+(,121/,1(

Citation: 79 Fed. Reg. 55645 2014 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Fri Oct 2 17:13:42 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana

Indiana citation Subject effective EPA approval date Notes

date

Article 4. Burning Regulations

Rule 1. Open Burning1

4-1-0.5 .................................... Definitions ............................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

Register citation].

4-1-1 ....................................... Scope ..................................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

Register citation].

4-1-2 ....................................... Prohibition against open burn- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

ing. Register citation].

4-1-3 ....................................... Exem ptions ............................. 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

Register citation].

4-1-4 ....................................... Emergency burning ................ 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

Register citation].

4-1-4.1 .................................... Open burning approval; cri- 12/15/2002 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

teria and conditions. Register citation].

4-1-4.2 .................................... Open burning; approval rev- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

ocation. Register citation].

4-1-4.3 .................................... Open burning approval; dele- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal

gation of authority. Register citation].

Rule 2. Incinerators

4-2-1 ....................................... Applicability ............................ 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531.

4-2-2 ....................................... Incinerators ............................. 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531.

4-2-3 ....................................... Portable incinerators (Re- 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531.

pealed).

1 EPA is approving Rule 1 for the counties of Adams, Allen, Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clay, Clinton,

Crawford, Daviess Dearborn, Decatur, De Kalb, Delaware, Dubois, Elkhart, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fulton, Gibson, Grant, Greene, Hamilton,

Hancock, Harrison, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Huntington, Jackson, Jasper, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Kosciusko, La Porte, Lagrange, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Martin, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Parke, Perry,

Pike, Posey, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Ripley, Rush, St. Joseph, Scott, Shelby, Spencer, Starke, Steuben, Sullivan, Switzerland, Tippecanoe,

Tipton, Union, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Wabash, Warren, Warrick, Washington, Wayne, Wells, White, and Whitley.

[FR Doe. 2014-22049 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686; FRL 9916-12-

Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Arizona;

Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa Area

to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour

Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision

to the Arizona state implementation

plan, a request from the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality to

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa ozone

nonattainment area to attainment of the

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or "standard") because the request meets

the statutory requirements for

redesignation under the Clean Air Act.

EPA is also approving the State's plan

for maintaining the 1997 ozone standard

in the Phoenix-Mesa area for 10 years

beyond redesignation, and the

inventories and related motor vehicle

emissions budgets within the plan,

because they meet the applicable

requirements for such plans and

budgets.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

October 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action: Docket ID No.

EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686. Generally,

documents in the docket for this action

are available electronically at

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California. While all

documents in the docket are listed at

www.regulations.gov, some information

may be publicly available only at the

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted

material, large maps), and some may not

be publicly available in either location

(e.g., Confidential Business

Information). To inspect the hard copy

materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3964,

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we," "us,"

or "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action

A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained the Applicable NAAQS

55645
55646 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

B. Determination That the Area Has a Fully

Approved SIP Meeting Requirements

Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation

Under Section 110 and Part D

C. Determination That the Improvement in

Air Quality in the Area Is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions

Reductions

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for

the Area Under CAA Section 175A

II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed

Rule

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

On March 26, 2014 (79 FR 16734), we

proposed to take several related actions.

First, under Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") section 110(k)(3), EPA proposed

to approve a March 23, 2009 submittal

from the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) of the

Maricopa Association of Governments'

(MAG's) plan titled "MAG Eight-Hour

Ozone Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

Nonattainment Area," (February 2009)

("Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan")

as a revision to the Arizona state

implementation plan (SIP).'

In connection with the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA proposed

to find that the maintenance

demonstration showing that the area

will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS 2 for 10 years beyond

redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and

the contingency provisions meet all

applicable requirements for

maintenance plans and related

contingency provisions in CAA section

175A. EPA also proposed to find

adequate and approve the motor vehicle

emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan because

we found that they meet the applicable

transportation conformity requirements

under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

Second, under CAA section

107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve

ADEQ's request that accompanied the

submittal of the maintenance plan to

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area to attainment

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We

did so based on our proposed approval

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan, and our conclusion that the area

has met the criteria for redesignation

'The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment

area is sometimes referred to as the Maricopa

nonattainment area. The precise boundaries of the area are found at 40 CFR 81.303. 2

The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 parts

per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time

frame. Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is

formed from photochemical reactions in the

atmosphere between volatile organic compounds

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence

of sunlight.

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our

conclusion was based on our

determination that the area has attained

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that

relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are

fully approved, that the improvement in

air quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions,

and that Arizona has met all the section

110 and part D requirements of the CAA

that are applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa

8-hour ozone nonattainment area for

purposes of redesignation.

For the purposes of this final rule, we

have summarized the basis for our

findings in connection with the

proposed approvals of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan and

redesignation request. For a more

detailed explanation as well as

background information concerning the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA

requirements for redesignation, and the

ozone planning history of the PhoenixMesa area, please see our March 26,

2014, proposed rule.

