Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31859

1AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel; AERMOD is being

developed by AERMIC: AMS/EPA Regulatory

Model Improvement Committee.

2 IWAQM was formed in 1991 to provide a focus

for development of technically sound regional air

quality models for regulatory assessments of

pollutant source impacts on federal Class I areas.

IWAQM is an interagency collaboration that

includes efforts by EPA, U.S. Forest Service,

National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife

Service.

To review support documents and

data for our proposal, and to prepare for

the seventh conference, you may obtain

technical materials from several sources.

You may get copies of some materials

from the docket (see ADDRESSES). We

have uploaded many materials, for

example essential codes, preprocessors,

utilities, test cases, and user’s manuals

for the new modeling systems, to our

website (www.epa.gov/scram001; see

7th Conference).

Public Participation

The Seventh Conference on Air

Quality Modeling will be open to the

public; no admission fee is charged and

there is no formal registration. The

conference will begin the first morning

with introductory remarks by the

presiding EPA official. The conference

will continue with prepared

presentations on several key modeling

systems: The development of an

enhanced Gaussian dispersion model

with boundary layer parameterization

(AERMOD 1); the development of the

CALPUFF modeling system by Earth

Tech, Inc. under the auspice of the

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality

Modeling (IWAQM 2); the development

and testing of ISC–PRIME by the

Electric Power Research Institute’s

building downwash program; and

revisions to the Emissions and

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) by

the Federal Aviation Administration.

There will also be presentations on

several models for consideration as

‘‘alternative models’’ for case-by-case

application.

The second morning, there will be

critical reviews/discussions of the new

modeling systems facilitated first by the

American Meteorological Society’s

Committee on Meteorological Aspects of

Air Pollution, and then by the Air &

Waste Management Association’s AB–3

Committee. We also plan to feature a

special panel presentation on the next

generation of air quality models that

may be driven by output from fourdimensional prognostic models. This

will be followed by statements from

representatives of State and local air

pollution control agencies and by

appropriate Federal agencies. The

conference will then be opened to

statements and comments from the

general public. As information

develops, we will post an agenda for the

conference on our website

(www.epa.gov/scram001; see 7th

Conference).

For the new models and modeling

techniques described on June 28th, EPA

will be asking the public to address the

following questions:

• Has the scientific merit of the

models presented been established?

• Are the models’ accuracy

sufficiently documented?

• Are the proposed regulatory uses of

individual models for specific

applications appropriate and

reasonable?

• Do significant implementation

issues remain or is additional guidance

needed?

• Are there serious resource

constraints imposed by modeling

systems presented?

• What additional analyses or

information are needed?

Those wishing to speak at the

conference, whether to volunteer a

presentation on a special topic or to

offer general comment on any of the

modeling techniques scheduled for

presentation, should contact us at the

address given in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section no later

than June 15, 2000. Such persons

should identify the organization (if any)

on whose behalf they are speaking and

the length of presentation. If a

presentation of general comments is

projected to be longer than 10 minutes,

the presenter should also state why a

longer period is needed. Persons failing

to submit a written notice but desiring

to speak at the conference should notify

the presiding officer immediately before

the conference and they will be

scheduled on a time-available basis.

The conference will be conducted

informally and chaired by an EPA

official. There will be no sworn

testimony or cross examination. A

verbatim transcript of the conference

proceedings will be produced and

placed in the docket. Speakers should

bring extra copies of their presentation

for inclusion in the docket and for the

convenience of the reporter. Speakers

will be permitted to enter into the

record any additional written comments

that are not presented orally. Additional

written statements or comments should

be sent to the OAR Regulatory Docket

(see ADDRESSES section). A transcript of

the proceedings and a copy of all

written comments will be maintained in

Docket A–99–05 which will remain

open until August 21, 2000 for the

purpose of receiving additional

comments.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

Bob Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 00–12390 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AZ–098–0025 FRL–6703–1]

Determination of Attainment of the 1-

Hour Ozone Standard for the Phoenix

Metropolitan Area, Arizona and

Determination Regarding Applicability

of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to determine

that the Phoenix metropolitan serious

ozone nonattainment area has attained

the 1-hour ozone air quality standard

deadline required by the Clean Air Act

(CAA), November 15, 1999. Based on

this proposal, we also propose to

determine that the CAA’s requirements

for reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstrations and for

contingency measures are not applicable

to the area for so long as the Phoenix

metropolitan area continues to attain the

1-hour ozone standard.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be received in writing by June 19, 2000.

