Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13425

addresses ‘‘other persons engaged in the same 

activity’’, while Subparagraph (ii) addresses ‘‘other 

persons engaged in the same activity that are not 

depository institutions or affiliates thereof.’’

29 Greenwood Trust Co. v. Mass., 971 F.2d 818 

(1st Cir. 1992), Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 

(1996).

30See FDIC General Counsel Opinions 10 and 11.

language permit the FDIC to address the 

meaning of Section 104(d) for a state 

bank confronting state laws outside its 

home state that disadvantage it by 

putting it in a different legal or 

competitive position than its national 

bank or in-state state bank competitors.

The following specific items might be 

covered in an FDIC rule or statement of 

policy: 

• The rule should state that the 

Section 104(d) preemption applies to 

insured banks, and to their subsidiaries, 

affiliates and associated persons. 

• The rule should define a ‘‘person’’

to include a depository institution, 

subsidiary, affiliate, and associated 

person. 

• The rule should state that in view 

of the breadth of the nondiscrimination 

requirements stated in Section 104(d) 

the word ‘‘restrict’’ in Section 104(d)(1) 

is to be read broadly to include any state 

law, rule, interpretation or action that 

calls for any limitation or requirement. 

Any state law that ‘‘restricts’’ but is 

nondiscriminatory under Section 

104(d)(4) is not preempted under 

Section 104(d). By the same token, any 

state law that ‘‘restricts’’ and is 

discriminatory under Section 104(d)(4) 

is preempted under Section 104(d). 

• The rule should address each of the 

four nondiscrimination provisions in 

Section 104(d)(4) to confirm that each is 

a distinct test and that any state law or 

action that fails any one test is 

preempted. 

• The rule should address the scope 

of ‘‘actions’’ in Section 104(d)(4) to 

include all types of formal or informal 

administrative actions by any state or 

local governmental entity, including 

decisions with respect to civil 

enforcement of state rules. 

• The rule should address Section 

104(d)(4)(D)(i) in light of the terms used 

in subparagraph (ii) to specify that 

subparagraph (i) addresses treatment 

under state law of an out-of-state 

insured state bank, which is plainly an 

‘‘insured depository institution,’’ that is 

different from the treatment of any 

national bank or in-state state bank and 

banks, which is an ‘‘other person 

engaged in the same activity’’ under 

these provisions. It should also specify 

that this discrimination can take various 

forms, including state laws, rules, or 

‘‘actions’’ that treat out-of-state state 

banks or their subsidiaries differently 

from in-state or federal institutions, 

whether expressly (e.g., through a state 

law exemption for federal institutions, 

but not out-of-state state banks insured 

institutions), by operation of law (e.g., 

when state law is preempted for 

national banks or federal thrifts, and 

federal credit unions, but not for out-ofstate state banks), or by an 

administrative determination to enforce 

a state rule against an out-of-state state 

bank or affiliate, but not against a 

federal entity. The rule could give 

examples. 

• The rule should define ‘‘state law’’

to include laws, ordinances, rules, etc. 

of political subdivisions (including any 

county, municipality, etc.). 

5. The FDIC Should Implement Section 

27 of the FDI Act by Adopting a Rule 

Parallel to the Rules Promulgated by the 

OCC and OTS 

The scope and implementation of the 

express preemption for the ‘‘interest 

rate’’ charged in interstate lending 

transactions by state and national banks 

under Section 27 of the FDI Act and 

Section 85 of the National Bank Act 

have been authoritatively addressed by 

the courts 29 and in agency 

interpretations.30 Nevertheless, both the 

OCC and OTS have adopted rules 

codifying the scope of the respective 

statutory provisions. We request that the 

FDIC adopt parallel provisions by rule 

so that state banks will operate in a 

matching legal framework under these 

parallel statutes.

* * * * *

The Roundtable appreciates the 

FDIC’s consideration of this petition. 

We recognize that it is very broad and 

asks the FDIC to undertake a major 

rulemaking. We believe that such an 

effort is urgently needed to preserve a 

strong dual banking system, to maintain 

safety and soundness, and to ensure that 

it is attractive to both large and small 

banks. Such a system is an integral, 

essential part of the framework for 

banking in the United States. While we 

strongly support the development of 

interstate banking and federal 

preemption over the last decade, we 

believe that the modernization of 

American banking requires a parallel 

modernization of the state half of the 

dual banking system. Since the issues 

concern interstate business and 

preemption, the needed actions must 

come at the federal level. As discussed 

above, we believe that Congress has 

given the FDIC both the tools and 

responsibility to address these needs. 

The Roundtable and its members 

stand ready to work with the FDIC and 

its staff to achieve these important 

objectives. If you have any further 

questions or comments, please do not 

hesitate to contact me or John Beccia at 

(202) 289–4322.

Sincerely,

Richard M. Whiting, 

Executive Director and General Counsel.

cc: Chairman Donald E. Powell, William F. 

Kroener III, Esq.

[FR Doc. 05–5499 Filed 3–18–05; 8:45] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[AZ131–0078; FRL–7887–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality’s submittals of 

revisions to the Arizona state 

implementation plan that include 

substitution of the clean fuel fleet 

program requirement with the cleaner 

burning gasoline program, adoption of 

the serious area 1-hour ozone plan, and 

adoption of the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Phoenix 

(Arizona) metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. We are also 

proposing to approve Arizona’s request 

to redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area from 

nonattainment to attainment. EPA 

proposes these actions pursuant to those 

provisions of the Clean Air Act that 

obligate the agency to take action on 

submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans and requests for 

redesignation. In addition, under 

section 107 of the Clean Air Act, we are 

proposing to revise the boundary of the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. EPA is 

proposing this last action consistent 

with the Federal trust responsibility to 

the Tribes and for the purpose of 

relieving the Agency or the Gila River 

Indian Community of the need to 

promulgate and implement plans and 

measures for the Community that are 

not needed for attainment or 

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard.

13426 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before April 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Formal written comments 

should be mailed or emailed to Wienke 

Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. Comments may 

also be submitted through the Federal 

Register Web site at http://

www.regulations.gov. We prefer 

electronic comments. 

You can inspect copies of EPA’s 

Federal Register document at our 

Region 9 office during normal business 

hours (see address above). Due to 

increased security, we suggest that you 

call at least 24 hours prior to visiting the 

Regional Office so that we can make 

arrangements to have someone meet 

you. The Federal Register document is 

also available as an electronic file on 

EPA’s Region 9 Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

You may inspect and copy the 

rulemaking docket for this notice at the 

following location during business 

hours.

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105.

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the address 

listed below:

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, 

First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007, 

Phone: (602) 771–2217.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (520) 622–1622, e-mail: 

tax.wienke@epa.gov, or see http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in the 

Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment 

Area 

III. The CAA’s Requirements for 

Redesignation Requests and 

Maintenance Plans 

IV. EPA’s Review of the MAG 1-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan’s Compliance With the CAA’s 

Requirements for Ozone Redesignation 

Requests and Maintenance Plans 

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS 

1. Adequate Monitoring Network 

2. Attainment of the Standard 

3. Monitoring Results 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

SIP Under Section 110(k) 

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must 

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

1. Section 110 Requirements 

2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment 

Areas 

a. Section 172 Requirements 

b. Section 176 Requirements 

c. Section 182 Requirements 

E. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

Maintenance Plan Meeting the 

Requirements of Section 175A 

1. Emissions Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. Contingency Plan 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEBs) 

8. Conclusion 

V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix 

Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Background 

B. EPA Review of the Community’s 

Request 

C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the 

Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan 1-

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve, under 

sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the State 

of Arizona’s 1998 request to ‘‘opt-out’’

of the clean fuel fleet (CFF) program and 

to approve the cleaner burning gasoline 

(CBG) program as a substitute measure. 

We are also proposing to approve, under 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the State’s 

2000 submittal of the Final Serious Area 

Ozone State Implementation Plan for 

Maricopa County (‘‘Serious Area Ozone 

Plan’’), which provides a demonstration 

of compliance with requirements under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) for the 

Phoenix metropolitan ‘‘serious’’ 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. 

We are also proposing to approve, 

under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 

110(k)(3), the State’s 2004 submittal of 

the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area

(‘‘Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan’’), which was 

developed and adopted by the Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) as 

meeting CAA requirements for 

redesignation requests and maintenance 

plans. EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area has fully met the 

requirements for redesignation found at 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 

redesignation of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). However, this 

proposal is contingent upon final 

approval by EPA of three separate 

proposed rulemakings involving two 

Maricopa County rules, a negative 

declaration, and a set of permit 

conditions imposing ‘‘reasonably 

available control technology’’ on a 

specific stationary source. As part of our 

approval of the maintenance plan, we 

are proposing to approve the 2006 and 

2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX in the 

submitted maintenance plan for 

transportation conformity purposes.

In addition, we are proposing, under 

section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, to revise 

the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. This proposed 

action would add the Maricopa County 

portion of the Reservation to the current 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ area within 

the State of Arizona for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The effect of this action 

would be to relieve the Agency and the 

Community of the need to develop and 

implement plans and measures that are 

not needed for attainment or 

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

II. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in 

the Phoenix Metropolitan 

Nonattainment Area 

Under section 107(d) of the CAA, as 

amended in 1977, Maricopa County was 

designated as a 1-hour oxidant (later 

ozone) nonattainment area in March 

1978 (43 FR 8962). Originally, the 

nonattainment area was county-wide, 

but EPA later approved a State request 

to limit the nonattainment area to a 

subregion within Maricopa County that 

was defined by the boundaries of the 

Maricopa Association of Governments’

(MAG) Urban Planning Area. See 44 FR 

16388, 16393 (March 19, 1979). We refer 

to this area herein as the ‘‘Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area’’ or the ‘‘Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area,’’ and 

we note that the boundary of this 

nonattainment area has remained 

defined by reference to the MAG urban 

planning area from 1979 through the 

present time. However, we are 

proposing today to revise the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area boundary to exclude 

the Gila River Indian Reservation (see 

Section V of this proposed rule). 

On November 15, 1990, the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 were enacted. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13427

Under the Act, as amended in 1990, the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area remained 

nonattainment by operation of law, and 

under section 107(d)(4)(A) of the 

amended Act, the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area was further 

classified as a ‘‘moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment area based on ozone 

monitoring data during the 1987–1989 

period. See 56 FR 56694, 56717 

(November 6, 1991). Because attainment 

was not achieved by November 15, 1996 

(the CAA attainment date for 

‘‘moderate’’ ozone nonattainment areas), 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area was reclassified to 

‘‘serious,’’ effective February 13, 1998, 

with a new attainment date of 

November 15, 1999. See 62 FR 60001 

(November 6, 1997) and 63 FR 7290 

(February 13, 1998). 