A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained the Applicable NAAQS

Prior to redesignating an area to

attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)

requires that we determine that the area

has attained the NAAQS. For our

proposed rule, consistent with the

requirements contained in 40 CFR part

50, EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air

monitoring data for the monitoring

period from 2010 through 2012, as

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System

(AQS) database, and determined, based

on the complete, quality-assured, and

certified data for 2010-2012, that the

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the

design value 3 is less than 0.084 ppm.

4

We also reviewed preliminary data from

2013 and found that it was consistent

with continued attainment of the

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area. See

pages 16737-16739 of our March 26,

2014 proposed rule.

In the proposed rule, we anticipated

that by the time we took final action,

data for year 2013 would be certified,

and that preliminary data for a portion

of year 2014 would be available. In

3The design value for the 8-hour standard is the

three-year average of the annual fourth-highest

daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the

worst-case monitoring site in the area. When the

design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm

(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part

50, appendix I) at each monitoring site within the

area, the area is meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS.

4Our proposed rule also includes a table (at page

16743, table 2) that shows that design values have

been consistent with attainment of the 1997 ozone

standard since the 2005-2007 period.

anticipation of the newly certified and

available data, we also indicated that, in

our final action, we would update our

attainment determination for the

Phoenix-Mesa area based on complete,

certified data for 2011-2013 and would

review preliminary data for 2014. As

expected, the relevant certifications

have been submitted,5 and based on

review of complete, certified data for

2011-2013, we find that the 8-hour

ozone design value for 2011-2013 for

the Phoenix-Mesa area is 0.081 parts per

million (ppm) based on the data from

the monitoring site (North Phoenix)

recording the highest design value

among the various monitoring sites

within the nonattainment area. Like the

design value for 2010-2012 documented

in the proposed rule, the design value

for 2011-2013 is below 0.084 ppm, and

is, thus, consistent with attainment of

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Preliminary

data for 2014 are also consistent with

continued attainment.

B. Determination That the Area Has a

Fully Approved SIP Meeting

Requirements Applicable for Purposes

of Redesignation Under Section 110 and

Part D

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the

CAA require EPA to determine that the

area has a fully approved applicable SIP

under section 110(k) that meets all

applicable requirements under section

110 and part D for the purposes of

redesignation. For the reasons

summarized below, we find that the

Phoenix-Mesa area has a fully approved

applicable SIP under section 110(k) that

meets all applicable requirements under

section 110 and part D for the purposes

of redesignation. See pages 16739-

16741 of our March 26, 2014 proposed

rule.

With respect to section 110 of the

CAA (General SIP Requirements), we

conclude that the Phoenix-Mesa portion

of the approved SIP, which includes

rules pertaining to areas and sources

under the jurisdiction of ADEQ, the

Maricopa County Air Quality

Department (MCAQD), and the Pinal

County Air Quality Control District

(PCAQCD), meet all SIP requirements

for the Phoenix-Mesa area that are

applicable for purposes of

redesignation. Our conclusion in this

regard is based on our review of the

Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona

SIP.

5 See letters from Michael Sundblom, Air Quality

Director, Pinal County Air Quality Control District,

dated April 21, 2014; Eric C. Massey, Director, Air

Quality Division, ADEQ, dated May 30, 2014; and

Dennis Dickerson, Acting Director, Maricopa

County Air Quality Department, dated June 3, 2014.
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55647

With respect to part D (of title I of the

CAA), we reviewed the Phoenix-Mesa

portion of the Arizona SIP for

compliance with applicable

requirements for nonattainment areas

under both subparts 1 and 2.6 First, we

note that EPA previously approved the

Eight-Hour Attainment Plan for the

Phoenix-Mesa area based upon the

determination that it met all applicable

requirements for such plans under

subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77

FR 35285, June 13, 2012), including the

requirements for an emissions

inventory, for contingency measures,

and for demonstrations of

implementation of reasonably available

control measures, of reasonable further

progress, and of attainment by the

applicable attainment date. As to the

other applicable subpart 1 requirements,

we find that:

* Arizona has met the nonattainment

applicable New Source Review (NSR)

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa

eight-hour ozone nonattainment area

because rules meeting the fundamental

nonattainment NSR requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas are approved

in the Arizona SIP; and

* The requirements for transportation

conformity SIPs under section 176(c) do

not apply for the purposes of a

redesignation request under section

107(d)(3) because state conformity rules

are still required after redesignation and

federal conformity rules apply where

state rules have not been approved. 7

With respect to the requirements

associated with subpart 2, we noted that

the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area was initially

designated nonattainment under subpart

1 of the CAA, but was classified as

marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard under subpart 2 of

part D of the CAA in May 2012,8 i.e.,

after Arizona's submittal of the

redesignation request. Under EPA's

longstanding policy of evaluating

requirements in accordance with the

requirements due at the time a

redesignation request is submitted, and

in consideration of the inequity of

applying retroactively any requirements

that might in the future be applied, we

determined that the additional

requirements for marginal

nonattainment areas do not apply to the

6 Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive

requirements for all nonattainment areas of any

pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS.

Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific

requirements for ozone nonattainment areas

classified under subpart 2.

7See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir.

2001) upholding this interpretation.

8 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012.

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area for the purposes of

redesignation.

C. Determination that the Improvement

in Air Quality in the Area Is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions

Reductions

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes

redesignation of a nonattainment area to

attainment unless EPA 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 pollution

control regulations and other permanent

and enforceable regulations. Based on

our review of the control measures that

provided for attainment of the nowrevoked one-hour ozone NAAQS in the

Phoenix metropolitan area and the

additional control measures adopted

and approved for attainment of the 1997

8-hour ozone standard, and based on

our consideration of other factors such

as weather patterns and economic

activity, 9 we find that the improvement

in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa area

is the result of permanent and

enforceable emissions reductions from a

combination of numerous EPAapproved State and local stationary

source and mobile source control

measures, along with federal motor

vehicle and nonroad control programs.

See pages 16741-16742 of our March

26, 2014 proposed rule.

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for

the Area Under CAA Section 175A

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) precludes

EPA from redesignating an area from

nonattainment to attainment unless EPA

has fully approved a plan for

maintaining compliance with the

NAAQS. The required elements of a

maintenance plan for areas seeking

redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment are set forth in CAA section

175A. As explained in the proposed

rule, we interpret this section of the Act

to require, in general, the following core

elements: attainment inventory,

maintenance demonstration, monitoring

network, verification of continued

attainment, and contingency plan.

Based on our review and evaluation of

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan, we conclude that it contains the

9 Specifically, we reviewed temperature data to

determine if unusual meteorological conditions

could have played a significant role in attaining the

1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and

determined that unusually favorable meteorology

did not play a significant role. We also discussed

the economic slowdown affecting the Phoenix-Mesa

area starting in 2008 but noted that the downward

trend in ozone concentrations had already been

established well before that time.

core elements and meets the

requirements of CAA section 175A. See

pages 16742-16748 of our proposed

rule. Our conclusion was based on the

following findings:

* The base year emissions inventory

for 2005 is comprehensive, the methods

and assumptions used by MAG to

develop the 2005 emission inventory are

reasonable, and the inventory

reasonably estimates actual ozone

season emissions in an attainment year.

Moreover, we found that the 2005

emissions inventories reflect the latest

planning assumptions and emissions

models available at the time the plan

was developed, and provide a

comprehensive and reasonably accurate

basis upon which to forecast ozone

precursor emissions for years 2019 and

2025;

* MAG's photochemical modeling

adequately demonstrates maintenance

for at least 10 years after redesignation

to attainment;

* The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

plan indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD

will continue to operate an appropriate

air quality monitoring network to verify

the continued attainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS;

* The continued operation of an

ozone monitoring network and the

requirement that MCAQD, with input

from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, and MAG,

must inventory emissions sources and

report to EPA on a periodic basis '0 are

sufficient for the purpose of verifying

continued attainment; and

* The contingency provisions of the

Ozone Maintenance Plan identify

specific contingency measures,"

contain tracking and triggering

mechanisms to determine when

contingency measures are needed,

contain a sufficient description of the

process of recommending and

implementing contingency measures,

and contain specific timelines for

action, and will, therefore, be adequate

to ensure prompt correction of a

violation and comply with the

contingency-related requirements under

CAA section 175A(d).

Lastly, we find adequate and are

approving the motor vehicle emissions

budgets (MVEBs) contained in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan because

10 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A ("Air Emissions

Reporting Requirements").

11 The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

includes both specific contingency measures (such

as the Gross Polluter Option for I/M Program

Waivers, Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options,

and Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Emissions

Standards, among others) that have already been

adopted and are being implemented early, and a

mechanism to trigger the adoption of additional

measures as needed. See pages 3-21 and 3-22 of the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

we find that they meet the

transportation conformity adequacy

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)

and (5). Specifically, we find that,

among other things, the MVEBs, when

considered with emissions from all

other sources, would be consistent with

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for

ten years beyond redesignation.

II. Responses to Comments on the

Proposed Rule

EPA's March 26, 2014 proposed rule

provided a 30-day public comment

period. During this period, we received

two comment letters. One comment

letter was from a member of the public

who supports EPA's proposed actions.

The other letter, from Sierra Club,

opposes the proposed actions. A

summary of Sierra Club's comments and

EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment: The Sierra Club contends

that EPA must disapprove the State of

Arizona's redesignation request for the

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area because the

inclusion of State and Maricopa County

rules in the Arizona SIP that provide an

affirmative defense potentially

applicable to violations due to excess

emissions that occur during startup,

shutdown, and malfunction ("SSM

events") prevents EPA from determining

that all applicable Clean Air Act

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)

for redesignations have been met.

