Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15227 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 19, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter. 

Dated: March 4, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding a new entry 

in alphabetical order for ‘‘Evansville/

Southwest Indiana Area 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter maintenance 

plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana 

date EPA Approval Explanation 

*******

Evansville/Southwest Indiana Area 1997 

annual fine particulate matter maintenance plan.

............. 03/19/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets. 

*******

■ 3. Section 52.776 is amended by 

adding paragraph (v)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.776 Control Strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(5) Approval—On July 2, 2013 

Indiana submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter 

maintenance plan for the Evansville 

maintenance area. The budgets are being 

revised with budgets developed with 

the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 

motor vehicle emissions budgets are 

199.93 tpy PM2.5 and 5,642.95 tpy NOX. 

The 2022 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets are 100.45 tpy PM2.5 and 3,173 

tpy NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–05903 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0657; FRL–9907–00- 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Arizona; Payson PM10 Air Quality 

Planning Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Payson portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on January 23, 

2012. This revision consists of the 

second ten-year maintenance plan for 

the Payson air quality planning area for 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10). EPA is approving this plan 

based on the conclusion that the plan 

adequately provides for continued 

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

Payson area through 2022. EPA is taking 

this action pursuant to those provisions 

of the CAA that obligate the Agency to 

take action on submittals of revisions to 

SIPs. The effect of this action is to make 

the State’s continuing commitments 

with respect to maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS in the Payson area federally 

enforceable for another ten years. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 19, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 18, 

2014. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0657, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15228 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Payson air quality planning area is 144 

square miles in size, centered around the Town of 

Payson, Arizona, a community of approximately 

17,000 persons in the north central portion of Gila 

County, approximately 90 miles northeast of 

Phoenix. For the precise boundaries of this area, 

please see the entry for Payson in the PM10 table 

in 40 CFR 81.303. 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Action 

II. Introduction 

A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air 

Quality Designations and Plans for the 

Payson Area 

B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10

Maintenance Plans 

C. Limited Maintenance Plan Option 

III. Review of the Arizona SIP Submittal 

Addressing These Provisions 

A. Has the State met the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions? 

B. Has the State demonstrated that the area 

continues to qualify for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan option? 

C. Is the updated emission inventory 

acceptable? 

D. Are the plan control measures 

permanent and enforceable? 

E. Has the State committed to continue to 

operate an appropriate PM10 air quality 

monitoring network? 

F. Does the plan continue to meet the CAA 

provisions for contingency measures? 

G. How are transportation and general 

conformity requirements being met? 

1. Transportation Conformity 

2. General Conformity 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we are approving 

the Final Update of the Limited 

Maintenance Plan for the Payson 

PM 10 Maintenance Area (December 

2011) (‘‘Second Ten-Year Limited 

Maintenance Plan,’’ or ‘‘Second TenYear LMP’’) submitted on January 23, 

2012 by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as a 

revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We find that 

the submittal meets subsequent 

maintenance plan requirements under 

CAA section 175A(b). 

II. Introduction 

A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air 

Quality Designations and Plans for the 

Payson Area 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’), EPA is required to establish 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for pervasive 

air pollutants at levels that protect the 

public health and welfare. Particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal ten 

micrometers (‘‘microns’’), or PM10, is 

one of the air pollutants for which EPA 

has established health-based standards. 

On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated two 

standards for PM10: a 24-hour standard 

of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) and an annual PM10 standard of 50 

mg/m3. 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). In this 

document, references to the PM10

NAAQS or PM10 standard refer to the 

24-hour-average standard of 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

unless otherwise noted. 