In connection with one of the 

requirements for ‘‘moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas, the State of 

Arizona submitted the initial 15 percent 

Rate of Progress plan (15 percent ROP 

plan) for the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area via the Maricopa 

Association of Governments 1993 Ozone 

Plan for the Maricopa County Area

(November 1993) on November 15, 

1993, and an Addendum (March 1994) 

to that plan on April 8, 1994. On April 

13, 1994, EPA found the initial plan 

(including the Addendum) incomplete 

because it failed to include in fully 

adopted and enforceable form all of the 

measures relied upon in the 15 percent 

ROP demonstration. This 

incompleteness finding started the 18-

month sanction clock in CAA section 

179 and the two year clock under 

section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) 

covering the 15 percent ROP 

requirement. Subsequently in November 

1994 and April 1995, Arizona submitted 

an attainment plan for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area which 

updated the 15 percent ROP 

demonstration. On May 12, 1995, we 

found the revised 15 percent ROP plan 

and the attainment plan complete, 

turning off the sanctions clock; 

however, under section 110(c), the FIP 

clock continued until EPA approved the 

15 percent ROP plan. 

In August 1996, EPA was sued by the 

American Lung Association of Arizona, 

ALAA v. Browner, No. CIV 96–1856 

PHX ROS (D.Ariz.). This case sought to 

enforce EPA’s obligation under CAA 

section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP for 

the 15 percent ROP requirement. On 

July 8, 1997, a consent decree was filed 

with the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Arizona establishing a 

schedule of January 20, 1998 for 

proposing and May 18, 1998 for 

promulgating a 15 percent ROP plan. 

Under the consent decree, EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate a 15 percent 

ROP plan was relieved to the extent that 

we had approved State measures. EPA 

determined in its final rule that the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area had in place or would have in place 

sufficient control measures to meet the 

15 percent ROP requirement for volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor 

emission to ozone, under CAA section 

182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See 

63 FR 28898 (May 27, 1998), as 

amended at 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999). 

In February 2000, the State of Arizona 

requested that EPA make a finding that 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area had attained the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

‘‘serious’’ area attainment date of 

November 15, 1999 based on 1997–1999 

ozone monitoring data. In May of 2000, 

we proposed such a finding (see 65 FR 

31859, May 19, 2000) and 

approximately one year later, we 

published a final attainment 

determination for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 

2001). 

On December 7, 1998, in connection 

with one of the requirements for 

‘‘serious’’ ozone nonattainment areas, 

the State submitted to EPA a SIP 

revision opting out of the Clean Fuel 

Fleet program requirement and 

requesting EPA approval of its interim 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) 

program as a substitute program. On 

June 7, 1999, the revision was found to 

be complete by operation of law 

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria 

set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

In today’s notice, we are proposed to 

approve this request. 

On December 14, 2000, the State 

submitted the Final Serious Area Ozone 

State Implementation Plan for Maricopa 

County (‘‘Serious Area Ozone Plan’’) to 

EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

This plan was found to be complete by 

operation of law on June 14, 2001. 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) prepared the Serious 

Area Ozone Plan, and in doing so, 

anticipated a positive attainment 

finding for the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area based on 1997–1999 

ozone monitoring data. The Serious 

Area Ozone Plan includes a complete 

emissions inventory for year 1996, and 

describes the State’s compliance with 

CAA requirements for ‘‘serious’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas, including the 

requirements for enhanced monitoring. 

In today’s notice, we are proposing to 

approve the Serious Area Ozone Plan 

for the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area.

In earlier actions, we have already 

approved revisions to Arizona’s Cleaner 

Burning Gasoline (CBG) program (69 FR 

10161, March 4, 2004) and to Arizona’s 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI) 

Program (68 FR 2912, January 22, 2003) 

as well as many of Maricopa County’s 

VOC RACT rules. (The Federal Register

citations and effective dates for these 

rules are listed later in this notice in 

Table 3.) These programs, as revised, are 

the principal State and local controls 

relied on in the Serious Area Ozone 

Plan. 

On April 21, 2004, the State 

submitted the One-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

County Nonattainment Area

(Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan) to EPA as a revision 

to the Arizona SIP. This plan was found 

to be complete by operation of law on 

October 21, 2004. The Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) 

prepared the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan, which relies on 

continuation of the control measures 

cited above in connection with the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan but also 

includes additional control measures 

including coordination of traffic signal 

systems, tougher enforcement of vehicle 

registration and emission test 

compliance, development of intelligent 

transportation systems, and a new 

Maricopa County rule governing VOC 

emissions from aerospace 

manufacturing and rework operations. 

The plan includes contingency 

measures to remedy any future 

violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and includes VOC and NOX MVEBs for 

2006 and 2015 for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area. In 

today’s notice, we are proposing to 

approve the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area. 

Our proposed approvals of the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan and the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan are contingent upon final EPA 

approval of certain other rulemakings 

described in more detail later in this 

notice. EPA notes that the Phoenix-Mesa 

metropolitan area has been designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and is subject to additional 

requirements as a result. See 69 FR 

23858, 23879 (April 30, 2004). Final 

approval of this proposal would change 

the official designation for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 

for the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area from nonattainment 

to attainment but would not affect the 

13428 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

designation for the Phoenix-Mesa area. 

III. The CAA’s Requirements for 

Redesignation Requests and 

Maintenance Plans 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

providing that the following conditions 

are met: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). 

EPA has provided further guidance on 

processing redesignation requests in the 

following documents: 

• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas’’, 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992 (Helms memo 

1992a); 

• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations’’, Memorandum from G. 

T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992 (Helms memo 1992b); 

• ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’, Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memo 1992a); 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines’’, 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992 (Calcagni 

memo 1992b); 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992’’, Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memo); 

• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment’’, Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 

(Nichols memo); and 

• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’, 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz 

memo). 

IV. EPA’s Review of the MAG 1-Hour 

Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan’s Compliance With 

the CAA’s Requirements for Ozone 

Redesignation Requests and 

Maintenance Plans 

EPA believes the State of Arizona has 

demonstrated that the area meets all of 

the applicable criteria for redesignation 

to attainment as specified in Section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA 

states that for an area to be redesignated 

to attainment, the Administrator must 

determine that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS. In this case, the 

applicable NAAQS is the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS.

1. Adequate Monitoring Network 

The CAA requires States to establish 

and operate air monitoring networks to 

compile data on ambient air quality for 

all criteria pollutants. See section 

110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Our 

regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish 

specific regulatory requirements for 

operating air quality surveillance 

networks to measure ambient 

concentrations of ozone, including 

measurement method requirements, 

network design, quality assurance 

procedures, and in the case of large 

urban areas, the minimum number of 

monitoring sites designated as National 

Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS). 

For this proposed action, we are 

discussing the adequacy of the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area 

monitoring network to support our 

finding that the Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan appropriately 

evaluates the 1-hour ozone problem in 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area. Reliable ambient 

data are necessary to validate the base 

year air quality modeling which in turn 

is necessary to assure a sound 

maintenance demonstration. 

As it existed in the 2000 to 2002 

period, the ozone ambient air 

monitoring network consisted of four 

National Air Monitoring Stations 

(NAMS), 14 State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), and three 

Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) 

operated by the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department 

(MCESD) and the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

Figure 2–1 on page 2–6 in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan lists the names of the sites and 

their locations in the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area. Since 

the 2000–2002 period, the ozone 

network has changed, e.g., certain sites 

have been discontinued while new sites 

have been added. In the 2002–2004 

period, the ozone monitoring network 

consists of 18 monitoring sites, four 

designated as NAMS, 12 designated as 

SLAMS, and two SPMs. These sites all 

use EPA reference methods, are sited 

according to our regulations, meet the 

applicable monitoring objectives in our 

regulations, and are operated according 

to our regulations. We therefore find 

that the monitoring network operated by 

the MCESD and ADEQ is adequate to 

support the technical evaluation of 

ozone maintenance in the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan. 

2. Attainment of the Standard 

For ozone, an area may be considered 

to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

if there are no violations, as determined 

in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and 

appendix H, based on three complete, 

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured ambient monitoring data. A 

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

occurs when the estimated number of 

exceedances per year averaged over 

three years is greater than 1.0 at any 

monitoring site in the area or its 

downwind environs, using conventional 

rounding techniques. 

The calculation of the estimated 

exceedances takes into account not only 

the number of exceedances during a 

given ozone season, but also 

completeness of data, and daily peak 

ozone concentrations on days in the 

ozone season that can be assumed to be 

less than the level of the standard. A 

daily exceedance occurs when the 

maximum hourly ozone concentration 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13429

during a given day is greater than or 

equal to 0.125 parts per million (ppm), 

using conventional rounding 

techniques. Monitoring data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. 

3. Monitoring Results 

MCESD and ADEQ submitted qualityassured ozone monitoring data to EPA 

for the 1997 to 1999 ozone monitoring 

seasons. As noted previously, we 

determined that the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area had attained the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. See 66 FR 29230 (May 

30, 2001). Since then, the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area has 

continued to meet the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR AND DESIGN VALUES BY MONITOR IN THE PHOENIX

METROPOLITAN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA (2000 TO 2004) 

Site SITE

type 

Average

number of

exceedance

days per year 

Site design

value (ppm) 

Blue Point ........................................................................................................................................ NAMS 0 0.110 

Central Phoenix .............................................................................................................................. NAMS 0 0.098 

Fountain Hills .................................................................................................................................. NAMS 0 0.106 

South Scottsdale ............................................................................................................................. NAMS 0 0.099 

Tempe ............................................................................................................................................. SPM 0 0.098 

Falcon Field .................................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.104 

Rio Verde ........................................................................................................................................ SLAMS 0 0.101 

Dysart** ........................................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.085 

South Phoenix ................................................................................................................................. SLAMS 0 0.091 

West Phoenix .................................................................................................................................. SLAMS 0 0.097 

Pinnacle Peak ................................................................................................................................. SLAMS 0 0.101 

North Phoenix ................................................................................................................................. SLAMS 0 0.105 

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

West Chandler ................................................................................................................................ SLAMS 0 0.099 

Cave Creek ..................................................................................................................................... SPM 0 0.099 

Humboldt Mountain ......................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.099 

JLG Supersite* ................................................................................................................................ SLAMS 0 0.086 

Palo Verde* ..................................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.098 

Sources: AQS Database and MCESD 2003 Network Review. 

*ADEQ Site. 

**Site only has data from 2003–2004. 

Table 1 also provides design values 

for each monitoring site. The design 

value generally represents the 4th 

highest daily maximum (hourly) ozone 

concentration over a given three-year 

period at a given site. Design values 

provide one basis of comparison 

between different parts of a given 

nonattainment area with respect to peak 

ozone exposure; as such, the design 

values are provided herein for 

information purposes only. Attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS relies on the 

average number of exceedances per year 

(the design value is used under the CAA 

if an area is found to have missed its 

attainment deadline and must be 

reclassified). 

Based on the monitoring data 

summarized in Table 1, we propose to 

determine that the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained, and 

continues to attain, the applicable 

NAAQS and therefore meets the related 

criterion for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the Act. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

EPA fully approved the ozone SIP for 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area that had been 

required under the CAA, as amended in 

1977. See 47 FR 19326 (May 5, 1982) 

and 40 CFR 52.123(d). With respect to 

ozone-related SIP requirements under 

the CAA, as amended in 1990, EPA is 

proposing action in today’s notice to 

approve the Serious Area Ozone Plan 

SIP revision for the Phoenix 

metropolitan serious 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and thereby fulfill 

the requirements for a periodic 

inventory for 1996 and enhanced 

monitoring.