Specifically, Sierra Club contends that

the affirmative defense provisions in the

Arizona SIP prevent EPA from

determining:

That the improvement in air quality

is due to enforceable reductions as

required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)

because the affirmative defense

provisions applicable during SSM

events make emission reductions

unenforceable;

* that the maintenance plan

demonstrates maintenance of the

NAAQS as required under sections

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(a) when

emissions can increase above the

emission inventory and allowable levels

during SSM events; and

* that the State has met all

requirements applicable to the area

under section 110 and part D as

required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v)

and 110(a)(2)(A) because the emission

limits in the SIP, at least during SSM

events, are not enforceable because of

the affirmative defense provisions.

In support of this claim, the Sierra

Club notes that EPA has found in other

actions 12 that illegal SSM provisions

related to emissions during SSM events

constituted grounds for denying

redesignation requests. Moreover, the

Sierra Club notes that EPA has proposed

a SIP call for both the State and

Maricopa County affirmative defense

provisions applicable during startup

and shutdown events based on a finding

that such provisions are inconsistent

with the CAA. Sierra Club also cites a

recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

decision (Natural Resources Defense

Councilv. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir.,

Apr. 18, 2014- "Cement Kiln

Decision"),1 3 as standing for the

principle that affirmative defense

provisions, even those applicable only

during malfunctions, are inconsistent

with the requirements of the Clean Air

Act because such provisions purport to

alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of

federal courts to assess penalties for

violation in contravention of sections

113 and 304. Lastly, Sierra Club

includes a recent District Court opinion

as an example of a citizen enforcement

action undermined by the presence in a

SIP of affirmative defense provisions

applicable during malfunction events. 1 4

Response: EPA does not agree that the

affirmative defense provisions in the

State and Maricopa County portions of

the Arizona SIP provide a basis for

disapproving the redesignation request

for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard

for the reasons set forth below.

The CAA sets forth the general criteria

for redesignation of an area from

nonattainment to attainment in section

107(d)(3)(E). These criteria include a

determination by EPA that the area has

attained the relevant standard [section

107(d)(3)(E)(i)] and that EPA has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area for

purposes of redesignation [section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)]. EPA must also

determine that the improvement in air

12 The commenter cites two Federal Register

documents: a proposed disapproval of

redesignation requests and maintenance plans for

Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City,

Utah PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717,

December 1, 2009), and a final rule requiring Utah

to revise SSM provisions in its SIP (76 FR 21639,

April 18, 2011).

13 The Cement Kiln Decision involved a challenge

to EPA's National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement

Manufacturing Industry and Standards of

Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR

10006 (February 12, 2013), in which EPA included

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for

violations of emissions standards that result from

unavoidable malfunctions. In the Cement Kiln

Decision, the Court vacated the portion of the 2013

rule pertaining to the affirmative defense.

14 Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp.,

No. W-12-cv-108, W.D. Tex., memorandum

opinion and order filed March 28, 2014.

quality is due to reductions that are

permanent and enforceable [section

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)], and that the EPA has

fully approved a maintenance plan for

the area under section 175A [section

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. EPA addressed all

these criteria in the proposal to

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa area to

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone

area. The commenter alleges that EPA's

analysis is flawed because inclusion of

the affirmative defense in the SIP makes

the Agency's determination under

redesignation criteria at CAA section

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), (iv), and (v) invalid.

As EPA stated in its proposed rule,

CAA SIP requirements that are not

linked with a particular nonattainment

area's designation and classification,

including certain section 110

requirements, are not "applicable" for

purposes of evaluating compliance with

the specific redesignation criteria in

CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 79

FR at 16739, FN 22. EPA maintains this

interpretation because these

requirements remain applicable after an

area is redesignated to attainment. For at

least the past 15 years, EPA has applied

this interpretation with respect to

requirements to which a state will be

subject after the area is redesignated.

See, e.g., 73 FR 22307, 22312-22313

(April 25, 2008) (proposed redesignation

of San Joaquin Valley; EPA concluded

that section 110(a)(2)(D) transport

requirements are not applicable under

section 110(d)(3)(E)(v) because they "continue to apply to a state regardless

of the designation of any one particular

area in the state"); 62 FR 24826, 24829-

24830 (May 7, 1997) (redesignation of

Reading, Pennsylvania, Area; EPA

concluded that the additional controls

required by section 184 were not

"applicable" for purposes of section

107(d)(3)(E) because "they remain in

force regardless of the area's

redesignation status"). Courts reviewing

EPA's interpretation of "applicable" in

the context of requirements applicable

for redesignation have agreed with the

Agency. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Wall v.

EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001).

With respect to the affirmative defense

provisions in the Arizona SIP,

redesignation of the area to attainment

will in no way relieve the State and

Maricopa County of their

responsibilities to remove the

affirmative defense provisions from the

SIP, if EPA later takes action to require

correction of the Arizona SIP with

respect to the affirmative defense

provisions. 15 Because we conclude that

15 EPA has proposed, under CAA section

110(k)(5), to find a number of SIPs, including the

55648 Federal Register/Vol. 79,
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55649

the affirmative defense provisions are

not applicable requirements for

purposes of this redesignation action,

the existence of the affirmative defense

provisions in the SIP does not

undermine our conclusion that the

redesignation criteria under section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) have been met.