Under section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA 

is required to designate areas of the 

country as attainment, unclassifiable, or 

nonattainment for each of the NAAQS 

depending on whether the NAAQS are 

being met. Under the CAA Amendments 

of 1990, the Payson area was designated 

as part of a large ‘‘unclassifiable’’ area 

in Arizona for the PM10 NAAQS. In 

1993 (58 FR 67334, December 21, 1993), 

in light of PM10 NAAQS violations 

monitored in 1989 and 1990, EPA 

redesignated the Payson air quality 

planning area as a ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment area for the PM10

NAAQS.1 To meet the SIP planning 

requirements for such areas, State and 

local agencies adopted and 

implemented a number of control 

measures to reduce PM10 emissions and 

lower ambient PM10 concentrations in 

the Payson area, including the paving of 

certain unpaved roads and restrictions 

on residential wood combustion. In 

2002 (67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002), 

EPA determined that the Payson area 

had attained the PM10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2000. 

Later that same year, ADEQ submitted 

a maintenance plan, titled Payson 

Moderate Area PM 10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation to 

Attainment Submittal Package (March 

2002) (‘‘First Ten-Year Limited 

Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘First Ten-Year 

LMP’’) to EPA as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP, and requested 

redesignation of the Payson area to 

attainment. The First Ten-Year LMP was 

intended to provide for maintenance of 

the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area for 

ten years after redesignation. In June 

2002 (67 FR 43013, June 26, 2002), EPA 

approved the First Ten-Year LMP for the 

Payson area as providing for 

maintenance through 2012, and 

redesignated the area to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. 

Under CAA section 175A(b), former 

nonattainment areas that are 

redesignated to attainment and subject 

to a maintenance plan must develop, 

adopt, and submit a subsequent 

maintenance plan that provides for 

continued maintenance of the NAAQS 

for a second ten-year period following 

the end of the first ten-year period. On 

January 23, 2012, ADEQ submitted the 

Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area to meet the requirement for a 

subsequent maintenance plan under 

CAA section 175A(b). The Second TenYear LMP is intended to provide for 

continued maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for the ten-year period 

following the end of the first ten-year 

period, i.e., through year 2022. 

Consistent with requirements at the 

time, the First Ten-Year LMP provided 

for maintenance of both the 24-hour 

average and annual average PM10

NAAQS. However, as noted above, since 

then, EPA has revoked the annual 

average PM10 NAAQS, and thus, the 

Second Ten-Year LMP, which is the 

subject to today’s action, addresses only 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15229 

2Our evaluation of the Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan for the Payson area is presented 

in this section of the document. Further details on 

such issues as data completeness, calculation of 

five-year design values, residential wood 

combustion emissions estimates, industrial source 

emissions estimates, control measures, and the 

motor vehicle regional analysis are presented in our 

Technical Support Document titled ‘‘Ten-year 

Update for Limited Maintenance Plan for PM–10; 

State of Arizona; Payson,’’ dated January 2, 2014. 

B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10

Maintenance Plans 

CAA section 175A provides the 

general framework for maintenance 

plans. The maintenance plan must 

provide for maintenance of the NAAQS 

for at least 10 years after redesignation, 

and must include any additional control 

measures as may be necessary to ensure 

such maintenance. In addition, 

maintenance plans are to contain such 

contingency provisions as we deem 

necessary to assure the prompt 

correction of a violation of the NAAQS 

that occurs after redesignation. The 

contingency measures must include, at 

a minimum, a requirement that the State 

will implement all control measures 

contained in the nonattainment SIP 

prior to redesignation. Beyond these 

provisions, however, CAA section 175A 

does not define the contents of a 

maintenance plan. 

With respect to subsequent 

maintenance plans, CAA section 

175A(b) requires States to submit an 

additional SIP revision to maintain the 

NAAQS for ten years after the 

expiration of the ten-year period 

covered by the initial maintenance plan 

approved in connection with 

redesignation of the area from 

nonattainment to attainment. Our 

primary guidance on maintenance plans 

is a September 4, 1992 memo from John 

Calcagni, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Directors of 

EPA Regional Air Programs, entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

(‘‘Calcagni memo’’). In addition, we 

have relied upon guidance discussed in 

the next subsection of this document. 

C. Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) 

Option 

On August 9, 2001, EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment 

(Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, to Directors of EPA 

Regional Air Programs entitled ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ or ‘‘LMP 

policy’’). Herein, the option set forth in 

the LMP policy is referred to as the 

‘‘LMP option.’’ 