CAA requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas are cumulative in 

that ‘‘serious’’ areas must also meet the 

applicable requirements for the two 

lesser classifications: ‘‘marginal’’ and 

‘‘moderate’’. Most of the applicable 

requirements for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, such as the base 

year 1990 emissions inventory, an 

enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program and various 

Maricopa County RACT rules, have 

been fully approved under section 

110(k) by EPA in previous rulemakings 

and our final approval of the Serious 

Area Ozone Plan will accomplish the 

same for the 1996 periodic inventory 

requirement and the enhanced 

monitoring requirement. 

We recognize that there remain 

several EPA proposed rules that need to 

be finalized before we can finalize our 

action described herein. These proposed 

rules involve Maricopa County (MC) 

Rule 358, source-specific RACT for W.R. 

Meadows, the MC rule establishing the 

emissions statements requirement, and a 

negative declaration. If, and once, we 

finalize our approvals of these separate 

proposed actions and finalize our 

proposed approval of the Serious Area 

Ozone Plan, then we will have fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) and satisfied the criterion 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. 

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must 

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

The improvement in air quality must 

be due to permanent and enforceable 

13430 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other State-adopted 

measures. 

EPA believes that the State has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvements are due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

through the implementation of emission 

controls contained in the Arizona SIP 

and Federal measures. Subsequent to 

the 1990 CAA amendments, Arizona 

implemented a number of emission 

controls. The area has complied with all 

of the emission requirements for a 

serious ozone nonattainment area as 

required by the CAA. 

Some of the emission reductions were 

achieved through the implementation of 

the use of low volatility cleaner burning 

gasoline, more stringent Tier I motor 

vehicle emission standards, 

implementation of an enhanced vehicle 

I/M program, controls on area sources, 

and the adoption of tighter emissions 

limits on existing stationary sources. All 

of the emission control measures 

contained in the 15 percent ROP plan, 

serious area ozone plan, and 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan have been fully adopted, have been 

implemented, and are enforceable in the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area. Maricopa County has adopted and 

implemented emission control rules 

requiring existing sources of VOC to 

meet, at minimum, RACT. These 

requirements apply to sources in 

categories covered by CTGs and other 

major non-CTG sources. 

Table 2 shows the decrease in 

emissions between 1990 and 1999 due 

to permanent and enforceable measures.

TABLE 2.—990 AND 1999 PHOENIX METROPOLITAN NONATTAINMENT AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[Emissions in metric tons per day] 

Source category 

1990 1999 

VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point Sources .................................................................................................................. 25.6 70.9 15.3 16.5 

Area Sources .................................................................................................................. 111.8 7.4 82.6 43.0 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................................ 136.2 130.1 106.9 129.8 

Nonroad Mobile Sources ................................................................................................ 57.9 85.2 78.5 59.3 

Biogenics ......................................................................................................................... 37.3 .................... 76.7 7.3 

Total ......................................................................................................................... 368.8 293.6 360.0 255.9 

Note: some columns may not add to 100% due to rounding; on-road mobile sources for 1990 were developed with EPA’s MOBILE5a, whereas 

1999 on-road mobile sources were developed using EPA’s MOBILE5b. 

Sources: 1990 data: 1993 MAG Ozone Plan; 1999 data: MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. 

It can be seen that overall, both VOC 

emissions and NOX emissions decreased 

in the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area between 1990 and 

1999. Increases in emissions of VOC in 

the nonroad mobile source category and 

biogenics were offset by larger decreases 

in emissions from other source 

categories. Increases in emissions of 

NOX from area sources were offset by 

larger decreases in other source 

categories. We propose to find that the 

improvement in ozone air quality in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area is due to 

emissions reductions from 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable measures and that the area 

thereby meets the redesignation 

criterion under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

D. The Area Must Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

1. Section 110 Requirements 

Although section 110 was amended in 

1990, the Maricopa County portion of 

the Arizona SIP meets the requirements 

of amended section 110(a)(2). A number 

of the requirements did not change in 

substance, and, therefore, EPA believes 

that the pre-amendment EPA-approved 

SIP met these requirements. As to those 

requirements that were amended, (see

57 FR 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1993), 

many are duplicative of other 

requirements of the Act. EPA has 

analyzed the SIP and determined that it 

is consistent with the requirements of 

amended section 110(a)(2). The SIP 

contains enforceable emission 

limitations, requires monitoring, 

compiling and analyzing of ambient air 

quality data, requires preconstruction 

review of new major stationary sources 

and major modifications to existing 

ones, provides for adequate funding, 

staff, and associated resources necessary 

to implement its requirements, and 

requires stationary source emission 

monitoring and reporting. 

Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C), 

and (E) concerning plan enforcement 

and implementation requirements are 

addressed in Chapter Eight, page 8–146 

and Chapter 11, page 11–1 of the 

Revised Serious Area Carbon Monoxide 

Plan (‘‘Revised 1999 CO Plan’’). EPA 

approved this plan in a final rule on 

March 9, 2005 (see 70 FR 11553). In 

order to comply with these CAA 

sections, a State law was passed in 1992 

which provides an approach for 

assurances that State and local 

committed measures will be adequately 

implemented (see Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) Sections 49–406 I. and 

J.) A.R.S. Section 49–406 G. (passed by 

the Arizona Legislature in 1992) 

requires that each agency which 

commits to implement any control 

measure contained in the SIP must 

describe the commitment in a 

resolution. The resolution must be 

adopted by the appropriate governing 

body of the agency. State law also 

requires the entity to specify the 

following information in the 

resolutions: (1) Its authority for 

implementing the limitation or measure 

as provided in statute, ordinance, or 

rule; (2) a program for the enforcement 

of the limitation or measure; and (3) the 

level of personnel and funding allocated 

to the implementation of the measure.

Chapter 11 of the Revised 1999 CO 

Plan includes resolutions from the MAG 

member agencies and other 

implementing entities. These 

resolutions indicate specific 

commitments to implement various 

control strategies which reduce CO as 

well as ozone precursor emissions. 

Generally, the authorities of the cities 

and towns to implement the types of 

measures that they have committed to in 

their respective resolutions are provided 

under A.R.S. section 9–240 Powers of 

Common Council. The general 

authorities of the County to implement 

the measures in the commitments are 

provided under A.R.S. section 11–251 

and A.R.S. section 49–478. Copies of 

these local and county government 

authorities were included in Chapter 11 

of the Revised 1999 CO Plan. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13431

1 ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation 

to Attainment’’, Memorandum from Mary D. 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, October 14, 1994.

If any State, County, local 

government, regional agency, or other 

entity failed to implement a committed 

measure, the County would file an 

action in Superior Court to have the 

Court order that the measure be 

implemented. Likewise, the Director of 

ADEQ will backstop the County if it 

fails to implement a committed measure 

or if the County fails to backstop the 

local governments and regional agencies 

(see Appendix C, Exhibit 2, Revised 

1999 CO Plan). 

2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment 

Areas 

Before an area may be redesignated to 

attainment, it must have fulfilled the 

applicable requirements of part D. 

Under part D of title I of the CAA, an 

area’s ozone classification determines 

the requirements to which it is subject. 

Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part 

D establishes additional requirements 

for nonattainment areas classified under 

table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. 

As described in the General Preamble 

for Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA, specific requirements of subpart 2 

may override or modify general 

provisions in subpart 1 (57 FR 13501, 

April 16, 1992). Therefore, in order to be 

redesignated, the States must meet the 

applicable requirements of subpart 1 of 

part D—specifically sections 172(c) and 

176, as well as the applicable 

requirements of subpart 2 of part D. 

EPA believes that Arizona has met the 

requirements of subpart 1 of part D—

specifically sections 172(c) and 176, 

insofar as applicable, as well as the 

applicable requirements of subpart 2 of 

part D of the CAA for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, as described below. 

a. Section 172 Requirements. This 

section contains general requirements 

for nonattainment area SIPs. A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172(c) may be 

found in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

EPA has interpreted the requirements 

of sections 172(c)(1) (non-RACT 

reasonably available control measuresRACM), 172(c)(2) (reasonable further 

progress-RFP), 172(c)(6) (other 

measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency 

measures) as being irrelevant to a 

redesignation request because they only 

have meaning for an area that is not 

attaining the standard. See the General 

Preamble of April 16, 1992, and the 

Calcagni Memorandum. Finally, the 

State has not sought to exercise the 

options that would trigger sections 

172(c)(4) (identification of certain 

emissions increases) and 172(c)(8) 

(equivalent techniques). Thus, these 

provisions are also not relevant to this 

redesignation request. The other plan 

provisions under section 172(c) are 

discussed below. 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT). Nonattainment 

plans must, at a minimum, require the 

implementation of RACT for stationary 

sources. These requirements are 

discussed below under Section 182 

Requirements. 

Emissions Inventories. The plan needs 

to include a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant as determined necessary by 

the Administrator to assure that the 

requirements of part D of the CAA are 

met. These requirements are discussed 

below under Section 182 Requirements. 

Permits for New and Modified Major 

Stationary Sources. For the section 

172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements, the CAA requires all 

nonattainment areas to meet several 

requirements regarding NSR, including 

provisions to ensure that increased 

emissions will not result from any new 

or modified major stationary sources 

and a general offset rule. 

We have determined that areas being 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment do not need to comply with 

the requirement that an NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard without 

part D nonattainment NSR in effect. The 

rationale for this decision is described 

in the Nichols memo.1

The Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix ozone 

nonattainment area indicates expected 

additional VOC and NOX emissions due 

to major source growth. Thus, we find 

that the maintenance demonstration for 

the Phoenix metropolitan area does not 

rely on nonattainment NSR, and the 

State need not have a fully-approved 

nonattainment NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) is the replacement 

program for NSR, and part of the 

obligation under PSD is for a new 

source to review increment 

consumption and maintenance of the air 

quality standards. The PSD program 

requires stationary sources to undergo 

preconstruction review before facilities 

are constructed or modified, and to 

apply Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). This program will 

apply to any major source wishing to 

locate in the Phoenix metropolitan area 

once the area is redesignated to 

attainment. Effective November 22, 

1993, we delegated PSD authority to 

Maricopa County via a PSD Delegation 

Agreement (59 FR 1730, January 12, 

1994). 

Compliance With Section 110(a)(2).

The plan must contain provisions to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA (see the discussion 

of section 110 requirements above). 

b. Section 176 Requirements. Section 

176(c) of the CAA requires States to 

establish criteria and procedures to 

ensure that Federally supported or 

funded projects conform to the air 

quality planning goals in the applicable 

SIP. The requirement to determine 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs and projects developed, 

funded or approved under Title 23 

U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act 

(‘‘transportation conformity’’), as well as 

to all other Federally supported or 

funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’). 

Section 176 further provides that 

State conformity revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations that the CAA required the 

EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret the conformity 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d). The 

rationale for this is based on a 

combination of two factors. First, the 

requirement to submit SIP revisions to 

comply with the conformity provisions 

of the CAA continues to apply to areas 

after redesignation to attainment, since 

such areas would be subject to a section 

175A maintenance plan. Second, the 

EPA’s Federal conformity rules require 

the performance of conformity analyses 

in the absence of Federally approved 

State rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and must 

implement conformity under Federal 

rules if State rules are not yet approved, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to view 

these requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 

439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this 

interpretation. 