The affirmative defense provisions at

issue provide an affirmative defense to

monetary penalties for violations due to

excess emissions for certain categories

of stationary sources during qualifying

SSM events. 16 The Sierra Club

maintains that the inclusion of these

provisions in the SIP renders the

emissions limits in the nonattainment

SIP and maintenance plan that are

subject to the affirmative defense

provision unenforceable, thus

undermining the Agency's conclusion

that the improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions as required

under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), and the

conclusion that the maintenance plan

will ensure maintenance of the NAAQS

prospectively as required under section

107(d)(3)(E)(iv). The Sierra Club did not

explain the precise basis for its claim

that potential assertion of the

affirmative defenses at issue would

render the existing EPA approved SIP

inconsistent with the criteria under

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv), and

thus, in effect, invites EPA to determine

that the existence in the SIP of

affirmative defense provisions, without

regard to the types of sources relied

upon for attainment and maintenance,

per se means that EPA may not make a

positive determination with respect to

the redesignation criteria under CAA

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv). We do

not believe that the redesignation

criteria must be interpreted so narrowly,

but may be interpreted to account for

the larger planning context in a given

area.

As noted above, the affirmative

defense provisions in the Arizona SIP

purport to allow sources to avoid

monetary penalties for violations of an

Arizona SIP, substantially inadequate to meet CAA

requirements because the SIP provides an

affirmative defense for excess emissions during

certain SSM events. See 78 FR 12460, at 12533-

12536 (February 22, 2013).

16 EPA approved the State's SSM affirmative

defense rules prior to designating the Phoenix-Mesa

Area non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard. See [Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)

R18-2-310 ("Affirmative Defenses for Excess

Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, and

Shutdown")] at 66 FR 48087 (September 18, 2001)

and Maricopa County's SSM affirmative defense

rule [Maricopa County Rule 140 ("Excess

Emissions") at 67 FR 54957 (August 27, 2002). At

the time EPA approved the affirmative defense

provisions as a part of the SIP, the Agency believed

them to be consistent with CAA requirements.

applicable emissions limit under certain

limited circumstances, but those

provisions do not prohibit the state,

EPA or citizens from seeking injunctive

relief to force a source that is violating

the applicable SIP emission limitations

to take steps to address the noncompliance. Penalties are not the only

means to address exceedances of a SIP

emission limitation, even though the

possibility or threat of penalties

provides deterrence against violations

and may cause a source to agree more

readily to correct a problem

prospectively. The continued

availability of injunctive relief supports

EPA's contention that the emissions

limits in the SIP are sufficiently

enforceable for purposes of

redesignation, even though EPA now

believes that such affirmative defense

provisions in SIPs are not consistent

with the CAA and must be revised.

Second, attainment of the 1997 ozone

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and

maintenance of the standard through

2025 primarily rely upon emission

limits on mobile and area sources to

which the affirmative defense

provisions in the Arizona SIP do not

apply. For example, all of the specific

control measures relied upon by the

state for numeric credit for attainment

and maintenance planning purposes,

with very minor exceptions, apply to

mobile and area sources. See figures ES3 and ES-4 on pages ES-4 and ES-5 in

the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for

the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June

2007); and figures ES-2 and ES-3 on

pages ES-5 and ES-6 in the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan. These control

measures relate to nonroad equipment

standards, fuel formulations, and

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

requirements rather than stationary

source controls.

This is not to say that controls on

stationary source are not an important

part of the overall ozone control strategy

in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Rather, the

point is that the extent to which

individual stationary sources, which

might assert an affirmative defense for

an SSM event that would likely have

occurred even in the absence of an

affirmative defense, can affect regional

ozone concentrations in the PhoenixMesa area is likely limited. For instance,

based on the emissions inventory for

this area, the highest-emitting

individual stationary sources in the

Phoenix-Mesa area emit approximately

0.80 metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOC

and 2.55 mtpd of NOx based on the

individual facility data for 2005

compiled in appendix A, exhibit 1 of

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan. Such emissions constitute

approximately 0.12% and 0.94% of the

overall regional inventory for VOC and

NOx, respectively.

Moreover, overall point source 17

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area

constitute only 1.7% and 4.0% of VOC

and NOx emissions, respectively, based

on the 2005 inventories presented on

pages ES-8 and ES-9 of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan. These values

underscore the importance of mobile

and area (and biogenic) sources, to

which the affirmative defense

provisions do not apply, to the regional

inventory, and by extension, to regional

ozone concentrations. The current

design value for the Phoenix-Mesa area,

meanwhile, which is equal to the

projected design value, is 0.081 ppm,

five percent below the applicable

NAAQS. Thus, the hypothetical

potential for any one individual point

source, or even small subset of such

sources, to cause a violation of the 1997

ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa

area due to higher emissions that would

likely have occurred in the absence of

the affirmative defense provisions, is

quite low. For these reasons, we

conclude that the affirmative defense

provisions in the Arizona SIP do not

make the emission limits relied upon for

attainment and maintenance

unenforceable for the purposes of CAA

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv) or

otherwise undermine EPA's approval,

finalized herein, of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan and related

grant of ADEQ's redesignation request

for the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997

ozone standard.