The LMP policy contains a statistical 

demonstration that areas meeting 

certain air quality criteria will, with a 

high degree of probability, maintain the 

standard ten years into the future. Thus, 

EPA provided the maintenance 

demonstration for areas meeting the 

criteria outlined in the memo. It follows 

that future year emission inventories for 

these areas, and some of the standard 

analyses to determine transportation 

conformity with the SIP, are no longer 

necessary. 

To qualify for the LMP option, the 

State must demonstrate that the area 

meets the criteria described below. First, 

the area should be attaining the PM10

NAAQS. Second, the average PM10

design value for the area, based upon 

the most recent 5 years of air quality 

data at all monitors in the area, should 

be at or below 98 mg/m3 for the PM10

NAAQS, with no violations at any 

monitor in the nonattainment area. (See 

section IV of the LMP policy.) The 98 

mg/m3 criterion provides a margin of 

safety for the PM10 NAAQS, which is 

150 mg/m3. If an area cannot meet this 

test, it may still be able to qualify for the 

LMP option if the average design values 

of the site are less than their respective 

site-specific critical design values. 

Third, the area should expect only 

limited growth in on-road motor vehicle 

PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) 

and should have passed a motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, 

the LMP policy identifies core 

provisions that must be included in all 

LMPs. These provisions include an 

attainment-year emissions inventory, 

assurance of continued operation of an 

EPA-approved air quality monitoring 

network, and contingency provisions. 

The LMP policy also states that once 

the LMP option is in effect, the State 

must verify in each subsequent year that 

the area still qualifies for the LMP 

option by recalculating the area’s 

average design value annually and 

determining that the LMP criteria are 

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

State should act to reduce emissions 

enough to requalify for the LMP option, 

for example, by using a contingency 

measure or other SIP-approved measure. 

If the attempt to reduce PM10

concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but 

in the future it becomes necessary to 

reduce PM10 concentrations again, the 

area no longer qualifies for an LMP and 

a full maintenance plan would need to 

be developed. 

The LMP policy was written to 

address the maintenance plan 

requirements under section 175A for 

certain moderate PM10 nonattainment 

areas seeking redesignation to 

attainment. However, we believe the 

principles set forth therein are also 

appropriate for former moderate PM10

nonattainment areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment and are 

subject to an approved maintenance 

plan, but must develop and submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to comply 

with CAA section 175A(b). 

III. Review of the Arizona SIP 

Submittal Addressing These 

Provisions 2

A. Has the State met the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions? 

Section 110(l) of the Act requires 

States to provide reasonable notice and 

public hearing prior to adoption of SIP 

revisions. Documents in ADEQ’s 

submittal describe the public review 

process followed by ADEQ for the 

Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area prior to adoption and submittal to 

EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

The documentation provides evidence 

that reasonable notice of a public 

hearing was provided to the public and 

a public hearing was conducted prior to 

adoption. 

The documentation is found in 

enclosure 4 of the January 23, 2012 

submittal. Enclosure 4 includes 

evidence that reasonable notice of a 

public hearing was provided to the 

public and that a public hearing was 

conducted prior to adoption. 

Specifically, the affidavit of publication 

included in enclosure 4 shows that 

notice of a public hearing and the 

availability of, and opening of a 30-day 

comment period on, the Second TenYear LMP for the Payson area was 

published on September 30, 2011, in a 

newspaper of general circulation within 

the Payson area. The public hearing was 

held on November 2, 2011. No 

comments were received during the 

public comment period or at the public 

hearing. ADEQ adopted the plan and 

submitted it to EPA for approval on 

January 23, 2012. 

Based on the documentation provided 

in enclosure 4 that was submitted by 

ADEQ with the Second Ten-Year LMP 

for the Payson area, we find that the 

submittal of the plan as a SIP revision 

satisfies the procedural requirements of 

section 110(l) of the Act. 

B. Has the State demonstrated that the 

area continues to qualify for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan option? 

