that are

based on the CAA as in effect prior to the 1990 amendments to such

Act may be imposed in the State of Arizona.

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

On November 6, 1991 the TAPA was classified by operation of law as

nonattainment, not classified. See 56 FR 56716 (November 6, 1991).

Before the TAPA may be redesignated to attainment, it also must have

fulfilled the applicable requirements of Part D of the Act. The 1990

CAA Amendments modified section 110(a)(2) and, under Part D, revised

section 172 and added new requirements for all nonattainment areas

depending on the severity of the nonattainment classification. However,

the Act did not specify how the requirements of subpart 1 of part D

apply to ``not classified'' nonattainment areas for CO. EPA has

interpreted the requirements for those areas in the General Preamble to

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. See FR 57 13535 (April

16, 1992). According to this guidance, requirements for the TAPA as a

not classified nonattainment area for CO include the preparation of an

emissions inventory in the SIP revision due three years from

designation, adoption of New Source Review (NSR) programs meeting the

requirements of section 173 as amended, and meeting the applicable

monitoring requirements of section 110. The General Preamble also

states that certain reasonably available control measures (RACM) beyond

what may already be required in the SIP, reasonable further progress

(RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements are not applicable to

``not classified'' CO nonattainment areas. See 57 FR 13498, (April 16,

1992).

Each of the Part D requirements pertaining to the TAPA is discussed

below.

Emissions Inventory: The 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement

has been met by the TAPA with the submission of the 1994 base year

emissions inventory discussed in section 3.b. of this Federal Register

document. The inventory includes stationary point sources, stationary

area sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources of CO

emissions using 1994 as the base year for calculations to demonstrate

maintenance. For further details on the emission inventory, the reader

is referred to the Technical Support Document, which is available for

review at the addresses provided above.

New Source Review: Consistent with the October 14, 1994 EPA

guidance from Mary D. Nichols entitled ``Part D New Source Review (Part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment'',

EPA is not requiring as a prerequisite to redesignation to attainment

EPA's full approval of a part D NSR program by Arizona. Under this

guidance, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment

notwithstanding the lack of a fully-approved part D NSR program, so

long as the program is not relied upon for maintenance. The memorandum

further states that once an area has been redesignated to attainment, a

part D NSR program must be replaced by the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program. The TAPA has not relied on an NSR program

for CO sources to maintain. In 1994 EPA delegated authority to Pima

County to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program. See FR 49

26129 (May 19, 1994). Because the TAPA is being redesignated to

attainment by this action, Pima County's PSD requirements will be

applicable to new or modified major sources of CO in the TAPA.

[[Page 39260]]

Monitoring Requirements: Pima County operates a monitoring network

that has been approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The

area has committed to continue to maintain that network. For a further

discussion of the monitoring network, the reader is referred to Section

III.4.c. below.

EPA therefore proposes to approve Arizona's SIP for the TAPA as

meeting the requirements of section 110 and Part D of the 1977 Act as

amended.

3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures

Under the pre-amended Act, EPA approved Arizona's SIP control

strategy for the TAPA nonattainment area, which satisfies the

requirement that the rules are permanent and enforceable. The control

measures contained in the TAPA maintenance plan are currently mandated

by federal and state statutes and include the Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program, the State Inspection and Maintenance program, and the

State Oxyfuels program. The TAPA has demonstrated that actual

enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the air quality

improvement and that the CO emissions in the base year are not

artificially low due to local economic downturn.

4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS

for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation

to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must

submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the

ten years following the initial ten-year period. To provide for the

possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must

contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation

adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems.

On October 6, 1995 EPA issued guidance 3 regarding a

limited maintenance plan (LMP) option for nonclassifiable CO

nonattainment areas. To qualify for the LMP option, the CO design value

for the area, based on the 8 consecutive quarters (2 years of data)

used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 7.65 parts per

million (ppm), (85 percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS). The

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.

Additionally, the design value for the area must continue to be at or

below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the redesignation.

Based on the data for 1993 to 1995 contained in Table I of the TAPA

Maintenance Plan, the design value for the TAPA is 6.5 ppm.

Additionally, based on data retrieved from AIRS, there have been no

exceedances of the CO standard from 1995 to the present. Since the TAPA

has been classified by operation of law as nonattainment not

classified, and has not exceeded the primary NAAQS standard for CO in

either year for the 2-year period from 1993 through 1995, the area

meets the qualifications for the LMP option.

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

\3\ 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.

