[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31859-31864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12644]


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

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

[[Page 31860]]

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1248, 
[email protected].

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31861]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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.

 Table 1.--Average Number of Ozone Exceedances Days Per Year and Design
     Values by Monitor in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (1997-1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average
                                                     number of    Site
                       Site                         exceedance   design
                                                     days per     value
                                                       year       (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

[[Page 31862]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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 (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 percent ROP Plan
    The 9 percent ROP requirement in section 182(c)(2)(B) is the 
minimum RFP requirement for serious areas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Milestone 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31864]]

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