The State of Arizona has fully 

adopted general conformity procedures, 

approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (64 

FR 19916). The State-adopted 

transportation conformity procedures 

are found in A.R.S. Title 18, Chapter 2, 

Article 14. We have not yet approved 

transportation conformity procedures in 

13432 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2ADEQ held a public hearing for the Serious Area 

Ozone Plan on April 26, 2000. ADEQ adopted the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan on December 14, 2000 and 

submitted it to us on the same date. We find that 

ADEQ thereby satisfied the requirements for notice 

and public hearing on all SIP revisions under 

section 110(1) of the Act.

the SIP. For the reasons stated above, 

EPA believes the approval of conformity 

rules into the State’s SIP is not a 

prerequisite for redesignation. Federal 

transportation conformity rules 

continue to apply. 

c. Section 182 Requirements. For 

purposes of this redesignation, the part 

D, subpart 2, section 182(a), (b) and (c) 

requirements for a nonattainment area 

apply to the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area. 

EPA has interpreted the requirements 

of sections 182(c)(2) (attainment and 

RFP demonstrations), 182(c)(5) 

(transportation control), and 182(c)(9) 

(contingency measures) as being 

irrelevant to a redesignation request 

because they only have meaning for an 

area that is not attaining the standard. 

See the General Preamble of April 16, 

1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum. 

The other plan provisions under section 

182 are discussed below. 

1990 Base Year Inventory and 

Periodic Emissions Inventory Updates.

Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, as amended in 1990, require 

States to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources in the ozone 

nonattainment area and to submit 

updates of those inventories every three 

years until redesignation. 

Arizona submitted a complete and 

accurate 1990 emissions inventory for 

VOC and NOX for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area as 

noted in EPA’s final approval of the 

emissions inventory on May 27, 1998 

(63 FR 28898). Arizona submitted 

updated periodic emissions inventories 

for 1993, 1996, and 1999. The final 1993 

ozone SIP inventory was submitted to 

us on November 25, 1996. The 1996 

base year (July–September 1996) ozone 

inventory was submitted as part of the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan, Appendix E.2

We are proposing to approve the 1996 

ozone inventory submitted as part of the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan. The 1999 

periodic ozone emissions inventory for 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area was originally 

submitted to EPA in August 2002 and 

then re-submitted to EPA as part of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan, in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The 

Appendix contains a complete 

description of the sources and 

methodologies used to calculate ozone 

emissions.

The 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan also 

contains a description of the 1998 and 

1999 base year inventories, the interim 

year 2006, and the maintenance year 

2015 ozone precursor emissions 

inventories for use in Urban Airshed 

Model (UAM) simulations. 

In MAG’s emissions inventories, 

emissions sources are grouped into five 

major categories: Point sources, area 

sources, nonroad mobile sources, onroad mobile sources, and biogenic 

emissions. Point sources include such 

categories as industrial, manufacturing, 

and electric power generation facilities. 

Area sources include residential 

woodburning, industrial fuel 

combustion, on-site incineration, and 

open burning. Biogenic emissions come 

from natural vegetation. Nonroad 

mobile sources include utility, lawn and 

garden, construction, farm and 

recreational equipment, and aircraft and 

locomotives. On-road mobile sources 

include cars, motorcycles, various sizes 

of trucks, and buses. Collectively, these 

sources contributed a total of 256 metric 

tons per day of NOX and 360 metric tons 

per day of VOC in 1999.

We propose to approve the 1996 and 

1999 periodic emissions inventories and 

find that the State has complied with 

the inventory requirements of section 

182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). We also 

propose to approve the 1998 and 1999 

base year inventories, the interim year 

2006 inventory, and maintenance year 

2015 inventory in connection with the 

maintenance demonstration discussed 

elsewhere in this notice. 

Emissions Statement Requirements.

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the Act requires 

States to submit a SIP revision requiring 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources of VOC or NOX to provide the 

State with estimates of actual emissions 

from such sources. Arizona’s SIP 

includes regulations requiring annual 

emissions statements from major 

sources. Specifically, to comply with 

this requirement, the State submitted 

Maricopa County (MC) Rule 100.503 to 

EPA on February 4, 1993. We approved 

this rule by direct final action published 

on February 10, 2005. See 70 FR 7038 

(February 10, 2005). Assuming no 

adverse comments are submitted in 

connection with this direct final rule, 

our final rule published on February 10, 

2005 will be effective on April 11, 2005. 

If adverse comments are timely 

submitted, then we will withdraw the 

direct final rule and consider those 

comments prior to taking a final action. 

See our proposed rule (70 FR 7069) also 

published on February 10, 2005. We 

will finalize our action on MC Rule 

100.503 prior to taking final action on 

this proposal. 

15 Percent ROP Plan Requirements.

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires 

the submission of a 15 percent ROP 

plan. This plan is to provide for VOC 

emission reductions in the 

nonattainment area of at least 15 

percent, from the 1990 baseline 

emissions levels, by no later than 

November 15, 1996. Arizona submitted 

its initial 15 percent ROP plan for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area on November 15, 1993 and 

supplemented it on April 8, 1994. On 

April 13, 1994, we found the initial plan 

incomplete because it failed to include, 

in fully adopted and enforceable form, 

all of the measures relied upon in the 15 

percent demonstration. This 

incompleteness finding started the 18-

month sanctions clock in CAA section 

179 and the two-year clock under 

section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP covering the 15 percent ROP 

requirements. In November 1994 and 

April 1995, Arizona submitted an 

attainment plan for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area which 

updated the 15 percent ROP 

demonstrations. 

On May 12, 1995, we found the 

revised 15 percent plan and the 

attainment plan complete, turning off 

the sanctions clock; however, under 

section 110(c), the FIP clock continued 

until EPA approved the 15 percent plan. 

In August 1996, we were sued by the 

American Lung Association of Arizona 

and others, American Lung Association 

of Arizona, Inc. et al. v. Browner, No. 

CIV 96 1856, PHX ROS (D. Arizona) to 

enforce EPA’s obligation under CAA 

section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP for 

the 15 percent ROP requirement. On 

July 8, 1997, a consent decree was filed 

in the case establishing a schedule of 

January 20, 1998 for proposing and May 

18, 1998 for promulgating a 15 percent 

ROP plan. Under the consent decree, 

EPA’s obligation to promulgate a 15 

percent ROP plan was relieved to the 

extent that we had approved State 

measures. EPA determined in its final 

rule that the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area had in place or 

would have in place sufficient control 

measures to meet the 15 percent ROP 

requirement for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), a precursor 

emission to ozone, under CAA section 

182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See 

63 FR 28898 (May 27, 1998), as 

amended at 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999). 

VOC RACT Requirements. Section 

172(c)(1) of the CAA specifies that SIPs 

must provide for the implementation of 

all RACM including all RACT as 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13433

expeditiously as practicable to attain the 

NAAQS. Sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 

182(b)(2) further provide that, at a 

minimum, the SIPs must require the 

implementation of RACT for two classes 

of VOC sources. The VOC source classes 

are: (a) All sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guideline (CTG) document 

issued by the Administrator by the date 

of attainment of the ozone standard; and 

(b) all other major non-CTG stationary 

sources. 

Arizona’s redesignation request, 

submitted on April 21, 2004, describes 

how the State of Arizona has met the 

VOC RACT requirements under sections 

172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Act for 

nearly all of the CTG source categories 

and VOC major sources either through 

adoption of Maricopa County air 

pollution control regulations or negative 

declarations and how the State intends 

to fulfill the RACT requirement for the 

few remaining CTG source categories 

and VOC major sources. EPA, through a 

number of rulemakings, has approved 

these RACT rules and negative 

declarations as revisions to the Arizona 

SIP as documented in Table 3.

TABLE 3.—MARICOPA COUNTY VOC RACT RULES AND SIP STATUS

VOC RACT requirement MC Rule(s), SIP Status, and, if approved, Federal Register Citation 

Control Techniques Guidelines

Gasoline Loading Terminals ..................................................................... MC Rules 350 and 351: MC Rule 350 adopted July 13, 1988, revised 

April 6, 1992; revision approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

MC Rule 351 adopted February 15, 1995, approved February 9, 

1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Gasoline Bulk Plants ................................................................................ MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision 

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

Service Stations—Stage I ........................................................................ MC Rule 353: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; approved 

February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578). 

Fixed Roof Petroleum Tanks .................................................................... MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision 

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

Miscellaneous Refinery Sources .............................................................. Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Cutback Asphalt ....................................................................................... MC Rule 340: adopted July 13, 1988, revised June 22, 1992, revised 

September 21, 1992; approved February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578). 

Solvent Metal Cleaning ............................................................................ MC Rule 331: adopted July 13, 1988, revised June 22, 1992, revised 

June 19, 1996, revised April 21, 2004; approved February 1, 1996 

(61 FR 3578), approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489), approved 

December 21, 2004 (69 FR 76417). 

Surface Coating of: 

Cans .................................................................................................. MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Metal Coils ......................................................................................... MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Fabrics ............................................................................................... MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Paper Products .................................................................................. MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Automobile and Light Duty Trucks .................................................... Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Metal Furniture .................................................................................. MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Magnetic Wire ................................................................................... Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Large Appliances ............................................................................... MC Rule 336: revised September 21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April 7, 

1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759). 

Leaks from Petroleum Refineries ............................................................. Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts Surface Coating ............................................ MC Rule 336: revised September 21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April 7, 

1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759). 

Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling ................................................... Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Synthetic Pharmaceutical Manufacture .................................................... Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Rubber Tire Manufacture ......................................................................... Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

External Floating Roof Petroleum Tanks ................................................. MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision 

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

Graphic Arts .............................................................................................. MC Rule 337: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26, 

1997, approved February 8, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Perchloroethylene Drycleaning (a) ............................................................ Perchloroethylene was delisted as a VOC by EPA (see Footnote (a)). 

Gasoline Truck Leaks and Vapor Collection ............................................ MC Rule 352: adopted November 16, 1992, submitted February 4, 

1993, approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

13434 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.—MARICOPA COUNTY VOC RACT RULES AND SIP STATUS—Continued

VOC RACT requirement MC Rule(s), SIP Status, and, if approved, Federal Register Citation 

Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins.MC Rule 358: Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing, proposed approval 

was signed by Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 on March 8, 

2005. This proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register by mid-March 2005. 

Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical, Polymer, and 

Resin Manufacturing Equipment.

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, Aapproved August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners ................................................................. MC Rule 333: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997, 

approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Air Oxidation Processes—Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industries.

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants ........... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industries (SOCMI)—Distillation and Reactor Processes.Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Volatile organic liquid storage .................................................................. MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision 

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024). 

SOCMI batch processes .......................................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Industrial Wastewater ............................................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Plastic Parts Coating (for business machines and automobiles) ............ MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992, 

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999, approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 

50759). 

Cleaning solvents ..................................................................................... MC Rule 331: adopted July 13, 1988, revised June 22, 1992, revised 

June 19, 1996, revised April 21, 2004, submitted July 28, 2004; approved February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578), approved February 9, 1998 

(63 FR 6489), approved December 21, 2004 (69 FR 76417). 