Comments should be addressed to the

contact listed below.

ADDRESSES: Copies of our draft technical

support document for this rulemaking

and our policies governing attainment

findings and the applicability of CAA

requirements in areas attaining the 1-

hour ozone standard are contained in

the docket for this rulemaking. The

docket is available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Office of Air Planning, Air

Division, 17th Floor, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California

94105, (415) 744–1248.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, Office of Outreach and

Information, First Floor, 3033 N.

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85012, (602) 207–2217

Copy of this document and the TSD

are also available in the air programs

section of EPA Region 9’s website,

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning

31860 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1 If a state does not have the clean data necessary

to show attainment of the 1-hour standard but does

have clean air in the year immediately preceding

the attainment date and has fully implemented its

applicable SIP, it may apply to EPA, under CAA

section 181(a)(5), for a one-year extension of the

attainment date.

2See generally 57 FR 13506 (April 16, 1992) and

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director,

Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to Regional

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone

Nonattainment Areas,’’ February 3, 1994 (Berry

memorandum). While explicitly applicable only to

marginal areas, the general procedures for

evaluating attainment in this memorandum apply

regardless of the initial classification of an area

because all findings of attainment are made

pursuant to the same Clean Air Act requirements

in section 181(b)(2).

3The fourth highest value is used as the design

value because a monitor may record up to 3

exceedances of the standard in a 3 year period and

still show attainment, that is, with 3 exceedances

it would average 1 day over the standard per year,

the maximum allowed to show attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard. If the monitor records a fourth

exceedance in that period, it would average more

than 1 exceedance day per year and would no

longer show attainment. Therefore, if a State can

reduce the fourth highest ozone value to below the

standard, thus preventing a fourth exceedance, then

it will be able to demonstrate attainment.

4All quality-assured available data include all

data available from the state and local/national air

monitoring (SLAMS/NAMS) network as submitted

to EPA’s AIRS system and all data available to EPA

from special purpose monitoring (SPM) sites that

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.13. See

Memorandum John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to

Regional Air Directors; ‘‘Agency Policy on the Use

of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data,’’ August

22, 1997.

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California 94105, (415)

744–1248, wicher.frances@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Attainment Finding

A. Phoenix’s Current Ozone Classification

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for

Attainment Findings

C. Attainment Finding for the Phoenix

Area

1. Adequacy of the Phoenix Area Ozone

Monitoring Network

2. The Phoenix Area’s Ozone Design Value

for the 1997–1999 Period

D. Attainment Findings and

Redesignations to Attainment

II. Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning

Requirements

A. EPA’s Policy and its Legal Basis

B. Effects of the Proposed Determination

on the Phoenix Area and of a Future

Violation on this Proposed

Determination

C. Effect of the Proposed Determination on

Transportation Conformity

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Attainment Finding

A. Phoenix’s Current Ozone

Classification

The Phoenix metropolitan ozone

nonattainment area is located in the

eastern portion of Maricopa County,

Arizona and encompasses the cities of

Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe,

Chandler, Glendale, 17 other

jurisdictions, and considerable

unincorporated County lands. The area

is currently classified as serious for the

1-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS). 40 CFR

81.303.

When the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments were enacted in 1990,

each area of the County that was

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour

ozone standard, including the Phoenix

area, was classified by operation of law

as ‘‘marginal,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’

‘‘severe,’’ or ‘‘extreme’’ depending on

the severity of the area’s air quality

problem. CAA sections 107(d)(1)(C) and

181(a). The Phoenix metropolitan area

was initially classified as moderate. See

40 CFR 81.303 and 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991).

Upon the Phoenix area’s classification

as moderate, the CAA required Arizona

to submit a state implementation plan

(SIP) demonstrating attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard in the Phoenix area

as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than November 15, 1996. CAA

sections 181(a)(1) and 182(b)(1)(A)(i).

The SIP had to also meet several other

CAA requirements for moderate areas.

See generally CAA section 182(b).

The Phoenix area was still violating

the 1-hour ozone standard in late 1996.

On November 6, 1997, we determined

that the Phoenix metropolitan area had

not attained the 1-hour ozone standard

by its attainment date of November 15,

1996. As a result of our finding, the area

was reclassified to serious, by operation

of law under CAA section 181(b)(1)(A).

