EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following direct 

final rule on March 5, 2014, and EPA is submitting it for publication in 

the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy 

of this Internet version of the direct final rule, it is not the official 

version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication 

appearing on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website, 

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action and on Regulation.gov in 

Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0657, http://www.regulations.gov.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0657; FRL-]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 

Arizona; Payson PM10 Air Quality Planning Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Payson

portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

on January 23, 2012. This revision consists of the second 

ten-year maintenance plan for the Payson air quality planning 

area for the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). EPA 

is approving this plan based on the conclusion that the plan 

adequately provides for continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS 

in the Payson area through 2022. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to those provisions of the CAA that obligate the Agency 

to take action on submittals of revisions to SIPs. The effect 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2

of this action is to make the State’s continuing commitments 

with respect to maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area 

federally enforceable for another ten years.

DATES: This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register] without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by [Insert date 

30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal 

in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct 

final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0657, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions.

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, 

and EPA will not know your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send 

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 

available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available 

in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4

(415) 972-3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” 

“us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Action

II. Introduction

A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air Quality Designations 

and Plans for the Payson Area

B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10 Maintenance Plans

C. Limited Maintenance Plan Option

III. Review of the Arizona SIP Submittal Addressing These 

Provisions

A. Has the State Met the Procedural Requirements for SIP 

Revisions?

B. Has the State Demonstrated that the Area Continues to 

Qualify for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option? 

C. Is the Updated Emission Inventory Acceptable?

D. Are the Plan Control Measures Permanent and 

Enforceable?

E. Has the State Committed to Continue to Operate an 

Appropriate PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Network?

F. Does the Plan Continue to Meet the CAA Provisions for 

Contingency Measures? 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5

G. How are Transportation and General Conformity 

Requirements Being Met?

1. Transportation Conformity

2. General Conformity

IV. Final Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), 

we are approving the Final Update of the Limited Maintenance 

Plan for the Payson PM10 Maintenance Area (December 2011) 

(“Second Ten-Year Limited Maintenance Plan,” or “Second 

Ten-Year LMP”) submitted on January 23, 2012 by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as a revision to the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). We find that the 

submittal meets subsequent maintenance plan requirements under

CAA section 175A(b).

II. Introduction 

A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air Quality Designations and 

Plans for the Payson Area 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA is required 

to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 

“standards”) for pervasive air pollutants at levels that 

protect the public health and welfare. Particulate matter with 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6

an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten 

micrometers (“microns”), or PM10, is one of the air pollutants 

for which EPA has established health-based standards. On July 

1, 1987, EPA promulgated two standards for PM10: a 24-hour 

standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and an annual 

PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). Effective 

December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 

2006). In this document, references to the PM10 NAAQS or PM10

standard refer to the 24-hour-average standard of 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

), unless otherwise noted.

Under section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA is required to 

designate areas of the country as attainment, unclassifiable, 

or nonattainment for each of the NAAQS depending on whether the 

NAAQS are being met. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Payson 

area was designated as part of a large “unclassifiable” area 

in Arizona for the PM10 NAAQS. In 1993 (58 FR 67334, December 

21, 1993), in light of PM10 NAAQS violations monitored in 1989 

and 1990, EPA redesignated the Payson air quality planning area 

as a “moderate” nonattainment area for the PM10 NAAQS.1 To meet 

the SIP planning requirements for such areas, State and local 

 1

 The Payson air quality planning area is 144 square miles in size, centered 

around the Town of Payson, Arizona, a community of approximately 17,000 

persons in the north central portion of Gila County, approximately 90 miles 

northeast of Phoenix. For the precise boundaries of this area, please see 

the entry for Payson in the PM10 table in 40 CFR 81.303. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7

agencies adopted and implemented a number of control measures 

to reduce PM10 emissions and lower ambient PM10 concentrations 

in the Payson area, including the paving of certain unpaved 

roads and restrictions on residential wood combustion. In 2002 

(67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002), EPA determined that the Payson 

area had attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 2000. 

Later that same year, ADEQ submitted a maintenance plan, 

titled Payson Moderate Area PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request 

for Redesignation to Attainment Submittal Package (March 2002) 

(“First Ten-Year Limited Maintenance Plan” or “First Ten-Year 

LMP”) to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP, and requested 

redesignation of the Payson area to attainment. The First 

Ten-Year LMP was intended to provide for maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS in the Payson area for ten years after redesignation. In 

June 2002 (67 FR 43013, June 26, 2002), EPA approved the First 

Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area as providing for maintenance 

through 2012, and redesignated the area to attainment for the 

PM10 NAAQS.