Offset lithography ..................................................................................... MC Rule 337: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26, 

1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Shipbuilding and ship repair coatings ...................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August 

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). 

Wood Furniture ......................................................................................... MC Rule 342: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26, 

1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Aerospace ................................................................................................. MC Rule 348: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759). 

Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings ......................... MC Rule 335 adopted July 13, 1988, submitted January 4, 1990, approved January 06, 1992 (57 FR 354) 

Major Sources Subject to RACT

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing ................................................................. Negative declaration: submitted April 21, 2004, approved by direct final 

rule on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7038) if no adverse comments are 

received by March 14, 2005. 

Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing ........................................................... MC Rule 334: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997, 

approved February 2, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Metal Casting ............................................................................................ MC Rule 341: adopted August 5, 1994, submitted August 16, 1994, approved February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5287). 

Commercial Bread Bakeries ..................................................................... MC Rule 343: adopted February 15, 1995, submitted August 31, 1995, 

approved March 17, 1997 (62 FR 12544). 

Semiconductor Manufacturing .................................................................. MC Rule 338: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997, 

approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes ......................................................... MC Rule 339: adopted November 16, 1992, submitted February 04, 

1993, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Coating Wood Millwork ............................................................................. MC Rule 346: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26, 

1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489). 

Ferrous Sand Casting .............................................................................. MC Rule 347: adopted March 4, 1998, submitted August 4, 1999, approved June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36788). 

Vitamin Manufacturing .............................................................................. MC Rule 349: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30815). 

Automotive Windshield Wiper Fluid ......................................................... MC Rule 344: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved November 30, 2001 (66 FR 59699). 

Fiberboard for Expansion Joints .............................................................. VOC RACT by permit (W.R. Meadows): proposed approval was signed 

by Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 on March 3, 2005. This 

proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register by 

mid-March 2005. 

NA = not applicable. 

(a)Perchloroethylene was delisted as a VOC effective March 8, 1996 (see 61 FR 4588, February 7, 1996). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13435

3EPA has since approved additional revisions to 

the Arizona CBG program.

4ADEQ noted that its estimates of the emissions 

reductions benefit from a CFF program were likely 

overstated because the estimates did not account for 

the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) 

program, which was expected to be implemented in 

Arizona and to lead to the availability of loweremitting (conventional) light duty vehicles 

beginning with the 2001 model year.

5EPA promulgated the NLEV program on June 6, 

1997 under which vehicle manufacturers 

voluntarily agreed to market light duty gasoline 

vehicles with emissions substantially lower than 

Tier 1 vehicles. (62 FR 31193, (June 6, 1997)). On 

February 10, 2000, EPA promulgated the Tier 2/

gasoline sulfur standards that established more 

stringent exhuast emissions standards for light and 

medium duty gasoline vehicles. (65 FR 6698, 

(February 10, 2000)).

As shown in Table 3, the VOC RACT 

requirements under sections 172(c)(1), 

182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2) have been 

met for the vast majority of CTG source 

categories and major sources either 

through establishment of Maricopa 

County (MC) regulations or by submittal 

of negative declarations. At this time, 

we propose to find that Arizona has met 

the RACT requirement for the MAG 1-

hour ozone nonattainment area 

contingent upon our full final approval 

of (1) MC Rule 358 (establishes RACT 

requirements for major VOC sources in 

the emissions source category of 

Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing), (2) 

W.R. Meadows’ permit conditions 

(establishes RACT requirements for a 

specific major VOC source), and (3) the 

negative declaration for the one major 

VOC source in the emissions source 

category of Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing. The Regional 

Administrator for EPA Region 9 signed 

rules in early March 2005 proposing 

approval of MC Rule 358 and W.R. 

Meadows’ permit conditions as meeting 

the RACT requirement for the affected 

sources, and these proposals are 

expected to be published in the Federal 

Register in mid-March. EPA approved 

the negative declaration for the one 

major VOC source in the emissions 

source category of Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing on February 10, 2005 (70 

FR 7038) by direct final action. If no 

adverse comments are received on that 

direct final action by March 14, 2005, 

then the approval of the negative 

declaration will become effective April 

11, 2005, but if such comments are 

received then the direct final rule will 

be withdrawn and EPA will taken final 

action after consideration of the 

comments. 

Stage II Vapor Recovery 

Requirements. Section 182(b)(3) of the 

CAA requires States to submit Stage II 

vapor recovery rules. The Stage II vapor 

recovery regulations for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area were 

submitted to us on May 27, 1994 by the 

State. These rules had been adopted by 

the Arizona Department of Weights and 

Measures (ADWM) on August 27, 1993. 

We approved the program on November 

1, 1994, effective January 3, 1995 (see 59 

FR 54521). Subsequent State legislation 

(House Bill (HB) 2001, in 1997) required 

the ADWM to adopt rules to enhance 

enforcement of the program. These rules 

can be found at A.R.S. 41–2134. The 

regulations in the Arizona SIP fully 

adopt and implement the Stage II vapor 

recovery requirements in Arizona. 

Vehicle I/M Requirements. Section 

182(c)(3) and EPA’s final I/M 

regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

S require States with ‘‘serious’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas to submit a fully 

adopted ‘‘enhanced’’ I/M program. EPA 

approved revisions to Arizona’s 

enhanced vehicle I/M program for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area as part of the Arizona SIP on 

January 22, 2003 (see 69 FR 2912). 

ADEQ implements an enhanced I/M 

program in Area A, which includes and 

goes beyond the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA 

believes that the Arizona SIP for the 

Phoenix 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area satisfies all of the Section 182(c)(3) 

requirements of the CAA. 

Clean Fuel Vehicle Programs.

Sections 182(c)(4)(A) of the CAA 

requires States to submit a SIP revision 

for each serious 1-hour nonattainment 

area that includes such measures 

necessary to ensure the effectiveness of 

clean-fuel vehicle program prescribed 

under part C of title II of the Act. In 

particular, SIPs for serious ozone 

nonattainment areas with 1980 

populations of 250,000 or more must 

establish a clean-fuel vehicle program 

for centrally fueled fleets (referred to 

herein as the ‘‘clean fuel fleet’’ (CFF) 

program). CAA section 246. Under the 

CFF program, a specified percentage of 

vehicles purchased by fleet operators for 

covered fleets shall be clean-fuel 

vehicles and shall use clean alternative 

fuels when operating in the covered 

area. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act 

allows States such as Arizona to ‘‘optout’’ of all or a portion of the clean-fuel 

vehicle program including the CFF 

program by submitting for EPA approval 

a SIP revision consisting of a program or 

programs not otherwise required by the 

Act that will result in at least equivalent 

long term reductions in ozoneproducing and toxic air emissions.

On December 7, 1998, Arizona 

submitted to EPA a SIP revision opting 

out of the CFF program. The opt-out SIP 

requested EPA approval of its interim 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) 

program, which EPA had already 

approved into the SIP (see 63 FR 6653, 

February 10, 1998), as a substitute 

program.3 On June 7, 1999, the revision 

was found to be complete by operation 

of law pursuant to EPA’s completeness 

criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. In the 1998 opt-out SIP 

submittal, ADEQ had estimated that the 

CBG program would provide 9 metric 

tons per day (mtpd) of VOC reductions 

in 2010 compared to 0.5 to 1.8 mtpd in 

that same year that would have been 

achieved by a CFF program.4 ADEQ also 

estimated that the CBG program would 

provide 5.0 mtpd of NOX reductions in 

2010 compared to 0.6 to 2.5 mtpd in 

that same year that would have been 

achieved by a CFF program. See also, 

Arizona’s modeled emission reductions 

from the four control programs, the 

National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) 

program, CBG, Tier 2 and the CFF 

Program, in 2015 in Metropolitan 

Phoenix.5

TABLE 4.—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

FROM FOUR CONTROL PROGRAMS

IN 2015 IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX

Program 

Emissions reductions

(tons per day) 

HC NOX

Tier 2 ................ 18.3 86.4 

CBG .................. 8.0 5.0 

NLEV ................ 2.2 3.9 

Federal Clean 

Fuel Fleet ...... 0.5–1.8 0.7–2.5 

The CBG program is not explicitly 

required by the CAA in the Phoenix 

metropolitan ozone nonattainment area. 

Additionally, the resulting reductions of 

ozone-producing emissions from this 

program (VOCs and NOX) meet or 

exceed the emissions reductions that 

would have occurred if the CFF program 

were implemented. EPA will be 

approving only those emissions 

reductions needed to meet the CFF 

program. Finally, because reductions in 

toxic air emissions are proportional to 

the reduction in VOC emissions, any 

substitute plan which reduces VOCs 

will also reduce toxic air emissions in 

the same proportion. Therefore, 

Arizona’s substitute plan will meet the 

CFF program requirement for air toxics 

emissions. 

Based on the above evaluation, we 

propose to approve, under section 

182(c)(4)(B) of the Act, ADEQ’s 

submittal of the CBG program as a 

substitute measure achieving equivalent 

long-term emissions reductions of 

ozone-producing and toxic air 

pollutants as would have been achieved 

by implementation of a CFF program. In 

13436 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

doing so, we find that the State has 

provided sufficient documentation of 

compliance with the notice and hearing 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

section 110(l) of the Act (see Exhibit 4 

of the State’s December 7, 1998 SIP 

revision submittal). 

NOX Emission Control Requirements.

Section 182(f) establishes NOX

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas which require the same provisions 

for major stationary sources of NOX as 

apply to major stationary sources of 

VOCs. However, section 182(f) also 

provides that these requirements do not 

apply to an area if the Administrator 

determines that NOX reductions would 

not contribute to attainment. 

For the Phoenix metropolitan ozone 

nonattainment area, EPA granted a 

waiver from the section 182(f) 

requirements for NOX. The basis for the 

waiver was that Arizona demonstrated 

using UAM that additional NOX

emission controls in the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area would 

not contribute to the attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard in the area. See 

60 FR 19510 (April 19, 1995). 

Enhanced Monitoring. As a result of 

the reclassification of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to ‘‘serious,’’ the 

area became subject to the CAA section 

182(c)(1) requirement that the area 

establish and implement a 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring 

Station (PAMS) network. The Serious 

Area Ozone Plan describes the steps that 

the State has taken to comply with 

section 182(c)(1) (see page 2–8 of the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan). In the 

Serious Area Ozone Plan, ADEQ 

indicated that, in 1999, the PAMS 

network was not yet fully implemented 

but that it was being phased-in over a 

five year period in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58.44 and 40 CFR part 58. We 

propose to find that the State has met 

the requirements for enhanced 

monitoring under section 182(c)(1). 

When EPA finalizes today’s proposal 

for the serious area plan revision to the 

Arizona SIP as well as the three separate 

rulemakings previously discussed, the 

Arizona ozone SIP will meet the 

applicable requirements of section 110 

and part D. 

E. The Area Must Have a FullyApproved Maintenance Plan Meeting 

the Requirements of Section 175A 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA 

requires, as a pre-condition to being 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment, that the Administrator has 

fully approved a maintenance plan for 

the area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A of the Act. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan is a SIP revision that 

provides for maintenance of the relevant 

NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years 

after redesignation. The Calcagni 

memorandum dated September 4, 1992, 

provides additional guidance on the 

required content of a maintenance plan.