62 FR 60001.

Upon the Phoenix area’s

reclassification to serious, the CAA

required Arizona to submit a revised SIP

demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard in the Phoenix area as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than November 15, 1999. CAA sections

181(a)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). The SIP had

to also meet several other CAA

requirements for serious areas. See

generally CAA section 182(c). The

serious area SIP revisions were due to

us by March 22, 1999. 63 FR 64415

(November 20, 1998).

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for

Attainment Findings

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we

must determine within six months of

the applicable attainment date whether

an ozone nonattainment area has

attained the standard. If we find that a

serious area has not attained the

standard and does not qualify for an

extension, it is reclassified by operation

of law to severe.1 Under CAA section

181(b)(2)(A), we must base our

determination of attainment or failure to

attain on the area’s design value as of its

applicable attainment date, which for

the Phoenix metropolitan area is

November 15, 1999.

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12

ppm not to be exceeded on average

more than one day per year over any

three year period. 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H. Under our policies, we

determine if an area has attained the

one-hour standard by calculating, at

each monitor, the average number of

days over the standard per year during

the preceding three year period.2 For

this proposal, we have based our

determination of attainment on both the

design value and the average number of

exceedance days per year as of

November 15, 1999.

The design value is an ambient ozone

concentration that indicates the severity

of the ozone problem in an area and is

used to determine the level of emission

reductions needed to attain the

standard, that is, it is the ozone level

around which a State designs its control

strategy for attaining the ozone

standard. A monitor’s design value is

the fourth highest ambient

concentration recorded at that monitor

over the previous three years. An area’s

design value is the highest of the design

values from the area’s monitors.3

We make attainment determinations

for ozone nonattainment areas using all

available, quality-assured air quality

data for the 3-year period up to and

including the attainment date.4

Consequently, we used all 1997, 1998,

and 1999 (through November 15)

quality-assured air quality data available

to determine whether the Phoenix area

attained the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1999. From the available

data, we have calculated the average

number of days over the standard and

the design value for each ozone monitor

in the Phoenix nonattainment area.

C. Attainment Finding for the Phoenix

Area

1. Adequacy of the Phoenix Area Ozone

Monitoring Network

Determining whether or not an area

has attained under CAA section

181(b)(1)(A) is based on monitored air

quality data. Thus, the validity of a

determination of attainment depends on

whether the monitoring network

adequately measures ambient ozone

levels in the area.

We have previously expressed

concerns regarding the adequacy of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31861

5For a description of these concerns, see

‘‘Technical Support Document for the Notice of

Final Rulemaking for the Finding of Failure to

Attain and Denial of Attainment Date Extension for

Ozone in the Phoenix (Arizona) Metropolitan

Area,’’ EPA Region 9, October 27, 1997.

6See memorandum, William G. Laxton, Director,

Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards to Regional Air Directors,

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations,’’ June 18, 1990.

7See memorandum, John S. Seitz, Director,

OAQPS, EPA, to Regional Air Directors,

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstrations, and Related Requirements for

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ May 10,

1995. We have also explained at length in other

actions our rationale for the reasonableness of this

interpretation of the Act and incorporate those

explanations by reference here. See 61 FR 20458

Continued

official ozone monitoring network in the

Phoenix area.5 However, over the past

several years, the Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department,

which operates the local air monitoring

system, has made substantial revisions

to its ozone monitoring network.

We evaluate four basic elements in

determining the adequacy of an area’s

ozone monitoring network. The network

needs to meet the design requirements

of 40 CFR part 58, appendix D; the

network needs to utilize monitoring

equipment designated as reference or

equivalent methods under 40 CFR part

53; the agency or agencies operating the

equipment need to have a quality

assurance plan in place that meets the

requirements of 40 CFR part 58,

appendix A; and for urban areas with

populations greater than 200,000, at

least two monitoring sites must be

designated as National Air Monitoring

Stations (NAMS).

The ozone network in the Phoenix

area meets or exceeds all four of these

requirements and is therefore adequate

for use in determining the ozone

attainment status of the area. A more

detailed analysis of the ozone

monitoring network is contained in the

TSD accompanying this proposal.

2. The Phoenix Area’s Ozone Design

Value for the 1997–1999 Period

We have listed in Table 1 the design

values and the number of exceedance

days for the 1997 to 1999 period for

each monitoring site in the Phoenix

metropolitan area. We calculated the

design values following the procedures

in the Laxton memo.6 A complete listing

of the ozone exceedances at each

monitor as well as our calculations of

the design values can be found in the

TSD.