Under CAA section 175A(b), former nonattainment areas that 

are redesignated to attainment and subject to a maintenance plan 

must develop, adopt, and submit a subsequent maintenance plan 

that provides for continued maintenance of the NAAQS for a 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8

second ten-year period following the end of the first ten-year 

period. On January 23, 2012, ADEQ submitted the Second Ten-Year 

LMP for the Payson area to meet the requirement for a subsequent 

maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b). The Second Ten-Year 

LMP is intended to provide for continued maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for the ten-year period following the end of the first 

ten-year period, i.e., through year 2022. 

Consistent with requirements at the time, the First 

Ten-Year LMP provided for maintenance of both the 24-hour 

average and annual average PM10 NAAQS. However, as noted above, 

since then, EPA has revoked the annual average PM10 NAAQS, and 

thus, the Second Ten-Year LMP, which is the subject to today’s 

action, addresses only maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10 Maintenance Plans 

CAA section 175A provides the general framework for 

maintenance plans. The maintenance plan must provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, and must include any additional control measures 

as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. In addition, 

maintenance plans are to contain such contingency provisions 

as we deem necessary to assure the prompt correction of a 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The 

contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9

that the State will implement all control measures contained 

in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation. Beyond these 

provisions, however, CAA section 175A does not define the 

contents of a maintenance plan. 

With respect to subsequent maintenance plans, CAA section 

175A(b) requires States to submit an additional SIP revision 

to maintain the NAAQS for ten years after the expiration of the 

ten-year period covered by the initial maintenance plan 

approved in connection with redesignation of the area from 

nonattainment to attainment. Our primary guidance on 

maintenance plans is a September 4, 1992 memo from John 

Calcagni, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Directors of EPA Regional Air Programs, entitled 

“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment” (“Calcagni memo”). In addition, we have relied upon 

guidance discussed in the next subsection of this document.

C. Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option 

On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined 

maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10

nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment 

(Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Directors of EPA Regional Air 

Programs entitled “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10

PM10 Nonattainment Areas” or “LMP policy”). Herein, the option 

set forth in the LMP policy is referred to as the “LMP option.”

The LMP policy contains a statistical demonstration that 

areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, with a high 

degree of probability, maintain the standard ten years into the 

future. Thus, EPA provided the maintenance demonstration for 

areas meeting the criteria outlined in the memo. It follows that 

future year emission inventories for these areas, and some of 

the standard analyses to determine transportation conformity 

with the SIP, are no longer necessary.

To qualify for the LMP option, the State must demonstrate 

that the area meets the criteria described below. First, the 

area should be attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the average PM10

design value for the area, based upon the most recent 5 years 

of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at 

or below 98 μg/m3 for the PM10 NAAQS, with no violations at any 

monitor in the nonattainment area. (See section IV of the LMP 

policy.) The 98 μg/m3 criterion provides a margin of safety for 

the PM10 NAAQS, which is 150 μg/m3

. If an area cannot meet this 

test, it may still be able to qualify for the LMP option if the 

average design values of the site are less than their respective 

site-specific critical design values. Third, the area should 

expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11

emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have passed a 

motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the LMP 

policy identifies core provisions that must be included in all 

LMPs. These provisions include an attainment-year emissions 

inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved

air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

The LMP policy also states that once the LMP option is in 

effect, the State must verify in each subsequent year that the 

area still qualifies for the LMP option by recalculating the 

area’s average design value annually and determining that the 

LMP criteria are met for that year. If they are not met, the 

State should act to reduce emissions enough to requalify for 

the LMP option, for example, by using a contingency measure or 

other SIP-approved measure. If the attempt to reduce PM10

concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but in the future it 

becomes necessary to reduce PM10 concentrations again, the area 

no longer qualifies for an LMP and a full maintenance plan would 

need to be developed.

The LMP policy was written to address the maintenance plan 

requirements under section 175A for certain moderate PM10

nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment. 

However, we believe the principles set forth therein are also 

appropriate for former moderate PM10 nonattainment areas that 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12

have been redesignated to attainment and are subject to an 

approved maintenance plan, but must develop and submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to comply with CAA section 175A(b). 

