[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39258-39262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