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

According to EPA guidance, the LMP must contain: 1. an attainment

inventory to identify a level of emissions in the area which is

sufficient to attain the NAAQS, 2. provision for continued operation of

an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality monitoring network in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and verification of continued

attainment, and 3. contingency provisions to promptly correct any

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The

maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for

a nonclassifiable area if the monitoring data show that the area is

meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (7.65

ppm or 85% of the CO NAAQS). There is no requirement to project

emissions over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the area begins

the maintenance period at or below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the

monitored air quality, along with the continued applicability of PSD

requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal

measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the

initial 10-year maintenance period.

With regard to conformity determinations under LMPs, there is no

emissions budget requirement. Therefore the budget test for

transportation conformity required in 40 CFR 93.118, 93.119, and 93.120

of the Transportation Conformity rule does not apply. Similarly, the

budget test for general conformity specified in 40 CFR

93.1589(a)(5)(i)(A) of the General Conformity rule does not apply in

LMP areas.

EPA is proposing to approve the State's maintenance plan for the

TAPA because EPA finds that the District's submittal meets the

requirements of section 175A and the guidance provided by EPA for the

LMP option. Each of the requirements is discussed below:

a. Attainment Emissions Inventory

On October 6, 1997 as part of the limited maintenance plan, the

State of Arizona submitted to EPA for review and approval a 1994 base

year inventory of CO emissions in Pima County. The inventory

concentrates only on the nonattainment portion of Pima County which

comprises the TAPA. Over 90 percent of Pima County's population,

business activity and air pollutant emissions are concentrated in that

area. The inventory includes stationary point sources, stationary area

sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources of CO

emissions using 1994 as the base year for calculations to demonstrate

maintenance. The Inventory indicates that EPA's MOBILE5 was used to

estimate mobile source emissions. The inventory indicates that, on a

typical winter day, total CO emissions for on-road mobile sources

amounted to 261.36 tons per day or 66.77 per cent of total CO emissions

for that day. Residential wood combustion and wildfires were the

largest non-mobile annual source categories in 1994.

The inventory meets the requirement of the LMP that emissions

inventories should represent emissions during the time period

associated with the monitoring data showing attainment and should be

based on actual ``typical winter day'' emissions of CO. EPA is

proposing approval of the Pima County 1994 base year CO emission

inventory. For further details on the TAPA Emissions Inventory, the

reader is referred to Attachment A. of the Technical Support Document,

which is available for review at the addresses provided above.

b. Demonstration of Maintenance

The LMP guidance described in Section 4 above states that the

maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for

nonclassifiable areas if the monitoring data show that the area is

meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (7.65

ppm or 85% of the CO NAAQS). Based on the data contained in Table I of

the TAPA Maintenance Plan, the design value for the TAPA is 6.5 ppm.

According to the LMP guidance, there is no requirement

[[Page 39261]]

to project emissions over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the

area begins the maintenance period at or below 85 percent of exceedance

levels, the air quality, along with the continued applicability of PSD

requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal

measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the

initial 10-year maintenance period.

c. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

The LMP option requires that the maintenance plan contain

provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA approved air

quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The TAPA

monitoring network has been approved by EPA, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58 and the area has committed to continue to maintain that

network. For further details on monitoring, the reader is referred

Attachment B of the Technical Support Document, which is available for

review at the addresses provided above.

d. Contingency Plan

The level of CO emissions in the TAPA will largely determine the

area's ability to stay in compliance with the CO NAAQS in the future.

Despite the State's best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance

with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or

violate the NAAQS based upon some unforeseeable condition. In order to

meet this challenge, the CAA (Section 175A) requires that a maintenance

plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct

any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area.

Under the provisions of the LMP option, contingency measures do not

have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the

contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and

should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously

once they are triggered by a specified event. The contingency plan

contained in the TAPA maintenance plan includes triggering mechanisms

to determine when contingency measures are needed, the evaluation

process that will be conducted, specific control measures and a

schedule for implementation in the event of a future CO air quality

problem.