A 1-hour ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following five areas: 

The attainment emissions inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. The 

attainment emissions inventory 

identifies the emissions level in the area 

that is sufficient to attain the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, based on emissions 

during a three-year period which had no 

monitored violations. To demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the results from UAM 

modeling analyses should not show 

predicted 1-hour maximum ozone 

concentrations equivalent to or greater 

than 0.125 ppm anywhere in the 

modeling domain for the episode 

modeled. Provisions for continued 

operation of an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network are to be included 

in the maintenance plan. The State must 

show how it will track and verify the 

progress of the maintenance plan. 

Finally, the maintenance plan must 

include a list of potential contingency 

measures which ensure prompt 

correction of any violation of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

1. Emissions Inventory 

MAG selected 1999 as the attainment 

year for purposes of demonstrating 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Modeling episodes in both 1998 and 

1999 were used; therefore, MAG 

developed modeling inventories for 

both of the base years (i.e., 1998 and 

1999), as well as an interim year 2006 

and the maintenance year of 2015. 

These emissions inventories all include 

on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, point, 

area, and biogenic sources. The 1998 

inventory was developed for a July 16–

17 modeling episode, and the 1999 

inventory was developed for an August 

23–24 modeling episode. Both base year 

inventories reflect control strategies in 

place at that time. The future year 

emission inventories include projected 

emissions reductions from control 

measures that were implemented and 

enforceable after 1998 and 1999. 

Sections III and VI of MAG’s Technical 

Support Document for Ozone Modeling 

in Support of the One-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix 

metropolitan Nonattainment Area, 

November 2003 (included as Exhibit 2 

of Appendix A of the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan) describe 

the inventories in more technical detail. 

Emissions for point, area, and 

nonroad mobile sources were developed 

for a base year and then projected to 

2006 and 2015 using appropriate growth 

factors. The growth factors were based 

on the 2015 population projections 

approved by the MAG Regional Council 

in June 1997 and developed from the 

1995 Special Census. The 2015 

employment factors by Standard 

Industrial Classification SIC) code were 

extrapolated from projections prepared 

by the Arizona Department of Economic 

Security (DES) in August 1997. Growth 

factors based on 2000 Census Data were 

not available at the time the modeling 

demonstration was begun. On-road 

vehicle activity was increased by eight 

and twelve percent for 2006 and 2015, 

respectively, because of expected 

increases in population and 

employment projections for Phoenix 

metropolitan. 

In the 1998 and 1999 base cases, onroad mobile sources contribute 28 to 30 

percent of VOC emissions and 51 to 52 

percent of NOX emissions and represent 

the largest emissions source category for 

both NOX and VOC. With the 

implementation of the measures in the 

maintenance plan and stricter federal 

controls on vehicles and fuels, on-road 

mobile source NOX emissions decrease 

by about 19 percent between 1999 and 

2006, and 58 percent between 1999 and 

2015. On-road mobile source VOC 

emissions decrease by 32 percent 

between 1999 and 2006, and 54 percent 

between 1999 and 2015. 

Due to anticipated regional 

population growth, area sources become 

the largest source category for NOX and 

VOC emissions in 2015. Area source 

NOX emissions increase by 25 percent 

between 1999 and 2006, and 56 percent 

between 1999 and 2015. Area source 

VOC emissions increase by 22 percent 

between 1999 and 2006, and 49 percent 

between 1999 and 2015. 

As a result of expected increases in 

power plant emissions, point source 

NOX emissions increase from 1999 to 

2015. Point source NOX emissions 

increase 48 percent between 1999 and 

2006, and 59 percent between 1999 and 

2015. Point source VOC emissions 

increase by 13 percent between 1999 

and 2006, and 32 percent between 1999 

and 2015. With the implementation of 

the federal nonroad vehicle and engine 

standards, nonroad mobile NOX

emissions decrease by about 14 percent 

between 1999 and 2006. Nonroad 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13437

mobile VOC emissions decrease by 

about 23 percent between 1999 and 

2006, and about 63 percent between 

1999 and 2015. 

Biogenic emissions are determined by 

land use type. Residential land use has 

a higher emission factor for biogenic 

VOC than agricultural land, while the 

opposite is true for biogenic NOX

emissions. Since it is anticipated that 

the residential land area will continue 

to increase as the Phoenix metropolitan 

area grows, and agricultural land uses 

will decline, biogenic VOC emissions 

are forecast to increase less than 1 

percent between 1999 and 2006, and 

about 12 percent between 1999 and 

2015, while biogenic NOX emissions 

decrease by about 3 percent between 

1999 and 2006, and about 15 percent 

between 1999 and 2015. 

By implementing the emissions 

control measures in the maintenance 

plan, total NOX emissions will decrease 

by about 5 percent between 1999 and 

2006, and by about 17 percent between 

1999 and 2015. Total VOC emissions 

will decrease by about 8 percent 

between 1999 and 2006, and about 14 

percent between 1999 and 2015. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

a. Introduction. To demonstrate 

maintenance of the ozone standard 

through a ten-year maintenance period, 

MAG projected VOC and NOX emissions 

for the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area to 2006 and 2015 

and used these emissions estimates in 

UAM. The 2006 emission estimates 

were generated to test a midpoint in the 

ten-year maintenance period. This 

interim year 2006 was developed for the 

purposes of transportation conformity. 

Table 5 summarizes the VOC and 

NOX emissions estimates for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area for 1999, 2006, and 2015. 

Comparison of base and future year 

inventories, as shown in Table 5, 

indicates an 18–21 percent decrease in 

NOX emissions between the 1998/1999 

base case inventories and 2015. VOC 

emissions decrease between 9 and 15 

percent during this same time period.

TABLE 5.—PHOENIX METROPOLITAN NONATTAINMENT AREA 1999, 2006, AND 2015 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[Emissions in metric tons per ozone season weekday] 

Source category 

1999* 2006 2015

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point Sources ......................................................................................... 15.3 16.5 17.4 24.5 20.2 26.3

Area Sources .......................................................................................... 82.6 43.0 101.4 54.1 123.5 67.4

On-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 106.9 129.8 71.9 104.8 48.7 53.6

Nonroad Mobile Sources ........................................................................ 78.5 59.3 61.0 50.9 28.7 57.2

Biogenics ................................................................................................ 76.7 7.3 77.2 7.1 85.8 6.2

Total ................................................................................................. 360.0 255.9 328.9 241.4 306.9 210.7

Notes:* Emissions from 1999 are for the Tuesday in August base case modeling day. Data are from pages ES–5, ES–6, 3–11 and 3–12 of 

the maintenance plan. 

b. Modeling Procedure. In developing 

the maintenance demonstration, MAG 

followed EPA’s Guideline for Regulatory 

Application of the Urban Airshed Model

(EPA–450/4–91–013, July 1991; 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/tt25.htm; hereafter 

‘‘GRAUAM’’). This involves using 

UAM, a photochemical grid model, to 

simulate ozone production during 

selected recent ozone episodes. These 

‘‘base case’’ simulations incorporate 

meteorological and emissions data 

corresponding to the episode days. 

Future case ozone simulations are then 

created using future emissions, which 

are estimated using information about 

control measures, as well as 

socioeconomic projections. The goal is 

to show that ozone concentrations 

continue to be below the standard in the 

future, so that NAAQS maintenance is 

demonstrated. 

Documentation about the 

redesignation request’s application of 

UAM is contained principally in the 

MAG SIP submittal’s Appendix A, 

Exhibit 2, ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for Ozone Modeling in 

Support of the One-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan for the Phoenix metropolitan 

Nonattainment Area’’ (hereafter ‘‘MAG 

TSD’’). Development of the application 

of UAM followed a protocol, per 

GRAUAM (the EPA guideline), which is 

included in the Appendix I of the MAG 

TSD. This protocol describes procedures 

to be followed in developing model 

inputs and in judging model 

performance, as well as the size of the 

modeling domain and the particular 

ozone episodes to be modeled. The 

protocol was reviewed and agreed to by 

both EPA and ADEQ prior to 

submission of the maintenance plan. 

c. Model Inputs. The modeling 

domain used by MAG for the 

maintenance modeling demonstration 

was larger than in earlier UAM 

applications for the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. It was extended to 

include some large point sources to the 

west (and generally upwind) of the main 

metropolitan area, and also to the east 

to include more of the ozone plume that 

had been seen in previous simulations 

as well as urban areas which are 

growing rapidly. This expanded domain 

ensured that all the relevant source and 

receptor areas were included in the 

simulation, even beyond the 

nonattainment area itself. 

After analysis of 32 high ozone days 

spread among 21 episodes, two ozone 

episodes were chosen for modeling: July 

16–17, 1998 and August 23–24, 1999. 

While there have been no recent 

NAAQS exceedances, these episodes 

have among the highest ozone 

concentrations observed; their peak 

concentrations are 118 ppb and 124 

ppb, respectively (the NAAQS is 0.12 

ppm, or 120 ppb, but values below 125 

ppb are rounded down and not 

considered exceedances). These 

episodes are representative of the two 

meteorological ‘‘regimes’’ observed for 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area; simulating both 

ensures that the NAAQS will be 

maintained under the various 

meteorological conditions that can 

occur in the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

Both regimes involve a low pressure 

center over southwestern Arizona, with 

relatively high temperatures and low 

wind speeds. But the regime type of the 

July 1998 episode tends to have high 

ozone in the metropolitan center and 

extending northwest. The regime type of 

the August 1999 episode is less 

common, but has a different spatial 

pattern; high ozone tends to occur more 

to the east. It also tends to have longerVerDate jul<14>2003 15:53 Mar 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM 21MRP1
13438 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

lasting southwesterly winds during the 

day than the other regime. 

Standard procedures were followed in 

developing the meteorological and 

emissions inputs. The Diagnostic Wind 

Model (DWM) was used for wind 

inputs, as it often is with the UAM IV 

model, and gave reasonable wind fields. 

Mixing heights were prepared using 

MIXEMUP, also a fairly standard 

procedure for use with UAM. 

MIXEMUP inputs were upper air 

temperature soundings from Tucson 

(the only ones available) combined with 

Sky Harbor (Phoenix) Airport surface 

temperatures; also, local temperature 

and wind data from monitoring sites 

were used to generate a spatiallyvarying mixing height that better 

reflected the differing land uses (and 

hence heating and mixing 

characteristics) across the domain. 

Emissions inputs were developed 

using EPA’s EPS2.0 for spatially and 

temporally allocating area source 

emissions; MOBILE6 was used for 

vehicle emissions, in conjunction with 

MAG traffic data and the EMME/2 

transportation model. Biogenic 

emissions, which are roughly 20% of 

total VOC emissions, were estimated 

using MAGBEIS2, a localized version of 

EPA’s Biogenic Emissions Inventory 

Software (BEIS2) and incorporating 

emission factors from EPA’s BELD3 

database. 

d. Model Testing and Performance. A 

number of sensitivity and diagnostic 

tests were carried out to test the effect 

of alternative inputs to improve model 

performance, and to test whether the 

model responds in a physically 

reasonable way to various input 

changes. This process helps avoid 

spurious good performance due to 

fortuitously compensating input errors. 