TABLE 1.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF

OZONE EXCEEDANCES DAYS PER

YEAR AND DESIGN VALUES BY MONITOR IN THE PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA (1997–1999)

Site

Average

number

of exceedance

days per

year

Site design

value

(ppm)

Blue Point ..................... 0 0.107

Central Phoenix ............ 0 0.103

Fountain Hills ................ 0 0.113

South Scottsdale .......... 0 0.098

Emergency Management .......................... 0 0.109

Falcon Field .................. 0 0.101

Maryvale ....................... 0 0.101

Mesa ............................. 0 0.109

South Phoenix .............. 0 0.1

West Phoenix ............... 0 0.112

Pinnacle Peak ............... 0 0.112

North Phoenix ............... 0 0.113

Glendale ....................... 0 0.099

West Chandler .............. 0 0.094

Palo Verde .................... 0 0.091

JLG Supersite ............... 0 0.098

Mount Ord ..................... 0 0.106

Humboldt Mountain ...... 0 0.101

From Table 1, the highest design

value at any monitor, and thus the

design value for the Phoenix

metropolitan ozone nonattainment area,

is 0.113 ppm at the Fountain Hills and

North Phoenix sites. The Phoenix

metropolitan area has not recorded an

exceedance of the 1-hour ozone

standard at any monitoring site during

the 1997 to 1999 period, so the average

number of days over the standard at all

monitors in the area is zero.

Because the area’s design value is

below the 0.12 ppm 1-hour ozone

standard and the area has averaged less

than 1 exceedance per year at each

monitor for the 1997 to 1999 period, we

propose to find that the Phoenix

metropolitan area has attained the 1-

hour ozone standard by its Clean Air

Act mandated attainment date of

November 15, 1999.

D. Attainment Findings and

Redesignations to Attainment

A finding that an area has attained the

1-hour ozone standard under CAA

section 181(b)(1)(A) does not

redesignate the area to attainment for

the 1-hour standard nor does it

guarantee a future redesignation to

attainment.

The redesignation of an area to

attainment is a separate process under

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) from a finding

of attainment under CAA section

181(b)(1)(A). Unlike an attainment

finding where we need only determine

that the area has had the pre-requisite

number of clean years, a redesignation

requires multiple determinations. Under

section 107(d)(3)(E), these

determinations are:

1. We must determine, at the time of

the redesignation, that the area has

attained the relevant NAAQS.

2. The State must have a fully

approved SIP for the area.

3. We must determine that the

improvements in air quality are due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the SIP and

applicable federal regulations and other

permanent and enforceable reductions.

4. We must have fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area under

CAA section 175(A).

5. The State must have met all the

nonattainment area requirements

applicable to the area.

At this time, Arizona has not formally

requested that we redesignate the

Phoenix metropolitan area to attainment

for the 1-hour ozone standard nor has it

submitted a maintenance plan for the

area.

II. Applicability of Clean Air Act

Planning Requirements

A. EPA’s Policy and its Legal Basis

CAA section 182(c) requires States

with serious ozone nonattainment areas

to submit certain revisions to their SIPs.

These revisions include:

1. a demonstration that the plan will

result in emission reductions of ozone

precursors of at least 3 percent per year

from 1996 to 1999 (this provision is

known as the 9 percent rate of progress

(ROP) plan), CAA section 182(c)(2)(B);

2. a demonstration that the plan will

result in attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard as expeditiously as practicable

but not later than November 15, 1999,

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A);

3. contingency measures that will be

undertaken if the area fails to make

reasonable further progress, meet a rate

of progress milestone, or to attain the

standard by the applicable attainment

date, CAA sections 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9).

For the reasons described below and

discussed in our Ozone Clean Data

Policy,7 we believe that it is reasonable

31862 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio); 60

FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis

Counties, Utah); 60 FR 37366 (July 20, 1995) and

61 FR 31832–31833 (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids,

MI). Our interpretation has also been upheld by the

United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).

8The title of section 182(c)(2)(B) is

‘‘REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

DEMONSTRATION,’’ which makes clear that the 9

percent ROP requirement is the minimum RFP

requirement for serious areas.

9See also ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors,

September 4, 1992, at page 6 (stating that the

‘‘requirements for reasonable further progress * * *

will not apply for redesignations because they only

have meaning for areas not attaining the standard’’).