III. Review of the Arizona SIP Submittal Addressing These 

Provisions2

A. Has the State Met the Procedural Requirements for SIP 

Revisions?

Section 110(l) of the Act requires States to provide 

reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP 

revisions. Documents in ADEQ’s submittal describe the public 

review process followed by ADEQ for the Second Ten-Year LMP for 

the Payson area prior to adoption and submittal to EPA as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP. The documentation provides 

evidence that reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided 

to the public and a public hearing was conducted prior to 

adoption. 

The documentation is found in enclosure 4 of the January 

23, 2012 submittal. Enclosure 4 includes evidence that 

reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided to the public 

and that a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption.

 2

 Our evaluation of the Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan for the Payson area 

is presented in this section of the document. Further details on such issues 

as data completeness, calculation of five-year design values, residential 

wood combustion emissions estimates, industrial source emissions estimates, 

control measures, and the motor vehicle regional analysis are presented in 

our Technical Support Document titled “Ten—year Update for Limited 

Maintenance Plan for PM-10; State of Arizona; Payson,” dated January 2, 2014.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13

Specifically, the affidavit of publication included in 

enclosure 4 shows that notice of a public hearing and the 

availability of, and opening of a 30-day comment period on, the 

Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area was published on 

September 30, 2011, in a newspaper of general circulation within

the Payson area. The public hearing was held on November 2, 2011. 

No comments were received during the public comment period or 

at the public hearing. ADEQ adopted the plan and submitted it 

to EPA for approval on January 23, 2012.

Based on the documentation provided in enclosure 4 that 

was submitted by ADEQ with the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area, we find that the submittal of the plan as a SIP revision 

satisfies the procedural requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Act.

B. Has the State Demonstrated that the Area Continues to Qualify

for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option? 

Payson originally qualified for the LMP Option in 2002. 

In order to continue to qualify, the State must demonstrate that 

the area continues to meet the requirements of the LMP policy

for the following ten-year period. For the reasons given below, 

we conclude that the Payson area continues to qualify for the 

LMP option and that the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14

meets all applicable requirements for subsequent maintenance 

plans under CAA section 175A(b).

Continued Attainment of the NAAQS

To qualify for the LMP Option, the first criterion is that 

the area is attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Generally, EPA determines 

whether an area’s air quality is meeting the PM10 NAAQS based 

upon complete,3 quality-assured, and certified data gathered at 

established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in 

the nonattainment area, and entered into the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. Data from air monitors operated by State, 

local, or Tribal agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on 

data in AQS when determining the attainment status of an area. 

All valid data are reviewed to determine the area’s air quality 

status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.

Attainment of the PM10 standard is determined by 

calculating the expected number of exceedances of the standard 

in a year. The PM10 standard is attained when the expected number 

of exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than 

 3

 For PM10, a “complete” set of data includes a minimum of 75 percent of the 

scheduled PM10 samples per quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 

2.3(a).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15

or equal to one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment 

area. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Generally, 

three consecutive years of air quality data are required to show 

attainment of the PM10 standard. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K.

ADEQ is responsible for monitoring ambient air quality 

outside the metropolitan areas in Arizona and is responsible 

for monitoring ambient air quality in the Payson area. Annually, 

ADEQ submits monitoring network plan reports to EPA. These 

reports discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews these annual network 

plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements 

in 40 CFR 58.10. EPA also conducts periodic technical system 

audits of state and local monitoring programs.

In our most recent technical system audit of ADEQ’s 

monitoring program, we concluded, generally, that ADEQ’s 

ambient air monitoring network currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number of monitoring sites 

designated as SLAMS for all of the criteria pollutants.4 Also, 

ADEQ annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are 

 4

 See EPA’s final report titled, “Technical System Audit, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, Ambient Air Monitoring Program, April 

9-April 13, 2012,” dated January 2013. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16

quality-assured.5 

ADEQ has operated a SLAMS PM10 monitor in the Town of Payson 

for more than 20 years. ADEQ’s Payson monitor has been relocated 

a number of times, but, since 1999, has been located on West 

Aero Drive in Payson, and is referred to as the Payson Wells 

Site. This monitor was sited to provide PM10 concentration data 

at a neighborhood scale6 to provide data for comparison with the 

NAAQS. ADEQ operates a partisol sampler at the Payson site, and, 

in 2009, added a second collocated partisol sampler for quality 

assurance purposes. Both collocated monitors run on a 

one-day-in-six monitoring schedule. EPA’s most recent audit of 

ADEQ’s monitoring program includes a number of findings in areas 

where ADEQ’s monitoring program should be strengthened, but 

none of these findings cast significant doubt on the reliability 

of the data collected at the Payson site.