Sierra Club also contends that EPA

has previously found in other actions

that illegal SSM provisions constitute

grounds for denying redesignation

requests and references EPA's December

1, 2009 proposed disapproval of Utah's

redesignation requests for Salt Lake

County, Utah County, and Ogden City

PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR

62717). However, this aspect of the

proposed disapproval, which was one of

many deficiencies identified by EPA,

was based on the state's inclusion in the

submittal of new SIP revisions that

would provide blanket exemptions from

compliance with emission standards

during SSM events. In the redesignation

at issue here, the state did not seek to

create new SIP provisions that are

inconsistent with CAA requirements as

part of its redesignation request or

17 The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

defines "point sources" as stationary sources that

emit 25 (English) tons per year or more of carbon

monoxide, 10 tons per year or more of ozone

precursors, or 5 tons or more of PM 10 or ammonia

compounds. See page 11 of appendix A, exhibit 1

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
55650 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

maintenance plan, and the already

existing affirmative defense provisions

do not purport to preclude all potential

forms of enforcement, or to provide a

blanket exemption from compliance.

A more analogous action by EPA is

the Agency's final redesignation of the

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland

(OH-WV-KY) nonattainment area to

attainment for the fine particulate

matter standard (PM 2.5) standard. See 77

FR 76883 (December 31, 2012). In

response to comments challenging the

proposed redesignation due to the

presence of certain SSM provisions in

the Ohio SIP, EPA concluded that the

SSM provisions in the Ohio SIP did not

provide a basis for disapproving the

redesignation request. Id., at 76891,

76892. In so concluding, EPA noted that

the SSM provisions and related SIP

limits at issue in that state were

approved into the SIP and thus were

permanent and enforceable for the

purposes of meeting the criteria for

redesignation, and that EPA had other

statutory mechanisms for addressing

any problems associated with the SSM

measures. EPA emphasizes that the

redesignation of the area to attainment

does not relieve Arizona of the

responsibility to remove legally

deficient SIP provisions either

independently or pursuant to a SIP call.

To the contrary, EPA maintains that it

may determine that the affirmative

defense provisions are contrary to CAA

requirements and take action to require

correction of those provisions even after

the area has been redesignated to

attainment. This interpretation is

consistent with prior redesignation

actions. See Southwestern Pennsylvania

Growth Alliance v. EPA, 114 F.3d 984

(6th Cir. 1998) (Redesignation of

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area

determined valid even though the

Agency subsequently proposed a SIP

call to require Ohio and other states to

revise their SIPs to mitigate ozone

transport to other states).

As of this time, the State's and

Maricopa County's affirmative defense

provisions are part of the approved SIP,

and EPA is not required to re-evaluate

the validity of previously approved SIP

provisions as part of this

redesignation.18 If approved SIP

provisions are separately determined to

be deficient, EPA is able to evaluate

18 See September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled

"Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment," from John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, at page 3;

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.

Browner, 144 F.3d, 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998);

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); 68 FR

25418, 25426, May 12, 2003.

those concerns in the appropriate

context, and can, if necessary, issue a

"SIP call," which triggers a requirement

for states to submit a corrective SIP

revision.

EPA acknowledges that we are

currently evaluating a petition that

pertains to EPA's SSM Policy that

interprets the requirements of the CAA

with respect to the proper treatment of

excess emissions during SSM events in

SIP provisions. As part of that process,

EPA is separately evaluating the issue of

whether states have authority to create,

and EPA has authority to approve, any

affirmative defense provisions in SIPs.

On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a

"Petition to Find Inadequate and

Correct Several State Implementation

Plans under Section 110 of the Clean

Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction, and/or Maintenance

Provisions." The petition includes

interrelated requests concerning the

treatment of excess emissions in state

rules by sources during periods of SSM.

On February 22, 2013, EPA proposed to

grant in part and deny in part the

request in the petition to rescind its

policy interpreting the CAA to allow

states to have appropriately drawn SIP

provisions that provide affirmative

defenses to monetary penalties for

violations during periods of SSM (78 FR

12460). EPA also proposed either to

grant or to deny the petition with

respect to the specific existing SIP

provisions related to SSM events in

each of the 39 states identified by the

Sierra Club as inconsistent with the

CAA. In this context, EPA has proposed

to grant the petition with respect to both

the State's and Maricopa County's

affirmative defense provisions for

startup and shutdown periods, and to

deny the petition with respect to the

arguments concerning the agencies'

affirmative defense provisions for

periods of malfunction. Under EPA's

February 2013 proposal, a schedule has

been proposed for states to submit

corrective SIP revisions.