The test simulations included several 

alternative boundary concentrations, 

zeroing of emissions for various broad 

emissions categories, doubling on-road 

emissions, and reducing wind speeds by 

20 percent. This set of simulations is 

comparable to the recommendations in 

EPA guidelines, and helped elucidate 

the functioning of the model.

Model performance statistics for peak 

error, overall bias, and overall error 

were all well within EPA-recommended 

targets. For example, the July 1998 

predicted peak was 119 ppb, while the 

peak observation was 118 ppb. For 

August 1999, the predicted peak was 

125, while peak observation was 124 

ppb. Despite this good agreement, there 

appears to be a spatial mismatch 

between some predictions and 

observations for the August 1999 

episode. High ozone appears to persist 

longer and to be more in the north of the 

central business district rather than to 

the east-northeast as indicated by 

monitored observations. The 

explanation for this discrepancy appears 

to be that the wind field used in the 

model may be shifted slightly relative to 

the actual winds, so that the ozone 

plume was shifted relative to the 

monitors. The model still predicts a 

comparable ozone peak, both in timing 

and in concentration, but it just does not 

happen to be at the monitor locations. 

This conclusion is supported by the 

sensitivity simulations with reduced 

wind speed, since the model responded 

as expected to this change, and also has 

a fairly large sensitivity to this as 

opposed to other variables. 

A second anomaly of the August 1999 

episode was a persistent moderately 

high ozone level south of the central 

business district that was not apparent 

in the observations and did not seem to 

match what would be expected from the 

wind directions and the location of 

emissions. This did not affect the peak 

prediction of the model at all, and 

appeared to be a localized effect that 

might have been caused by the 

proximity of South Mountain, which 

blocks transport toward the south and 

southeast, and by alternation of morning 

and afternoon slope flows that cause 

recirculation of pollutants in the area. 

Despite these issues, both episodes meet 

EPA performance criteria and provide 

an acceptable basis for a maintenance 

demonstration. 

e. Maintenance Demonstrated. The 

maintenance demonstration itself 

involves projecting emissions to 2015, 

including the effect of controls, using 

similar procedures as for the base case 

episodes. The model is then re-run on 

the two episodes with the new 

emissions to test whether the future 

controlled emissions are still consistent 

with NAAQS attainment. As shown in 

Tables 3–3 though and 3–6 of the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan (pages 3–9 through 3–12), point 

and area source emissions increase over 

the 1998–2015 period, but this is more 

than made up for by emissions 

decreases in nonroad mobile and onroad mobile sources. This resulted in 

predicted ozone peaks decreasing by 

2015 from 119 to 116 ppb for the July 

1998 episode, and from 125 to 120 for 

the August 1999 episode. Since these 

levels are both at or below 124 ppb, 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS has been demonstrated. 

3. Monitoring Network 

The Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan addresses the 

requirements for continued operation of 

an ozone monitoring network. ADEQ 

and MCESD have committed to 

continue the operation of the monitors 

in the area in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. See also section IV.A.1 and 

IV.A.2 of this proposed rule for more 

detail on Arizona’s monitoring network 

for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

ADEQ, MAG, Maricopa County, and 

the local jurisdictions have the legal 

authority to implement and enforce the 

requirements of the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan. This 

includes the authority to adopt, 

implement, and enforce any subsequent 

emission control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future ozone attainment problems. To 

implement the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan, as noted above, 

ADEQ and MCESD will continue to 

monitor ozone levels in the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area. To 

track progress on the Maintenance Plan, 

Maricopa County has also committed to 

update the emissions inventory for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area every three years for the duration 

of the maintenance plan with input and 

assistance from ADEQ and MAG. The 

ozone monitoring data and the updated 

emissions inventories will be used 

through the State’s contingency plan to 

assure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

5. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

maintenance plans to contain 

contingency provisions. EPA guidance 

on the requirements for the contingency 

plan is provided in the September 4, 

1992 Calcagni memo (Calcagni 1992a). 

As set forth in the Calcagni memo, we 

interpret section 175A(d) of the CAA 

not to require fully adopted measures in 

the contingency plan. However, the plan 

should contain clearly identified 

contingency measures to be adopted, a 

schedule, and a specific time limit for 

action by the State. In addition, specific 

triggers should be identified which will 

be used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented. The contingency plan 

portion of the State’s maintenance plans 

delineate the State’s planned actions in 

the event of increasing ozone levels 

threatening a subsequent violation of 

the ozone standard. 

MAG followed the August 13, 1993 

EPA guidance memorandum entitled 

‘‘Early Implementation of Contingency 

Measures for Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas’’. 

The contingency plan described in 

MAG’s maintenance plan contains 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13439

6MAG and ADEQ held a joint public hearing for 

the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 

on March 1, 2004. The MAG Regional Council 

adopted the Redesignation and Maintenance Plan 

on March 25, 2004 and ADEQ adopted the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan on 

April 21, 2004.

control measures that are expected to be 

implemented early. MAG’s contingency 

plan contains three measures, Area A 

Expansion, Gross Polluter Option for

I/M Program Waivers, and Increased 

Waiver Repair Limit Options. Emissions 

reduction credit for these measures was 

not taken in the maintenance 

demonstration.

MAG defines the trigger for the 

implementation of the contingency plan 

as when the fourth highest daily 

maximum hourly measurement over the 

past three years exceeds 0.120 ppm at 

any ozone monitor. If this occurs, 

additional measures will be considered, 

which may include the strengthening of 

existing contingency measures. When 

the trigger is activated, additional 

control measures will be considered 

according to the following schedule: (a) 

Verification of the monitoring data to be 

completed three months after activation 

of the trigger; (b) applicable measures to 

be considered for adoption six months 

after the date established in (a); and (c) 

resulting contingency measure to be 

implemented within six to twelve 

months, depending on the time needed 

to implement the measure. The State 

has also committed to continue to 

implement all control measures 

included in the SIP prior to 

redesignation consistent with section 

175A(d) of the CAA. 

MAG’s Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components which 

comprise a maintenance plan 

(attainment inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan) and, therefore, 

satisfies the maintenance plan 

requirement. 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires 

States to submit a subsequent 

maintenance plan revision eight years 

after the original redesignation request 

and maintenance plan have been 

approved by EPA. The subsequent 

revision is to provide for maintenance of 

the air quality standard for an additional 

10 years following the first 10-year 

maintenance period. As the designated 

regional air quality planning agency for 

the Phoenix metropolitan area, MAG 

has committed on page 3–18 of the 1-

Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan to prepare a revised 

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation to attainment. 

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEBs) 

In addition to meeting the criteria for 

redesignation, as a control strategy SIP, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

MVEBs that, in conjunction with 

emissions from all other sources, are 

consistent with attainment and 

maintenance. An MVEB is the total 

allowable VOC and NOX emissions 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use during the maintenance period 

(highway and transit vehicle use 

emissions impacted by transportation 

plans are projected to 2015 and tested 

against the 2015 motor vehicle 

emissions budget). The rules and 

requirements governing transportation 

conformity require certain 

transportation activities to be consistent 

with the MVEBs contained in emission 

control SIPs (40 CFR 93.118). The 

projected emissions resulting from the 

transportation activities must be less 

than or equal to the emissions budget 

levels (40 CFR 93.118(a)). The review of 

the transportation plan impacts relative 

to the emissions budgets occurs after 

EPA declares that the emissions budgets 

meet the adequacy criteria of the 

transportation conformity rule under 40 

CFR 93.118(e). 

The MVEBs for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area were 

developed using emission factors 

generated using EPA’s MOBILE6 model. 

Arizona developed MVEBs for the 

maintenance plan years of 2006 and 

2015. The MVEBs are for both VOC and 

NOX, as precursors to ozone formation, 

and were applicable for the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area upon 

the effective date of the MVEB adequacy 

finding. 

We found the budgets in the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan adequate in a letter to Nancy 

Wrona, Air Division Director, ADEQ 

and Dennis Smith, Executive Director of 

MAG, dated August 3, 2004. (See also

69 FR 51079, August 17, 2004.) The 

adequacy finding on the maintenance 

plan budgets was effective as of 

September 1, 2004. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MVEBs included in Arizona’s 

maintenance plans for conformity 

purposes. EPA believes that the 

submitted MVEBs are consistent with 

the control measures identified in the 

SIP, and that the SIP as a whole 

demonstrates maintenance with the 1-

hour ozone standard. The 2006 and 

2015 motor vehicle emission budgets 

included in the MAG maintenance plan 

are summarized in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6.—PHOENIX METROPOLITAN

NONATTAINMENT AREA 2006 AND

2015 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS

[Emissions in metric tons per ozone season 

summer day] 

Year VOC NOX

2006 .......................... 71.9 104.8 

2015 .......................... 48.7 53.6 

8. Conclusion 

We propose to approve the State’s 

submittal (dated April 21, 2004) of 

MAG’s Resignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. In doing so, we find that 

ADEQ and MAG have provided 

sufficient documentation of compliance 

with the notice and hearing 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

section 110(l) of the Act.6

V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix 

Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area

At the request of the Gila River Indian 

Community and based on the evaluation 

provided below, EPA is proposing to 

change the boundary of the Phoenix 

Metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation 

(‘‘Reservation’’). 

A. Background 

1. Current Area Boundary, Designation, 

and Classification 

Areas of the country were originally 

designated as attainment, nonattainment 

or unclassifiable following enactment of 

the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. See 

43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). These 

designations were generally based on 

monitored air quality values compared 

to the applicable NAAQS. EPA 

originally designated all of Maricopa 

County as a nonattainment area for the 

photochemical oxidant NAAQS. See 43 

FR 8962, 8968 (March 3, 1978). The 

following year, EPA approved a request 

by the State of Arizona to reduce the 

size of this nonattainment area to 

include only the Maricopa Association 

of Governments (MAG) Urban Planning 

Area (see 44 FR 16388, March 19, 1979), 

which included the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and also the northern 

quarter of the Gila River Indian 

Reservation (most of the reservation lies 

13440 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

7See 67 FR 46328, 46329 (July 12, 2002).

8As noted previously, the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area includes the 

portion of the Reservation that lies within Maricopa 

County, approximately the northern 25 percent of 

the Reservation.

within Pinal County). We refer to this 

area in this notice as the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Also in 1979, we 

established a new ozone NAAQS to 

replace the photochemical oxidant 

NAAQS (see 44 FR 8202, February 8, 

1979) but retained the designation of 

‘‘nonattainment’’ for the new ozone 

NAAQS for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-

hour nonattainment area. 

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, the designation of 

‘‘nonattainment’’ for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was carried forward 

by operation of law, and pursuant to the 

1990 amended Act, the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area was 

further classified as ‘‘moderate’’

nonattainment. See 56 FR 56694, 56717 

(November 6, 1991). The nonattainment 

area boundary remained the same, i.e., 

the MAG Urban Planning Area. On 

November 6, 1997, the MAG 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area was 

reclassified to serious due to a failure to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

November 15, 1996. The reclassification 

was effective February 13, 1998. See 62 

FR 60001 (November 6, 1997) and 63 FR 

7290 (February 13, 1998). 