10Milestone reports are not required when a

milestone occurs on an attainment date in cases

where the standard has been attained. In this case,

we are proposing to determine that the Phoenix

metropolitan area has attained by its attainment

date, November 15, 1999, which is also its

milestone date. Thus, even if we believed that the

milestone requirement applies to areas attaining the

1-hour ozone standard, Arizona would not be

required to submit a milestone report.

to interpret the CAA not to require these

provisions for serious ozone

nonattainment areas that are determined

to be meeting the 1-hour ozone

standard.

9 percent ROP Plan

The 9 percent ROP requirement in

section 182(c)(2)(B) is the minimum

RFP requirement for serious areas.8

CAA Section 171(1) states that, for

purposes of part D of Title I, RFP

‘‘means such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant

air pollutant as are required by [Part D]

or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

national ambient air quality standard by

the applicable date.’’ Thus, whether

dealing with the general RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirement for a 9

percent ROP in section 182(c)(2)(B), the

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure

attainment by the applicable attainment

date. If an area has in fact attained the

standard, the stated purpose of the RFP

requirement will have already been

fulfilled. We, therefore, do not believe

that a State needs to submit revisions

providing for the further emission

reductions to meet the RFP/ROP

provisions of sections 172(c)(2) or

182(c)(2)(B) for serious areas meeting

the 1-hour ozone standard.

We note that we took this view with

respect to the general RFP requirement

of section 172(c)(2) in our ‘‘General

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990’’ at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).

In the General Preamble, we stated, in

the context of a discussion of the

requirements applicable to the

evaluation of requests to redesignate

nonattainment areas to attainment, that

the ‘‘requirements for RFP will not

apply in evaluating a request for

redesignation to attainment since, at a

minimum, the air quality data for the

area must show that the area has already

attained. Showing that the State will

make RFP towards attainment will,

therefore, have no meaning at that

point.’’ (57 FR 13564.)9

Closely tied with the RFP/ROP

requirement is the milestone

demonstration requirement in CAA

section 182(g). This section requires that

States with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as serious and above must

determine every three years, starting in

1996, whether each area has achieved

the reductions necessary to meet the

required rate of progress milestone.

These milestone reports are due to EPA

within 90 days after the date on which

the milestone occurs (e.g., 90 days after

November 15 1996 and November 16,

1999).10

For areas that are meeting the 1-hour

standard, there is no RFP/ROP

requirement and thus no milestone on

which to report. Consequently, we

believe the milestone reporting

requirement in section 182(g) is also not

applicable to areas attaining the 1-hour

ozone standard.

Attainment Demonstration

Analogous reasoning applies to the

attainment demonstration requirement.

Section 182(c)(2) requires that a State

submit a SIP revision for a serious ozone

nonattainment area demonstrating that

the plan will ‘‘provide for attainment of

the ozone national primary ambient air

quality standard by the attainment date’’

and that this demonstration be based on

‘‘photochemical grid modeling or any

other analytical method determined by

the Administrator, in the

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least

as effective.’’ If a serious area has in fact

monitored attainment of the standard

based on existing controls, we believe it

is not necessary for the State to make a

further submission containing

additional measures or demonstrations

to show attainment.

This belief is also consistent with our

interpretation of certain section 172(c)

requirements in the General Preamble to

Title I, where we stated there that no

other measures to provide for

attainment would be needed by areas

seeking redesignation to attainment

since ‘‘attainment will have been

reached.’’ (57 FR 13564; see also the

September 4, 1992, John Calcagni

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment’’ at page 6.) Upon

attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of

state planning efforts shifts to the

maintenance of the NAAQS and the

development of a maintenance plan

under section 175A.

Closely tied with the attainment

demonstration requirement is the

tracking requirement in section

182(c)(5). This section requires that

States with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as serious and above submit

every three years, starting in 1996, a

demonstration as to whether current

aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate

vehicle emissions, congestion levels,

and other relevant parameters are

consistent with those used for the area’s

attainment demonstration.

In an area meeting the 1-hour ozone

standard, there is no attainment

demonstration that requires the use of

estimated aggregate vehicle mileage,

aggregate vehicle emissions, or other

relevant parameters. Consequently, we

believe the parameter tracking

requirement in section 182(c)(5) is also

not applicable to areas attaining the 1-

hour ozone standard.