Payson originally qualified for the 

LMP Option in 2002. In order to 

continue to qualify, the State must 

demonstrate that the area continues to 

meet the requirements of the LMP 

policy for the following ten-year period. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15230 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3For PM10, a ‘‘complete’’ set of data includes a 

minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3(a). 4See EPA’s final report titled, ‘‘Technical System 

Audit, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Ambient Air Monitoring Program, April 9- 

April 13, 2012,’’ dated January 2013. 

5See, e.g., the letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, 

Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air 

Division Director, EPA Region IX, dated May 16, 

2013, certifying the ambient air quality data 

collected at the Payson site for year 2012. 6 In this context, ‘‘neighborhood scale’’ refers to 

conditions throughout some reasonably 

homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of 

a few kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.6. Specific information about the Payson 

Wells Site in this paragraph comes from an ADEQ 

report titled ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for the Year 2013,’’ dated October 29, 

2013. 

For the reasons given below, we 

conclude that the Payson area continues 

to qualify for the LMP option and that 

the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 

Payson area meets all applicable 

requirements for subsequent 

maintenance plans under CAA section 

175A(b). 

Continued Attainment of the NAAQS 

To qualify for the LMP Option, the 

first criterion is that the area is attaining 

the PM10 NAAQS. Generally, EPA 

determines whether an area’s air quality 

is meeting the PM10 NAAQS based upon 

complete,3 quality-assured, and certified 

data gathered at established state and 

local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in 

the nonattainment area, and entered 

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by State, local, or Tribal 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. All valid data are reviewed to 

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Attainment of the PM10 standard is 

determined by calculating the expected 

number of exceedances of the standard 

in a year. The PM10 standard is attained 

when the expected number of 

exceedances averaged over a three-year 

period is less than or equal to one at 

each monitoring site within the 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 50.6 

and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Generally, three consecutive years of air 

quality data are required to show 

attainment of the PM10 standard. See 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K. 

ADEQ is responsible for monitoring 

ambient air quality outside the 

metropolitan areas in Arizona and is 

responsible for monitoring ambient air 

quality in the Payson area. Annually, 

ADEQ submits monitoring network plan 

reports to EPA. These reports discuss 

the status of the air monitoring network, 

as required under 40 CFR part 58. EPA 

reviews these annual network plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. 

EPA also conducts periodic technical 

system audits of state and local 

monitoring programs. 

In our most recent technical system 

audit of ADEQ’s monitoring program, 

we concluded, generally, that ADEQ’s 

ambient air monitoring network 

currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as 

SLAMS for all of the criteria pollutants.4

Also, ADEQ annually certifies that the 

data it submits to AQS are qualityassured.5

ADEQ has operated a SLAMS PM10

monitor in the Town of Payson for more 

than 20 years. ADEQ’s Payson monitor 

has been relocated a number of times, 

but, since 1999, has been located on 

West Aero Drive in Payson, and is 

referred to as the Payson Wells Site. 

This monitor was sited to provide PM10

concentration data at a neighborhood 

scale 6 to provide data for comparison 

with the NAAQS. ADEQ operates a 

partisol sampler at the Payson site, and, 

in 2009, added a second collocated 

partisol sampler for quality assurance 

purposes. Both collocated monitors run 

on a one-day-in-six monitoring 

schedule. EPA’s most recent audit of 

ADEQ’s monitoring program includes a 

number of findings in areas where 

ADEQ’s monitoring program should be 

strengthened, but none of these findings 

cast significant doubt on the reliability 

of the data collected at the Payson site. 

Table 1 summarizes the PM10

concentration data collected at the 

Payson monitor over the past 12 years, 

but for the purposes of determining 

current attainment of the NAAQS, we 

have focused our review on the data for 

the most recent three-year period (2010– 

2012). As shown in Table 1, the PM10

data from the Payson monitor represents 

a complete data set for the 2010–2012 

period. Furthermore, this data set has 

been quality-assured and certified by 

ADEQ. No exceedances were recorded 

at the Payson monitor over the 2010– 

2012 period, and the maximum PM10

concentration measured over that period 

was 44 mg/m3, which is less than onethird of the 150 mg/m3 standard. 