Table 1 summarizes the PM10 concentration data collected 

at the Payson monitor over the past 12 years, but for the 

purposes of determining current attainment of the NAAQS, we have 

 5

 See, e.g., the letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, 

ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region IX, dated May 

16, 2013, certifying the ambient air quality data collected at the Payson 

site for year 2012. 6

 In this context, “neighborhood scale” refers to conditions throughout 

some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a few

kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.6. Specific information 

about the Payson Wells Site in this paragraph comes from an ADEQ report titled 

“State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2013,” dated 

October 29, 2013.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17

focused our review on the data for the most recent three-year 

period (2010-2012). As shown in Table 1, the PM10 data from the 

Payson monitor represents a complete data set for the 2010-2012 

period. Furthermore, this data set has been quality-assured and 

certified by ADEQ. No exceedances were recorded at the Payson 

monitor over the 2010-2012 period, and the maximum PM10

concentration measured over that period was 44 μg/m3

, which is 

less than one-third of the 150 μg/m3 standard.

Thus, the expected number of exceedances per year for the 

Payson monitor for the most recent three-year period (i.e., 2010 

to 2012) was 0.0 days per year. As such, based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for the 2010-2012 period, 

we conclude that the Payson area is attaining the standard, and 

thereby meets the first criterion for the LMP option. Data from 

2013, while incomplete and preliminary, are also consistent 

with this finding of attainment.

Table 1: Summary of 2002-2013 PM10 Monitoring Data

for Payson Area

Year

Maximum 

Level

(μg/m3)

Percent 

Valid S

amples

Expecte

d 

Exceeda

nces 

per Year

Monito

red 

5-year 

Design 

Value

(μg/m3

)

5-year 

Design 

Value 

with 

Motor 

Vehicle 

Growth

(μg/m3)

Critica

l Design 

Value

(μg/m3)

2002 45 87 0.0 88 88 NA

2003 98 90 0.0 98 99 127
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18

2004 52 93 0.0 98 100 131

2005 80 80 0.0 98 100 134

2006 66 95 0.0 98 101 127

2007 61 97 0.0 98 102 129

2008 42 97 0.0 80 85 NA

2009 40 95 0.0 80 85 NA

2010 42 98 0.0 66 72 NA

2011 39 97 0.0 61 68 NA

2012 44 98 0.0 44 52 NA

2013 58 -- -- -- -- --

Sources: (1) AQS QuickLook report dated January 24, 2014. Data 

is from ADEQ’s monitor located on West Aero Drive in Payson, 

Arizona. (2) The growth increment from motor vehicles was 

based on an estimated overall motor vehicle growth increment 

of 7.7 μg/m3 from 2002 to 2012 (see 67 FR at 43017, June 26, 

2002), which was interpolated to add 0.77 μg/m3 per year 

during that period. (3) Critical Design Values were 

calculated by ADEQ in their annual LMP eligibility reports 

for the Payson PM10 area, which are included in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Notes:

For the purposes of comparison, the PM10 NAAQS is 150 ug/m3

.

NA = Not applicable. Critical Design Value is not applicable 

when the Design Value (including motor vehicle growth) is 

at or below 98 μg/m3.

-- AQS only includes data from the first two quarters of 2013.

Five-year Average Design Values

The second criterion for the LMP option is that the average 

24-hour PM10 design value, based on the most recent 5 years of 

data at all monitors in the area, be at or below 98 ug/m3 with 

no violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area. If an 

area cannot meet this test, it may still qualify for the LMP

option using the site-specific critical design value (CDV), 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19

which is an indicator of the likelihood of future violations 

at that site.7

For the Payson area, because there is only one monitoring 

site and given the frequency of monitoring (one day every six 

days), the “average design value” is simply the highest PM10

concentration measured at the Payson Wells Site over the most 

recent five calendar years. The Second Ten-Year LMP indicates 

that the design value for the Payson area based on data from 

2006 through 2010 is 66 μg/m3, which is well below the criterion

of 98 ug/m3

. Based on more recent ambient monitoring data (2008 

through 2012) than was available when the Second Ten-Year LMP 

was being prepared, the design value is 44 μg/m3, which is also 

well below the criterion of 98 μg/m3

. Thus, the second criterion 

has been met.

Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test

The third criterion is referred to as the motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. The methodology for this test 

is found in attachment B to the LMP policy. As a general matter, 

for this test, the monitor-based design value is increased based 

on the expected growth in motor vehicle traffic over the 

maintenance period. Specifically, the motor vehicle fraction 

of the design value concentration is assumed to equal the motor 

 7 See the LMP Policy, pp. 2-3 and attachment A to the LMP Policy.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20

vehicle fraction of the overall emissions inventory. The motor 

vehicle fraction of the design value is then multiplied by the 

projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

in the area over the next 10 years. The product of this 

calculation is then added to the monitor-based design value and 

compared with the applicable criterion, in this case, 98 μg/m3

. 

If the sum is less than or equal to 98 μg/m3

, then the criterion 

is met.

In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, ADEQ used 

the updated inventory (see Table 2, below) to estimate that 

motor vehicles contribute approximately 62%, or 41 μg/m3, to the 

design value of 66 μg/m3 (based on 2006-2010 data). ADEQ then 

multiplied 41 μg/m3 by 0.24, based on the projected 10-year 

increase in traffic in the Payson area of approximately 24% to 

estimate the traffic growth increment of approximately 10 μg/m3. 

ADEQ then concluded that motor vehicle regional emissions 

analysis test was met because the sum of the motor vehicle growth 

increment (approximately 10 μg/m3

) and the design value (66 

μg/m3

), or 76 μg/m3, is less than the criterion of 98 μg/m3. We 

have reviewed ADEQ’s methods and calculations and find them 

acceptable. If the calculation were to be re-done using the most 

recent monitored 5-year design value (which is 44 μg/m3 based 

on 2008-2012 data), the test would be met by an even larger 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21

margin. Therefore, the third criterion for eligibility for the 

LMP option for the second 10-year period of maintenance is met.

Conclusion and Maintenance Demonstration

For the reasons given above, we conclude that the Payson

area remains eligible for the LMP option. Under the LMP policy, 

the maintenance demonstration requirement under CAA section 

175A is considered satisfied for areas meeting the LMP criteria 

discussed above, and because the Payson area continues to meet 

the LMP criteria, we conclude that no further demonstration of 

maintenance through the second 10-year period is necessary. 

C. Is the Updated Emission Inventory Acceptable?

For LMPs, a State’s submission should include an emissions 

inventory which can be used to demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS by meeting the LMP eligibility criteria. The inventory 

should represent emissions during the same five-year period 

associated with air quality data used to determine whether the 

area meets the LMP applicability requirements.

As part of the Second Ten-Year LMP, ADEQ prepared a PM10

emissions inventory for 2008 for the Payson area. Year 2008 is 

one of the years within the five-year period over which the PM10

design value for the Payson area is calculated and thus is an 

acceptable inventory year. Based on ADEQ’s estimates, shown in 

Table 2 below, on-road motor vehicles (including fugitive dust 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22

from entrainment of PM10 from travel on paved and unpaved roads, 

as well as exhaust, brake and tire wear) contribute 

approximately 62% to the total PM10 inventory, while 

construction and residential wood combustion contribute 32.6% 

and 4.6%, respectively. Industrial sources contribute less than 

1%. 

Table 2: Payson PM10 Maintenance Area – 2008 Emission 

Inventory

Source Category

Payson Maintenance 

Area PM10 Emissions

(tons per day)

Percent of Total 

PM10 Emissions in 

Payson Maintenance 

Area

Unpaved Roads –

Fugitive Dust 0.29 30.4

Paved Roads –

Fugitive Dust 0.27 28.8

Paved and Unpaved 

Roads – Exhaust, 

Tire, and Brake Wear 0.03 2.8

Subtotal – Motor 

Vehicles 0.59 62.0

Construction 0.31 32.6

Residential Wood 

Combustion 0.04 4.6

Industrial Sources 0.01 0.8

Total 0.92 100.0

Source: Derived from Table 3.5 (page 17) of the Second Ten-Year 

LMP for the Payson area.