Pre-violation Action Level: The PAG has selected two verified 8-

hour average concentrations in excess of 85% of the CO NAAQS at any one

monitor site in any CO season (October through March) as the pre-

violation action level. If the pre-violation action level is reached at

one monitor station during the CO season, PAG will review the most

recent microscale modeling at known hot-spot locations and conduct

field studies at hot spot locations most likely to have high CO

concentrations. If the event is the result of monitored emissions from

an identified hot spot, local mitigation measures will be assessed

first. If local transportation system improvements at that hot-spot

location can be implemented promptly, and will fully mitigate the

problem, that action will be recommended to the appropriate

jurisdiction by the PAG Regional Council. The local transportation

system improvements are part of a Mobility Management Plan adopted by

the PAG which includes a congestion mitigation strategy to implement

traffic operations improvements such as the installation of traffic

surveillance and control equipment, computerized signal systems,

motorist information systems, integrated traffic control systems,

roadway channelization, and intersection improvement. All of the

jurisdictions within the PAG have adopted resolutions containing

commitments to implement appropriate transportation improvements

contained in the PAG's Mobility Management Plan within their

jurisdictions in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan.

The local jurisdictions include the town of Oro Valley, Arizona

(Resolution No. (R) 96-38, adopted June 5, 1996), the City of South

Tucson (Resolution No. 96-16, adopted June 10, 1996), Pima County

(Resolution and Order No. 1996-120, adopted June 18, 1996), the City of

Tucson (Resolution No. 17319, adopted June 24, 1996), and the town of

Marana, Arizona (Resolution No. 96-55, adopted June 18, 1996.

If the cause of the problem is common to a number of hot spots, or

is area wide, a general control measure, i.e., increasing the oxygen

content in motor vehicle fuels during the oxyfuels season (October

through March) up to the practical limit will be implemented as needed

to prevent future CO NAAQS violations in accordance with A.R.S. 41-2125

as amended in 1996. That statute provides for an incremental increase

in the oxygen content during the oxyfuels season up to the practical

limit (3.5% for 100% ethanol oxygenate, 2.7% for Methyl Tertiary Butyl

Ether (MTBE) in no less than 0.3% increments). The Plan states that a

monitored exceedance of the CO NAAQS (one verified ambient CO level

over 9.5 ppm for an 8-hour period) at any monitor will trigger the same

process described above.

In the event of a violation of the CO NAAQS, the Director of ADEQ

is authorized, in accordance with provisions of A.R.S. 41-2122, as

amended in 1996, to reduce the maximum volatility of gasoline sold in

the Tucson vehicle emissions control area setting a maximum winter Reid

Vapor Pressure (RVP) at 9 pounds per square inch (psi) with an ethanol

waiver of 1 psi, or, if a violation of the CO NAAQS is recorded after

the volatility requirements have been reduced to 9 psi, the Director of

ADEQ shall remove the one pound psi waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends.

The 1996 amendments to A.R.S 41-2083, 41-2122 and 41-205 were

submitted as SIP revisions by the TAPA on October 6, 1997, as part of

its limited maintenance plan. The submittal indicated that a public

hearing was held on August 20, 1997 on these amendments as well as the

amendments that had been made to the 1996 LMP.

EPA in this notice is proposing to approve the amendments to A.R.S.

41-2083, 41-2122 and 41-205 as a revision to the Arizona SIP.

For a full description of the control measures and schedule of

implementation, the reader is referred to the Technical Support

Document which is available for review at the addresses given above.

In accordance with Section 175A (b) of the CAA, the State has

agreed to submit a revised maintenance SIP eight years after the area

is redesignated to attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for

maintenance for an additional ten years.

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing 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.

In this action, EPA is proposing 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.

EPA is also proposing to approve the amendments to State

Legislation A.R.S. 41-2083, 2122, and 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. 2125) as control measures in the maintenance plan

to be implemented in the event of a probable or actual violation of the

CO NAAQS in the

[[Page 39262]]

TAPA. EPA is simultaneously proposing 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.

EPA is proposing in this notice to approve Arizona's request for

redesignation to attainment for the TAPA area if, prior to that action,

ADEQ submits a SIP revision containing the amendments that were made to

A.R.S. 49-406 providing for the inclusion of attainment areas, as well

as nonattainment areas, in the legislation providing county and state

assurances that emission control measure commitments in the

nonattainment area plan would be fully implemented as required by

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

EPA is soliciting public comments on this document and on issues

relevant to EPA's proposed action. Comments 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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

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

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks, because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under

E.O. 12866 and because it does not involve decisions on environmental

health or safety risk.

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.

Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)

of the CAA, does not impose any new requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical

area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. SIP

approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve the

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, the

Administrator certifies that the approval of the SIP revisions and

redesignation will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

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

CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

CAA forbids EPA to base Agency actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 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

the 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 this proposed approval action 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

Dated: July 13, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98-19519 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P