The Sierra Club also argues that the

Cement Kiln Decision, issued by the

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April

18, 2014, prevents EPA from approving

any affirmative defense provisions in

SIPs because they are inconsistent with

CAA provisions relevant to citizen

enforcement under sections 113 and

304. In the decision, the D.C. Circuit

vacated affirmative defense provisions

applicable to violations due to

unavoidable malfunctions provided in

EPA's standard for emissions from

Portland cement plants.19 The court

concluded that sections 113 and 304

preclude EPA from creating such

affirmative defense provision in its own

regulations because it would purport to

alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of

federal courts to assess civil penalties

for violations of CAA requirements. EPA

is currently analyzing this opinion and

is evaluating its impact on our

interpretation of the CAA regarding the

permissibility of affirmative defenses in

SIP provisions, including those

applicable to malfunctions. In the event

that EPA determines that no affirmative

defense provisions are permissible in

SIPs, the Agency will have the authority

and discretion to require the states to

remove deficient provisions from the

SIPs pursuant to section 110(k)(5). EPA

maintains that this concern is better

addressed through the exercise of that

authority, than through its authority to

redesignate areas that otherwise attain

the NAAQS and meet the requirements

of section 107(d)(3), consistent with

EPA's long standing approach to

evaluating requests for redesignation to

attainment.

In conclusion, with regard to the

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa area,

Arizona has a fully approved SIP. The

provisions that the Sierra Club objects to

do not preclude EPA's determination

that the emissions reductions that have

provided for attainment and that will

provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard in the PhoenixMesa area are permanent and

enforceable, as those terms are meant in

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, or that the

state has met all applicable

requirements under section 110 and part

D for the purposes of redesignation. In

addition, the area has attained the 1997

8-hour ozone standard since 2007, and

has demonstrated it can maintain

compliance with the standard for at

least 10 years after redesignation to

attainment. EPA notes, moreover, that it

is approving contingency provisions

under section 175A(d) as part of the

area's maintenance plan. The

contingency element of the maintenance

plan provides assurance that the area

can promptly correct a violation that

might occur after redesignation. Finally,

EPA is addressing the affirmative

defense provisions in the Arizona SIP in

separate action or actions, and

redesignation of the area to attainment

will in no way relieve the State and

Maricopa County of their

responsibilities to remove the

affirmative defense provisions from the

SIP, if EPA later takes final action to

19 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland

Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013).
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55651

require such revisions to the Arizona

SIP.

III. Final Action

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for

the reasons provided above and in the

proposed rule, EPA is approving

ADEQ's submittal dated March 23, 2009

of the MAG Eight-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

Nonattainment Area (February 2009)

("Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan") as a revision to the

Arizona SIP. In connection with the

Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the

maintenance demonstration showing

how the area will continue to attain the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years

beyond redesignation (i.e., through

2025) and the contingency provisions

meet all applicable requirements for

maintenance plans and related

contingency provisions in CAA section

175A.

EPA is also finding adequate and

approving the motor vehicle emissions

budgets (MVEBs) from the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan for

transportation conformity purposes

because we find that they meet the

applicable transportation conformity

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

The MVEBs are 43.8 metric tons per day

(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOx.

They include a 10% safety margin, and

correspond to the peak episode day

(Thursday) in June 2025 that was used

to model maintenance of the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area in the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan.

These new MVEBs become effective

on the date of publication of this final

rule in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR

93.118(f)(2)) and must be used by U.S.

Department of Transportation and the

Maricopa Association of Governments

for future transportation conformity

analyses for the Phoenix-Mesa area with

applicable horizon years after 2024. The

existing 2008 VOC and NOx MVEBs

established in MAG's approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan also

remain in effect. On-road motor vehicle

emissions in any required analysis years

up to and including 2024 cannot exceed

levels established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs.

Second, under CAA section

107(d)(3)(D), we are approving ADEQ's

request, which accompanied the

submittal of the maintenance plan, to

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area to attainment

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 20

We are doing so based on our

conclusion that the area has met the five

criteria for redesignation under CAA

section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in

this regard is in turn based on our

determination that the area has attained

the 1997 ozone NAAQS; that relevant

portions of the Arizona SIP are fully

approved; that the improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions;

that Arizona has met all requirements

applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa area

with respect to section 110 and part D

of the CAA; and that the area has a fully

approved maintenance plan meeting the

requirements of CAA section 175A (i.e.,

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

approved herein).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation of an

area to attainment under section

107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying

approval of a maintenance plan as a SIP

revision under section 110(k)(3) are

actions that affect the status of a

geographical area and do not impose

any additional regulatory requirements

on sources beyond those imposed by

State law. Redesignation to attainment

does not in and of itself create any new

requirements, but rather results in the

applicability of requirements contained

in the CAA for areas that have been

redesignated to attainment. Moreover,

the Administrator is required to approve

a SIP submission that complies with the

provisions of the Act and applicable

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP

submissions, EPA's role is to approve

State choices, provided that they meet

the criteria of the Clean Air Act.