Section 3.2 of the Second Ten-Year LMP describes the 

methodology used to develop the attainment inventory. The 

emission inventory categories are the same as those identified 

in the First Ten-Year LMP, and the methodology used to determine
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23

the contribution of sources is largely the same as was used in 

the First Ten-Year LMP. ADEQ updated emissions for each source 

category based on current emissions models, vehicle activity, 

population and employment figures. 

For instance, ADEQ updated motor vehicle emissions 

estimates using EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 

to develop emission factors for motor vehicle exhaust, tire, 

and brake wear for motor vehicles. NMIM uses EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

emission factors, which were the most current factors at the 

time that development of the Second Ten-Year LMP was initiated.

ADEQ used updated emission factors in EPA’s Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) to estimate PM10 entrained 

by vehicle movement over paved roads. ADEQ also updated the 

non-mobile source inventory with 2008 National Emission 

Inventory (NEI) data, primarily by adjusting county-specific 

estimates by the ratio of population in the Payson area to the 

population in Gila County. For point sources in Payson, ADEQ 

used industrial source data collected in an annual survey of 

permitted facilities.

ADEQ compared the 2008 emissions estimates with those 

prepared for the First Ten-Year LMP and provided a sufficient

explanation for those source categories that differed 

significantly in the updated inventory relative to the previous 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24

inventory. ADEQ explained that the emissions from residential 

wood combustion decreased significantly due to the 

implementation of EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for residential wood heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) and 

that the emissions associated with fugitive dust from vehicle 

travel over unpaved roads increased significantly due to higher

estimates of unpaved road VMT in the Payson air quality planning 

area.8

During the period in which the draft Second Ten-Year LMP 

was being developed, EPA replaced MOBILE6.2 with a new motor 

vehicle emission factor model, known as Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (or “MOVES”). In response to EPA’s request to consider 

the impact on the inventory due to the release of MOVES, ADEQ 

re-calculated the motor vehicle emissions estimates using MOVES 

and projected a 0.006 ton per day increase in emissions from 

motor vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear relative to the 

estimate made using MOBILE6.2.9 This incremental increase 

corresponds to a 0.1 μg/m3 increase in the estimate of the motor 

vehicle fraction of the design value. As such, use of MOVES, 

 8

 The First Ten-Year LMP relied on annual estimate of unpaved road VMT of 

75,000 (see page 23 of the First Ten-Year LMP) whereas the corresponding 

estimate in the Second Ten-Year LMP is approximately 510,000 miles (see page 

16 of the Second Ten-Year LMP). 9

 See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated February 10, 

2014.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25

rather MOBILE6.2, has no effect on the continued eligibility 

of the Payson area for the LMP option.

Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions 

used by ADEQ to develop the PM10 emission inventory, we find that 

the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area includes a 

comprehensive inventory of PM10 emissions and conclude that the 

plan’s inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent 

maintenance plan, in this case, a subsequent LMP, under CAA 

section 175A(b).

D. Are the Plan Control Measures Permanent and Enforceable?

As discussed in our 2002 approval of the First Ten-Year 

LMP for the Payson area, the measures that brought the area into 

attainment are permanent and enforceable (67 FR 43013, at 43018, 

June 26, 2002). The Second Ten-Year LMP relies on the same

control measures to continue to maintain the NAAQS for PM10

through 2022. The Second Ten-Year LMP has not revised these 

measures, which continue to be permanent and enforceable. 

E. Has the State Committed to Continue to Operate an Appropriate 

PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Network?

ADEQ currently operates a single PM10 monitoring site in 

the Payson area. Operating a single monitor in this area is 

consistent with EPA’s monitoring requirements. ADEQ has 

committed to continue to operate an appropriate PM10 air quality 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

26

monitoring network to verify the attainment status of the Payson 

area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. See section 6.0 of the 

Second Ten-Year LMP. In October 2013, ADEQ requested EPA 

approval of relocation of the Payson monitor to another location 

on the same property.10 EPA has not taken action yet on this 

request.

F. Does the Plan Continue to Meet the CAA Provisions for 

Contingency Measures? 

Section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must 

include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt 

correction of any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after 

redesignation of the area to attainment. These 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 the State should ensure 

that the contingency measures are adopted as soon as possible 

once they are triggered by a specific event. The contingency 

plan should identify the measure to be adopted, and provide a 

schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the 

measure if they are required. 

 10 See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 

to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region IX, dated October 1, 

2013. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

27

In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, ADEQ has, 

in most respects, carried forward the contingency plan adopted 

in the First Ten-Year LMP, which was approved by EPA in 2002. 