Contingency Measures

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires a State

to submit contingency measures that

will be implemented if an area fails to

make RFP or fails to attain by the

applicable attainment date. Section

182(c)(9) additionally requires that the

State must submit contingency

measures that will be implemented if an

area fails to meet a ROP milestone.

We have previously interpreted the

contingency measure requirement of

section 172(c)(9) as no longer applying

once an area has attained the standard

since those ‘‘contingency measures are

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment

by the applicable date.’’ See 57 FR

13564; see also the September 4, 1992,

John Calcagni memorandum entitled

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ at

page 6. Similarly, the section 182(c)(9)

requirement for contingency measures

are directed at assuring ROP milestones

are met. Because no milestones are

required for areas attaining the 1-hour

standard, there is no need for

contingency measures to ensure that

they will be met.

Other Serious Nonattainment Area SIP

Requirements

A number of SIP requirements for

serious ozone nonattainment areas are

not tied to whether the area has attained

the 1-hour standard. Arizona is

obligated to submit these requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31863

even if we finalize today’s proposed

determination that the area has attained

the 1-hour standard and that the CAA

planning requirements discussed above

no longer apply to the area. These

requirements include:

• A current, comprehensive, and

accurate emission inventory of actual

emissions (section 172(c)(3));

• Reasonable available control

technology for major sources and certain

other sources (section 182(a)(2));

• An enhanced motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance program

(section 182(c)(3));

• A new source review program

(sections 172(c)(5), 173(a), and

182(c)(6)–(8) and (10));

• An enhanced ambient monitoring

program (section 182(c)(1)); and

• A clean fuel vehicle program

(section 182(c)(4)).

B. Effects of the Proposed Determination

on the Phoenix Area and a Future

Violation on This Proposed

Determination

If we finalize today’s proposed

determinations for the Phoenix

metropolitan ozone nonattainment area,

then the State of Arizona will no longer

be required to submit a 9 percent ROP

plan, an attainment demonstration, or

contingency measures for the area. Any

sanction clocks under CAA section

179(a) or requirements that we

promulgate a federal implementation

plan under CAA section 110(c) for these

SIP requirements are suspended.

The lack of a requirement to submit

these SIP revisions and the suspension

of sanction clocks/FIP requirements will

exist only as long as the Phoenix

metropolitan area continues to attain the

1-hour ozone standard. If we

subsequently determine that the

Phoenix area has violated the 1-hour

ozone standard (prior to a redesignation

to attainment), the basis for the

determination that the area need not

make these SIP revisions would no

longer exist. Thus, a determination that

an area need not submit these SIP

revisions amounts to no more than a

suspension of the requirement for so

long as the area continues to attain the

standard.

Should the Phoenix metropolitan area

begin to violate the 1-hour standard, we

will notify Arizona that we have

determined that the area is no longer

attaining the 1-hour standard. We also

will provide notice to the public in the

Federal Register. Once we determine

that the area is no longer attaining the

1-hour ozone standard then Arizona

will be required to address the pertinent

SIP requirements within a reasonable

amount of time. We will set the

deadline for the State to submit the

required SIP revisions at the time we

make a nonattainment finding.

Arizona must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The air quality data relied

upon to determine that the area is

attaining the ozone standard must be

consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance.

C. Effect of the Proposed Determination

on Transportation Conformity

CAA section 176(c) requires that

federally funded or approved

transportation actions in nonattainment

areas ‘‘conform’’ to the area’s air quality

plans. Conformity ensures that federal

transportation actions do not worsen an

area’s air quality or interfere with its

meeting the air quality standards.

One of the primary tests for

conformity is to show that

transportation plans and improvement

programs will not cause motor vehicle

emissions higher than the levels needed

to make progress toward and to meet the

air quality standards. These motor

vehicle emissions levels are set in an

area’s attainment, maintenance and/or

RFP demonstrations and are known as

the ‘‘transportation conformity budget.’’

We set the current ozone conformity

budget for the Phoenix metropolitan

area in our revised federal 15 percent

ROP plan. 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).

A finding that the Phoenix area has

attained the 1-hour and that the State no

longer needs to submit attainment and

ROP/RFP demonstrations will not affect

the continued applicability of this

budget. This budget will remain

applicable until Arizona submits a

maintenance demonstration with a

revised transportation conformity

budget (or should the Phoenix area

again violate the 1-hour ozone standard,

attainment and RFP/ROP

demonstrations with budgets) and we

find the new budget adequate.