Accordingly, these actions merely

approve a State plan and redesignation

request as meeting federal requirements

and do not impose additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. For these reasons, these

actions:

* Are not a "significant regulatory

action" subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993);

* Do not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

2 0

As noted in our proposed rule at 79 FR 16736,

EPA has lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to

0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour ozone standard), and

has designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

Today's action redesignates the Phoenix-Mesa area

as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard

only. The Phoenix-Mesa area remains

nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour

ozone standard until redesignated for that standard.

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

* Are certified as not having a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

* Do not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

* Do not have Federalism

implications as specified in Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999);

* Are not an economically significant

regulatory action based on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

* Are not a significant regulatory

action subject to Executive Order 13211

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Are not subject to requirements of

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because

application of those requirements would

be inconsistent with the CAA; and

* Do not provide EPA with the

discretionary authority to address

disproportionate human health or

environmental effects with practical,

appropriate, and legally permissible

methods under Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have

tribal implications as specified by

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is

not approved to apply in Indian country

located in the State, and EPA notes that

it will not impose substantial direct

costs on tribal governments or preempt

tribal law. Nonetheless, in accordance

with EPA's 2011 Policy on Consultation

and Coordination with Tribes, EPA has

discussed the actions with the three

Tribes located within the Phoenix-Mesa

8-hour ozone nonattainment area: The

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt

River-Pima Maricopa Indian

Community, and the Tohono O'odham

Nation.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this action and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in
55652 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17,

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by November 17,

2014. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this action for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: August 20, 2014.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D-Arizona

* 2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(160) to read as

follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(160) The following plan was

submitted on March 23, 2009, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

(1) MA G Eight-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

Nonattainment Area (February 2009),

adopted by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality on March 23,

2009, excluding the appendices. * * * * *

PART 81-DESIGNATION OF AREAS

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING

PURPOSES

* 3. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

* 4. Section 81.303 is amended by:

* a. Removing the table heading

"Arizona-Ozone (Arizona-1997 8-

Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and

Secondary)" and adding in its place

"Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

(Primary and Secondary)"; and

* b. In the newly headed table

"Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

(Primary and Secondary)," under

"Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:" revising the

entries for "Maricopa County (part)"

and "Pinal County (part)".

The revision reads as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS

[Primary and Secondary]

Designation a Category/

Designated area classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:

M aricopa County (part) ..................................................................................... 10/17/2014 Attainment.

2014 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55653

ARIZONA-1997 8-HoUR OZONE NAAQS-Continued

[Primary and Secondary]

Designation a Category/

Designated area classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

T1N, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N, R3E;

T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E; T1N, RiW; T1N, R2W; T1N,

R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N,

R3E; T2N, R4E; T2N, R5E, T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E;

T2N, R1OE; T2N, R11E; T2N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County);

T2N, R13E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, RiW; T2N, R2W;

T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N, R7W; T3N, R1E;

T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E; T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N,

R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N,

RllE (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E (except that portion

in Gila County); T3N, RiW; T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N,

R5W; T3N, R6W; T4N, R1 E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E;

T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, Ri 1 E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N,

R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, RiW; T4N, R2W; T4N,

R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N,

R3E; T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; T5N, R7E; T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E

(except that portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in

Gila County); T5N, RiW; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W;

T6N, R1 E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E;

T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E; T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except

that portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, RiW (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N,

R3W; T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, RiE (except that portion in Yavapai

County); T7N, R2E; (except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R3E;

T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E; T7N, R9E (except

that portion in Gila County); T7N, RiW (except that portion in Yavapai

County); T7N, R2W (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R2E

(except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in

Yavapai County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N,

R5E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R6E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T8N,

R9E (except that portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1 S, R1 E (except

that portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that portion in Pinal

County and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S,

R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S, RiW; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S,

R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T2S,

R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, RiW; T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W;

T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, RiW; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W;

T3S, R5W; T4S, 1E; T4S, RiW; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S,

R5W.

P in a l C o u n ty (p a rt) ...................................................................................................

Apache Junction: T1N, R8E; T1S, R8E (Sections 1 through 12)

10/17/2014 Attainment.

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doe. 2014-22029 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0324; FRL-9915-81]

Butanedioic Acid, 2-methylene-,

Polymer With 2,5-fuandione, Sodium

and Ammonium Salts, Hydrogen

Peroxide-Initiated; Tolerance

Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of butanedioic

acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 2,5-

furandione, sodium and ammonium

salts, hydrogen peroxide-initiated when

used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide

formulation. Technology Sciences

Group Inc. on behalf of Specialty

Fertilizer Products LLC. submitted a

petition to EPA under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

requesting an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance. This

regulation eliminates the need to