First, ADEQ commits to continue to submit annual reports to EPA 

that will include calculation of the Payson area PM10 design 

value to verify continued attainment and continued eligibility 

for the LMP option. See section 6.0 of the Second Ten-Year LMP 

for the Payson area.

ADEQ made a similar commitment in the approved First 

Ten-Year LMP and has met its commitment through submittal of 

annual reports to EPA. We note that the annual reports did not 

address the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test 

although we acknowledge that doing so would not have changed 

the status of the Payson area with respect to eligibility for 

the LMP option. ADEQ should address the motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test in annual reports submitted to EPA under 

the Second Ten-Year LMP. 

Second, as part of the contingency plan, ADEQ has committed 

to determine whether or not PM10 NAAQS violations have been 

recorded within six months of the close of each calendar year, 

and to review and determine the appropriate contingency 

measure(s) by the end of the same calendar year. See section 

5.3 of the Second Ten-Year LMP. Table 3 below lists the measures 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

28

that ADEQ commits to consider for implementation in the event 

of a violation of the PM10 NAAQS or in the event the annual 

recalculation of the area’s design value exceeds the applicable 

LMP option criteria. The cause of the violation or exceedance 

of the LMP option criteria will help to determine the 

appropriate contingency measure(s) to be implemented. 

Table 3: Payson Area Contingency Measures

Contingency measures Implementing entity

If any PM10 industrial source operating 

within the maintenance area is found to 

be contributing to monitored readings 

above the LMP allowable limits, ADEQ will 

review existing air quality permit(s) to 

identify additional PM10 control 

measures which may be needed. If the PM10

source does not have a permit, the 

permitting authority will determine if 

an air quality permit and PM10 controls 

are needed.

ADEQ. 

If wood burning sources are found to be 

contributing to monitored readings above 

the LMP allowable limits, ADEQ will 

review State regulations and programs to 

determine appropriate action.

ADEQ. 

Pave or stabilize public unpaved roads, 

vacant lots, or unpaved parking lots 

located in the PM10 maintenance area 

subject to limits of statutory 

authority.

Town of Payson and/or 

Gila County. 

Continuation of Smoke Management 

Plan--State and Federal land managers 

conducting prescribed burning must 

register with ADEQ for proposed burning 

activities under Arizona Administrative 

Code title 18, chapter 2, article 15 

(Forest & Range Management Burns). ADEQ 

U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona 

State Land Department, 

ADEQ. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

29

maintains the ability to deny permission 

for burning on certain high risk days 

(dependent on meteorological 

conditions) and may increase outreach 

and enforcement resources.

Finally, the State has committed to implement the selected 

contingency measure(s) within one year of determining that a 

PM10 NAAQS violation has occurred. Lastly, should the levels 

rise above the limits qualifying the area for the LMP option 

despite implementation of contingency measures, ADEQ has 

committed to develop and submit a full maintenance plan to EPA. 

We conclude that these measures and commitments meet the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

G. How Are Transportation and General Conformity Requirements

Being Met?

Section 176(c) of the Act requires that all Federal actions 

conform to an applicable SIP. Conformity is defined in section 

176(c) of the Act as conformity to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating 

or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS 

and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and 

that such activities will not: (1) cause or contribute to any 

new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the 

frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard 

in any area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

30

any required interim emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area.

EPA has established criteria and procedures for Federal 

agencies to follow in determining conformity of their actions. 

EPA's rule governing transportation plans, programs, and 

projects approved or funded by the Federal Highway 

Administration or Federal Transit Administration is referred 

to as the “transportation conformity” rule (see 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A), and EPA's rule governing all other types of Federal 

agency actions is referred to as the “general conformity” rule 

(see 40 CFR part 93, subpart B).

The transportation conformity rule and the general 

conformity rule apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Both rules provide that conformity can be demonstrated by 

showing that the expected emissions from planned actions are 

consistent with the emissions budget for the area. While EPA’s 

LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm 

conformity, the LMP policy explains that the area may

demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget.

Transportation Conformity

Under the LMP option, emissions budgets are treated as 

essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance 

period because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

31

areas would experience so much growth in that period that a 

violation of the NAAQS would result. Therefore, in areas with 

approved LMPs, Federal actions requiring conformity 

determinations under the transportation conformity rule are 

considered to satisfy the “budget test” required in 40 CFR 

93.118.