Area boundaries and area 

classifications have been amended over 

the years under the applicable CAA 

provisions, either by request of a state, 

by operation of law, or by EPA 

initiative. For the State of Arizona, the 

current area designations and 

classifications are codified at 40 CFR 

81.303. 

2. Gila River Indian Community’s 

Request for a Boundary Change 

On March 2, 2005, the Gila River 

Indian Community (‘‘Community’’), a 

federally-recognized tribal government,7

submitted a request to EPA to correct 

the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the 

Reservation.8 The Community’s request 

included background information and 

analysis of air quality data existing at 

the time of and subsequent to the 

designation in 1978 as well as the 

nature of the ozone sources on the 

Reservation demonstrated that the 

Reservation has not had a monitored or 

predicted violation of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS since, and that no significant 

sources of ozone precursor emissions 

exist on the Reservation. The 

Community’s request and supporting 

documentation are included in the 

docket for this proposed action.

B. EPA Review of the Community’s 

Request 

1. EPA’s Authority to Change 

Boundaries 

The Community requested that EPA 

act under section 110(k)(6) to correct the 

boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and 

while we agree that a revision to the 

boundary to exclude the Reservation is 

warranted, we have decided to 

redesignate the boundary of the area 

under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act 

rather than to correct the boundary 

under section 110(k)(6). Under section 

107(d)(3)(A), EPA has the authority to 

revise the boundary of a nonattainment 

area on the basis of air quality data, 

planning and control considerations, or 

any other air quality-related 

considerations the Administrator deems 

appropriate. 

2. The Gila River Indian Reservation 

Airshed 

The Gila River Indian Reservation 

consists of approximately 374,000 acres 

in south central Arizona, south of the 

Phoenix metropolitan area. Currently, 

the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area includes the northern 92,000 acres 

of the Reservation. The Reservation is 

physically separated from the Phoenix 

metropolitan area by the Sierra Estrella 

and South Mountain Ranges. The Sierra 

Estrella Mountain Range runs north and 

south along the western edge of the 

Reservation. The South Mountain Range 

runs diagonally in a northeasterly 

direction, between one and five miles 

beyond the northern Reservation 

boundary. These mountain ranges act as 

a physical barrier between the two 

airsheds. 

A segment of the northern border of 

the Reservation adjacent to Chandler 

does not have a topographical barrier to 

air pollution transport. However, the 

prevailing winds flow to the northeast, 

sending ozone emissions from Chandler 

away from the Reservation. Along the 

northeastern border of the Reservation, 

the Santan Mountain Range separates 

the Reservation from Gilbert and 

Apache Junction. 

The Reservation has a population of 

approximately 11,250 people, with a 

population density of approximately 20 

people per square mile. There are no 

major population centers within the 

Reservation. By comparison, Maricopa 

County (including vast rural areas west 

of the urban area, which are not part of 

the nonattainment area) has a 

population of over 3 million, with a 

population density of over 230 people 

per square mile. 

3. Ozone and the Reservation 

In general, ambient ozone 

concentrations are caused by on-road 

and nonroad mobile emissions sources, 

area sources, large stationary sources 

and biogenic sources that emit VOCs 

and NOX. The level of mobile source 

emissions, often the largest part of the 

inventory in a major metropolitan area, 

can be generally correlated to 

population density and land use 

patterns. The Community population 

density of 20 people per square mile is 

minor compared to all of Maricopa 

County, which has a density of over 230 

people per square mile. Commuting 

patterns on the Reservation are virtually 

nonexistent. Approximately 2,200 cars, 

trucks and vans commute to work 

within the Reservation, compared to 

1,250,000 in Maricopa County. There is 

little economic integration with 

commercial development in 

metropolitan Phoenix, and the 

Reservation remains largely rural and 

agricultural. The Community plans to 

expand its agricultural base by investing 

millions of dollars in agricultural 

infrastructure.

There is only one major source of 

emissions in the Community, an 

aluminum extrusion facility. Based on 

an inventory prepared by the 

Community for year 1997 and the fact 

that sources within the Community 

have not changed in any significant way 

since then, the Community estimates 

that total annual emissions of ozone 

precursor pollutants are approximately 

1,000 tons of VOCs and 1,900 tons of 

NOX for the entire Community. For the 

purposes of comparison with the other 

emissions estimates cited in this notice, 

total Community emissions are 

approximately 2.5 metric tons per day 

(mtpd) of VOCs and 4.7 mtpd of NOX on 

an annual average basis. In that part of 

the Community that is within the 

Phoenix nonattainment area, the 

Community estimates that there are 250 

tons of VOC and 490 tons of NOX per 

year (equivalent to 0.6 mtpd of VOC and 

1.2 mtpd of NOX). Emissions of VOCs 

from the Community portion of the 

nonattainment area represent less than 

0.002% and 0.006% of VOC and NOX

emissions, respectively, of total 

estimated emissions generated within 

the Phoenix metropolitan 

nonattainment area. Thus, total 

emissions from the Community are not 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

violations of the 1-hour standard or 

otherwise have a measurable impact on 

rest of the Phoenix metropolitan 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13441

9EPA could have applied VOC or NOX limits to 

sources on the Reservation, as it has authority 

under CAA 301(d) to promulgate regulations for 

Indian country as necessary or appropriate ‘‘to 

achieve the appropriate purpose’’ of the Act.

nonattainment area. High 1-hour ozone 

concentrations in the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area are 

associated almost exclusively with 

summertime temperatures and 

meteorological patterns. During the 

summer months, the natural wind 

patterns in the Salt River Valley are 

from the west toward the northeast, 

causing air pollutants from Phoenix to 

be transported away from the Gila River 

Indian Reservation. Therefore, there is 

substantial basis for concluding that the 

Reservation is an insignificant generator 

of ozone emissions. 

4. Ozone Planning Issues 

Attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area was achieved by Arizona through 

the SIP planning process. It is important 

to note that, under the CAA, the State 

and local air pollution control agencies 

do not have authority to administer air 

regulatory programs over the 

Reservation; consequently, the SIP rules 

that were applied to the metropolitan 

area and resulted in attainment of the 

NAAQS did not apply to the 

Reservation. Furthermore, due to the 

Reservation’s lack of ozone precursor 

sources, it was never considered 

necessary to apply ozone precursor 

limits to sources on the Reservation.9

Just as it was clear that it was not 

necessary for an attainment plan to be 

applicable to the Reservation for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

it is clear to EPA that it will not be 

necessary for a maintenance plan to be 

applicable to the Reservation for the 

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 

area to maintain attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. 

C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the 

Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan 

1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

In view of the above considerations, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

exercise discretionary authority under 

section 107(d)(3)(A) and to propose to 

revise the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. Geographical 

and meteorological factors support the 

conclusion that the Reservation is not 

significantly affected by emissions 

generated in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area nor is the Phoenix metropolitan 

area affected by emissions generated 

within the Reservation. The effect of 

this proposed action would be to attach 

the Maricopa County portion of the Gila 

River Indian Reservation to the preexisting ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that 

consists of all of those portions of the 

State of Arizona (including the rest of 

the Reservation that lies in Pinal 

County) that are not designated as a 

‘‘nonattainment’’ area or as an 

‘‘attainment’’ area that is subject to a 

maintenance plan. Also, this proposed 

action would eliminate any remaining 

obligations to develop plans or 

measures to attain and maintain the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS or to implement 

nonattainment NSR within the 

Maricopa County portion of the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. 

We note that this proposed action to 

revise the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation is consistent 

with EPA’s 2004 rule establishing an 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area for the 

metropolitan Phoenix area, i.e., in both 

instances the Gila River Indian 

Reservation is excluded from the ozone 

nonattainment area. See 69 FR 23858, 

23878 (April 30, 2004). Finally, we 

propose to interpret our proposed action 

herein to eliminate the requirement to 

develop a section 110 maintenance plan 

that would otherwise have been 

required for the Maricopa County 

portion of the Gila River Indian 

Reservation because of its 1-hour 

NAAQS designation (i.e., 

nonattainment) at the time when the 8-

hour ozone designations final rule was 

signed by the EPA Administrator (April 

15, 2004). See 69 FR 23951, 23999 

(April 30, 2004).

VI. Proposed Action 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed SIP rulemaking 

action. We will consider your comments 

in deciding our final action if your 

comments are received by April 20, 

2005. 

We are proposing, under the Clean 

Air Act, to fully approve three revisions 

to the Arizona SIP submitted to us by 

ADEQ and related to the Phoenix 

metropolitan nonattainment area for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. First, under 

sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA, or ‘‘the Act’’), we 

are proposing to approve the State of 

Arizona’s request to ‘‘opt-out’’ of the 

Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) program and to 

approve the Cleaner Burning Gasoline 

(CBG) program as a substitute measure. 

Second, we are proposing to approve, 

under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the 

State’s submittal of the Final Serious 

Area Ozone State Implementation Plan 

for Maricopa County as meeting the 

applicable requirements for serious 1-

hour ozone nonattainment areas. Third, 

under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 

110(k)(3), we are proposing to approve 

the State’s submittal of the One-Hour 

Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

County Nonattainment Area as meeting 

CAA requirements for redesignation 

requests and maintenance plans under 

sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. 

However, this proposal is contingent 

upon final approval by EPA of three 

separate proposed rulemakings 

involving two Maricopa County rules, a 

negative declaration, and a set of permit 

conditions imposing reasonably 

available control technology on a 

specific stationary source. As part of our 

approval of the maintenance plan, we 

are proposing to approve the 2006 and 

2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX in the 

submitted maintenance plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

In addition, we are proposing, under 

section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, to revise 

the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. This proposed 

action would add the Maricopa County 

portion of the Reservation to the current 

unclassifiable/attainment area within 

the State of Arizona for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and would relieve the 

Agency and Gila River Indian 

Community from the need to develop 

plans and measures that are not 

necessary to provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (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. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements, reduce 

the size of a nonattainment area, and 

redesignate the area (as modified) to 

attainment for air quality planning 

purposes and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

13442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications and that 

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency 

consults with tribal officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

EPA has concluded that this proposed 

rule may have tribal implications. EPA’s 

action will revise the boundary of the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment maintenance area to 

exclude the Gila River Indian 

Reservation. However, it will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on tribal governments, nor 

preempt tribal law. Thus, the 

requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless consulted with 

representatives of tribal governments 

early in the process of developing this 

proposal to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. Representatives of tribal 

governments approached EPA two years 

ago and requested that EPA make this 

boundary change. We agree with the 

technical and policy rationale the tribes 

provided, and believe that all tribal 

concerns have been met. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and tribal governments, EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, 

reduce the size of a nonattainment area, 

and redesignate the area (as modified) to 

attainment for air quality planning 

purposes and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This proposed rule 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. 

In reviewing SIP submissions and 

redesignation requests, EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. In this context, in the absence of a 

prior existing requirement for the State 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS), EPA has no authority to 

disapprove a SIP submission or 

redesignation request for failure to use 

VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission or redesignation 

request, to use VCS in place of a SIP 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 

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. This proposed 

rule 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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 14, 2005. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 05–5517 Filed 3–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P