III. Administrative Requirements

This action merely proposes to find

that the Phoenix area has attained a

previously-established national ambient

air quality standard based on an

objective review of measured air quality

data. It also proposes to determine that

certain Clean Air Act requirements no

longer apply to the Phoenix area

because of the attainment finding. If

finalized, it would not impose any new

regulations, mandates, or additional

enforceable duties on any public,

nongovernmental or private entity.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Under Executive

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),

this proposed action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ and therefore is not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. It does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affects small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4) nor does it

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR

27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132,

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) because it does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This proposed action also

is not subject to Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of

the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply to this proposed

action because it would be inconsistent

with applicable law for EPA, when

determining the attainment status of an

area, to use voluntary consensus

standards in place of promulgated air

quality standards and monitoring

procedures that otherwise satisfy the

provisions of the Clean Air Act. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988, Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this

proposed action, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859,

March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

31864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the

executive order. This proposed action

does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 11, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–12644 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6604–7]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposal to delete releases at the

Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. Site

from the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to delete

releases at the Mid-Atlantic Wood

Preservers, Inc. Site (the Site) from the

NPL and requests public comment on

this action. The NPL constitutes

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The

EPA has determined that no further

response pursuant to CERCLA is

appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this

deletion must be received by June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Matthew T. Mellon, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1650

Arch Street (3HS23), Philadelphia, PA

19103–2029.

Comprehensive information on the

Site is available at EPA’s Region III

office and at the local information

repository located at the Provinces

Branch Library, Severn Square

Shopping Center, 2624 Annapolis Road,

Severn, MD, 21144.

Requests for copies of documents

associated with this action should be

directed to the Region III Docket Office.

The address and phone number for the

Regional Docket Officer is U.S. EPA

Region III Public Reading Room, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–

2029, (215) 814–3157.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew T. Mellon, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1650

Arch Street (3HS23), Philadelphia, PA

19103–2029, (215) 814–3168, or Richard

Kuhn, Community Involvement

Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1650

Arch Street (3HS43), Philadelphia, PA

19103–2029, (215) 814–3063.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the Direct

Final notice which is located in the

Rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 5, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–12517 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

45 CFR Part 1159

RIN 3135–AA16

Implementation of the Privacy Act of

1974

AGENCY: National Endowment for the

Arts, NFAH

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for

the Arts (Endowment) proposes to

amend its Privacy Act regulations to

reflect administrative changes at the

agency and to comply with the

President’s Memorandum on Plain

Language in Government Writing. These

regulations establish procedures by

which an individual may determine

whether a system of records maintained

by the Endowment contains a record

pertaining to him or her; gain access to

such records; and request correction or

amendment of such records. These

regulations also establish exemptions

from certain Privacy Act requirements

for all or part of certain systems of

records maintained by the Endowment.

DATES: Written comments on these

regulations must be received by June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit written comments concerning

these regulations to Karen Elias, Deputy

General Counsel, National Endowment

for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue

NW, Room 518, Washington, DC 20506.

Written comments may also be sent to

Ms. Elias by telefax at (202) 682–5572 or

by electronic mail at

eliask@arts.endow.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Elias, (202) 682–5418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Endowment operates as part of the

National Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities under the National

Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20

U.S.C. 951 et seq). The corresponding

regulations published at 45 CFR Chapter

XI, Subchapter A apply to the entire

Foundation, while the regulations

published at 45 CFR Chapter XI,

Subchapter B apply only to the

Endowment.

This proposed rule adds Privacy Act

regulations to Subchapter B (45 CFR

part 1159), replacing existing

regulations in Subchapter A (45 CFR

part 1115) with regard to the

Endowment. The new regulations reflect

administrative changes at the

Endowment. In addition, the new

regulations’ question-and-answer format

and increased detail as to several

provisions of the Privacy Act are

intended to increase understanding of

the Endowment’s Privacy Act policies.

The Endowment is authorized to

propose the new regulations under 5

U.S.C. 552a(f) of the Privacy Act.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This proposed rule is not classified as

a significant rule under Executive Order

12866 because it will not result in: (1)

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more; (2) a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, geographic

regions, or Federal, State, or local

government agencies; or (3) significant

adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity,

innovation, or the ability of United

States-based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises in

domestic or foreign markets.

Accordingly, no regulatory impact

assessment is required. In addition,

based on the assessments noted in this

paragraph, this proposed rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a

regulation that has a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, small