While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP

option are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain 

subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40 

CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Thus, the applicable metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State will still 

need to document and ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 

implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) 

in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;

(b) transportation plans and projects comply with the 

fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;

(c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;

(d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no 

less frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan 

amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

32

accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 

93.104; 

(e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model 

are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;

(f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new 

localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and 

(g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written 

commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.

Upon approval of the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area, the State (in this case, the Arizona Department of

Transportation) will continue to be exempt from performing a 

regional emissions analysis, but must continue to meet 

project-level analyses as well as the transportation conformity 

criteria mentioned above.

We posted notice of receipt of the Second Ten-Year LMP for 

the Payson area on EPA’s adequacy review website on January 23, 

2014, and took comments until February 24, 2014. See EPA’s 

conformity Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.h

tm. Once there, click on the link for the Payson LMP. Because 

LMPs do not contain budgets, the adequacy review period for this 

maintenance plan serves to allow the public to comment on 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

33

whether the LMP option is appropriate for this area. We did not 

receive any comments during the adequacy review comment period.

Lastly, if during the course of the second ten-year 

maintenance period, the LMP criteria are no longer satisfied 

and a full maintenance plan must be developed to meet CAA 

requirements, the approval of the LMP would remain applicable 

for transportation conformity purposes only until the full 

maintenance plan is submitted and EPA has found its motor 

vehicle emissions budgets adequate for conformity purposes 

under 40 CFR 93.118. 

General Conformity 

For Federal actions that are required to address the 

specific requirements of the general conformity rule, one set 

of requirements applies particularly to ensuring that emissions 

from a federal action will not cause or contribute to new 

violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current violations, or 

delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement can be 

met is to demonstrate that "the total of direct and indirect 

emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined 

and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for 

the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, 

together with all other emissions in the nonattainment area, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

34

would not exceed the emissions budgets specified in the 

applicable SIP." 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).

The decision about whether to include specific allocations 

of allowable emissions increases to sources (“emissions 

budgets”) is one made by the State and local air quality 

agencies. Such emissions budgets are unlike and not to be 

confused with those used in transportation conformity. 

Emissions budgets in transportation conformity are required to 

limit and restrain emissions. Emissions budgets in general 

conformity allow increases in emissions up to specified levels. 

ADEQ has chosen not to include any specific emissions 

allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the 

provisions of general conformity in the Second Ten-Year LMP for 

the Payson area. Similar to transportation conformity, in LMP

areas, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule 

could be considered to satisfy the “budget test” specified in 

40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule, for the same reasons that 

the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

IV. Final Action

Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is approving the second 

ten-year limited maintenance plan for the Payson air quality 

planning area for the PM10 NAAQS that was submitted by ADEQ on 

January 23, 2012 as a revision to the Arizona SIP. EPA is 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

35

approving this plan based on the conclusion that the plan 

adequately provides for continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS 

in the Payson area through 2022 and thereby meets the 

requirements for subsequent maintenance plans under section 

175A of the Act. The effect of this action is to make the State’s 

continuing commitments with respect to maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS in the Payson area federally enforceable for another ten 

years. These commitments include continued monitoring; 

continued implementation of control measures that were 

responsible for bringing the area into attainment; preparation 

and submittal of annual reports; consideration and 

implementation of contingency measures, if necessary; and 

submittal of a full maintenance plan if contingency measures 

fail to provide the necessary remedy.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal 

because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules 

section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing 

a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve 

the Payson Second Ten-Year LMP if relevant adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], without further 

notice unless relevant adverse comments are received by [INSERT 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

36

DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

If we receive such comments, this direct final action will be 

withdrawn before the effective date. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based 

on the proposed action. We will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, 

the public is advised that this action will be effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 

the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves a State plan as meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, this action:

• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

37

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

38

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 

permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this action and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

39

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions 

for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication 

of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed 

rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, rather than file an 

immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address 

the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements 

(see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

40

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

March 5, 2014 //signed//

________________ ______________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on March 5, 2014. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

41

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as 

follows:

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D – Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (159) to 

read as follows: 

§52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(159) The following plan was submitted on January 23, 2012 by 

the Governor’s Designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Materials.

(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

(1) Final Update of the Limited Maintenance Plan for the Payson 

PM10 Maintenance Area (December 2011), adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on January 23, 2012.

* * * * *