[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. <SUP>1</SUP> 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). <SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 <SUP>3</SUP> 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