39258 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(5), with the exception that the master

of a Makah whale hunting vessel

displaying pennant five (5) may

authorize vessels assisting the hunt to

enter the moving exclusionary zone.

(d) The activation of the moving

exclusionary zone described in

paragraph (b) of this section is signaled

by the display of the international

numeral pennant five (5) is from the

Makah hunting vessel. This numeral

pennant five (5) is authorized to be

displayed only from the Mekah hunting

vessel during an actual whale hunt.

(e) The Mekah Tribe will make hourly

SECURITE broadcasts notifying

mariners of the hunt and the moving

exclusionary zone on channel 16 VHF–

FM while the hunt is in effect.

J. David Spade,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

13th Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–19423 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39259

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.

2The 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.

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.

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

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 fullyapproved 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.
39260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

3Memorandum 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.

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 gasolineethanol 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
39262 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 costeffective 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[OPPTS–62156A; FRL–6017–4]

RIN 2070–AC63

Identification of Dangerous Levels of

Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for a proposed rule to

establish standards for lead-based paint

hazards in most pre-1978 housing and

child-occupied facilities under authority

of TSCA section 403. The proposed rule

also establishes, under authority of

TSCA section 402, residential lead dust

cleanup levels and amendments to dust

and soil sampling requirements and,

under authority of TSCA section 404,

amendments to State program

authorization requirements.

DATES: Written comments in response to

this proposed rule must be received on

or before October 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear

the docket control number OPPTS62156. All comments should be sent in

triplicate to: OPPT Document Control

Officer (7407), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rm.

G099, East Tower, Washington, DC

20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to:

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

All comments which contain

information claimed as CBI must be

clearly marked as such. Three copies,

sanitized of any comments containing

information claimed as CBI, must also

be submitted and will be placed in the

public record for this rulemaking.

Persons submitting information, any

portion of which they believe is entitled

to treatment as CBI by EPA, must assert

a business confidentiality claim in

accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for

each such portion. This claim must be

made at the time that the information is

submitted to EPA. If a submitter does

not assert a confidentiality claim at the

time of submission, EPA will consider

this as a waiver of any confidentiality

claim and the information may be made

available to the public by EPA without

further notice to the submitter.

If requested, EPA will schedule public

meetings where oral comments will be

heard. EPA will announce in the