Thus, the expected number of 

exceedances per year for the Payson 

monitor for the most recent three-year 

period (i.e., 2010 to 2012) was 0.0 days 

per year. As such, based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for the 

2010–2012 period, we conclude that the 

Payson area is attaining the standard, 

and thereby meets the first criterion for 

the LMP option. Data from 2013, while 

incomplete and preliminary, are also 

consistent with this finding of 

attainment. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2002–2013 PM10 MONITORING DATA FOR PAYSON AREA

Year Maximum level 

(μg/m3) 

Percent valid 

samples 

Expected 

exceedances 

per year 

Monitored 5- 

year design 

value 

(μg/m3) 

5-year design 

value with 

motor vehicle 

growth 

(μg/m3) 

Critical design 

value 

(μg/m3) 

2002 ......................................................... 45 87 0.0 88 88 NA 

2003 ......................................................... 98 90 0.0 98 99 127 

2004 ......................................................... 52 93 0.0 98 100 131 

2005 ......................................................... 80 80 0.0 98 100 134 

2006 ......................................................... 66 95 0.0 98 101 127 

2007 ......................................................... 61 97 0.0 98 102 129 

2008 ......................................................... 42 97 0.0 80 85 NA 

2009 ......................................................... 40 95 0.0 80 85 NA 

2010 ......................................................... 42 98 0.0 66 72 NA 

2011 ......................................................... 39 97 0.0 61 68 NA 

2012 ......................................................... 44 98 0.0 44 52 NA 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15231 

7See the LMP Policy, pp. 2–3 and attachment A 

to the LMP Policy. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2002–2013 PM10 MONITORING DATA FOR PAYSON AREA—Continued 

Year Maximum level 

(μg/m3) 

Percent valid 

samples 

Expected 

exceedances 

per year 

Monitored 5- 

year design 

value 

(μg/m3) 

5-year design 

value with 

motor vehicle 

growth 

(μg/m3) 

Critical design 

value 

(μg/m3) 

2013 ......................................................... 58 — — — — — 

Sources: (1) AQS QuickLook report dated January 24, 2014. Data is from ADEQ’s monitor located on West Aero Drive in Payson, Arizona. (2) 

The growth increment from motor vehicles was based on an estimated overall motor vehicle growth increment of 7.7 μg/m3 from 2002 to 2012 

(see 67 FR at 43017, June 26, 2002), which was interpolated to add 0.77 μg/m3 per year during that period. (3) Critical Design Values were calculated by ADEQ in their annual LMP eligibility reports for the Payson PM10 area, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Notes: 

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

NA = Not applicable. Critical Design Value is not applicable when the Design Value (including motor vehicle growth) is at or below 98 μg/m3. 

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

Five-Year Average Design Values 

The second criterion for the LMP 

option is that the average 24-hour PM10

design value, based on the most recent 

5 years of data at all monitors in the 

area, be at or below 98 ug/m3 with no 

violations at any monitor in the 

nonattainment area. If an area cannot 

meet this test, it may still qualify for the 

LMP option using the site-specific 

critical design value (CDV), which is an 

indicator of the likelihood of future 

violations at that site.7

For the Payson area, because there is 

only one monitoring site and given the 

frequency of monitoring (one day every 

six days), the ‘‘average design value’’ is 

simply the highest PM10 concentration 

measured at the Payson Wells Site over 

the most recent five calendar years. The 

Second Ten-Year LMP indicates that the 

design value for the Payson area based 

on data from 2006 through 2010 is 66 

mg/m3, which is well below the criterion 

of 98 ug/m3. Based on more recent 

ambient monitoring data (2008 through 

2012) than was available when the 

Second Ten-Year LMP was being 

prepared, the design value is 44 mg/m3, 

which is also well below the criterion of 

98 mg/m3. Thus, the second criterion has 

been met. 

Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions 

Analysis Test 

The third criterion is referred to as the 

motor vehicle regional emissions 

analysis test. The methodology for this 

test is found in attachment B to the LMP 

policy. As a general matter, for this test, 

the monitor-based design value is 

increased based on the expected growth 

in motor vehicle traffic over the 

maintenance period. Specifically, the 

motor vehicle fraction of the design 

value concentration is assumed to equal 

the motor vehicle fraction of the overall 

emissions inventory. The motor vehicle 

fraction of the design value is then 

multiplied by the projected percentage 

increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

in the area over the next 10 years. The 

product of this calculation is then added 

to the monitor-based design value and 

compared with the applicable criterion, 

in this case, 98 mg/m3. If the sum is less 

than or equal to 98 mg/m3, then the 

criterion is met. 

In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 

Payson area, ADEQ used the updated 

inventory (see Table 2, below) to 

estimate that motor vehicles contribute 

approximately 62%, or 41 mg/m3, to the 

design value of 66 mg/m3 (based on 

2006–2010 data). ADEQ then multiplied 

41 mg/m3 by 0.24, based on the projected 

10-year increase in traffic in the Payson 

area of approximately 24% to estimate 

the traffic growth increment of 

approximately 10 mg/m3. ADEQ then 

concluded that motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test was met because 

the sum of the motor vehicle growth 

increment (approximately 10 mg/m3) 

and the design value (66 mg/m3), or 76 

mg/m3, is less than the criterion of 98 mg/ 

m3. We have reviewed ADEQ’s methods 

and calculations and find them 

acceptable. If the calculation were to be 

re-done using the most recent monitored 

5-year design value (which is 44 mg/m3

based on 2008–2012 data), the test 

would be met by an even larger margin. 

Therefore, the third criterion for 

eligibility for the LMP option for the 

second 10-year period of maintenance is 

met. 

Conclusion and Maintenance 

Demonstration 

For the reasons given above, we 

conclude that the Payson area remains 

eligible for the LMP option. Under the 

LMP policy, the maintenance 

demonstration requirement under CAA 

section 175A is considered satisfied for 

areas meeting the LMP criteria 

discussed above, and because the 

Payson area continues to meet the LMP 

criteria, we conclude that no further 

demonstration of maintenance through 

the second 10-year period is necessary. 

C. Is the updated emission inventory 

acceptable? 

For LMPs, a State’s submission 

should include an emissions inventory 

which can be used to demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by meeting 

the LMP eligibility criteria. The 

inventory should represent emissions 

during the same five-year period 

associated with air quality data used to 

determine whether the area meets the 

LMP applicability requirements. 

As part of the Second Ten-Year LMP, 

ADEQ prepared a PM10 emissions 

inventory for 2008 for the Payson area. 

Year 2008 is one of the years within the 

five-year period over which the PM10

design value for the Payson area is 

calculated and thus is an acceptable 

inventory year. Based on ADEQ’s 

estimates, shown in Table 2 below, onroad motor vehicles (including fugitive 

dust from entrainment of PM10 from 

travel on paved and unpaved roads, as 

well as exhaust, brake and tire wear) 

contribute approximately 62% to the 

total PM10 inventory, while construction 

and residential wood combustion 

contribute 32.6% and 4.6%, 

respectively. Industrial sources 

contribute less than 1%. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15232 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

8The First Ten-Year LMP relied on annual 

estimate of unpaved road VMT of 75,000 (see page 

23 of the First Ten-Year LMP) whereas the 

corresponding estimate in the Second Ten-Year 

LMP is approximately 510,000 miles (see page 16 

of the Second Ten-Year LMP). 

9See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air 

Quality Division, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 

February 10, 2014. 

10See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air 

Quality Division, ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air 

Division Director, EPA Region IX, dated October 1, 

2013. 

TABLE 2—PAYSON PM10 MAINTENANCE AREA—2008 EMISSION INVENTORY

Source category 

Payson 

Maintenance 

Area PM10

emissions 

(tons per day) 

Percent of 

total PM10

emissions in 

Payson 

Maintenance 

Area 

Unpaved Roads—Fugitive Dust .............................................................................................................................. 0.29 30.4 

Paved Roads—Fugitive Dust .................................................................................................................................. 0.27 28.8 

Paved and Unpaved Roads—Exhaust, Tire, and Brake Wear ............................................................................... 0.03 2.8 

Subtotal—Motor Vehicles ................................................................................................................................. 0.59 62.0 

Construction ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.31 32.6 

Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................................................................ 0.04 4.6 

Industrial Sources .................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.8 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.92 100.0 

Source: Derived from Table 3.5 (page 17) of the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area. 

Section 3.2 of the Second Ten-Year 

LMP describes the methodology used to 

develop the attainment inventory. The 

emission inventory categories are the 

same as those identified in the First 

Ten-Year LMP, and the methodology 

used to determine the contribution of 

sources is largely the same as was used 

in the First Ten-Year LMP. ADEQ 

updated emissions for each source 

category based on current emissions 

models, vehicle activity, population and 

employment figures. 

For instance, ADEQ updated motor 

vehicle emissions estimates using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) to develop emission factors for 

motor vehicle exhaust, tire, and brake 

wear for motor vehicles. NMIM uses 

EPA’s MOBILE6.2 emission factors, 

which were the most current factors at 

the time that development of the Second 

Ten-Year LMP was initiated. ADEQ 

used updated emission factors in EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP–42) to estimate PM10

entrained by vehicle movement over 

paved roads. ADEQ also updated the 

non-mobile source inventory with 2008 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) data, 

primarily by adjusting county-specific 

estimates by the ratio of population in 

the Payson area to the population in 

Gila County. For point sources in 

Payson, ADEQ used industrial source 

data collected in an annual survey of 

permitted facilities. 

ADEQ compared the 2008 emissions 

estimates with those prepared for the 

First Ten-Year LMP and provided a 

sufficient explanation for those source 

categories that differed significantly in 

the updated inventory relative to the 

previous inventory. ADEQ explained 

that the emissions from residential 

wood combustion decreased 

significantly due to the implementation 

of EPA’s New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for residential wood 

heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) 

and that the emissions associated with 

fugitive dust from vehicle travel over 

unpaved roads increased significantly 

due to higher estimates of unpaved road 

VMT in the Payson air quality planning 

area.8

During the period in which the draft 

Second Ten-Year LMP was being 

developed, EPA replaced MOBILE6.2 

with a new motor vehicle emission 

factor model, known as Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (or ‘‘MOVES’’). In 

response to EPA’s request to consider 

the impact on the inventory due to the 

release of MOVES, ADEQ re-calculated 

the motor vehicle emissions estimates 

using MOVES and projected a 0.006 ton 

per day increase in emissions from 

motor vehicle exhaust, brake and tire 

wear relative to the estimate made using 

MOBILE6.2.9 This incremental increase 

corresponds to a 0.1 mg/m3 increase in 

the estimate of the motor vehicle 

fraction of the design value. As such, 

use of MOVES, rather MOBILE6.2, has 

no effect on the continued eligibility of 

the Payson area for the LMP option. 

Based on our review of the methods, 

models, and assumptions used by ADEQ 

to develop the PM10 emission inventory, 

we find that the Second Ten-Year LMP 

for the Payson area includes a 

comprehensive inventory of PM10

emissions and conclude that the plan’s 

inventory is acceptable for the purposes 

of a subsequent maintenance plan, in 

this case, a subsequent LMP, under CAA 

section 175A(b). 

D. Are the plan control measures 

permanent and enforceable? 

As discussed in our 2002 approval of 

the First Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area, the measures that brought the area 

into attainment are permanent and 

enforceable (67 FR 43013, at 43018, June 

26, 2002). The Second Ten-Year LMP 

relies on the same control measures to 

continue to maintain the NAAQS for 

PM10 through 2022. The Second TenYear LMP has not revised these 

measures, which continue to be 

permanent and enforceable. 

E. Has the State committed to continue 

to operate an appropriate PM10 air 

quality monitoring network? 

ADEQ currently operates a single 

PM10 monitoring site in the Payson area. 

Operating a single monitor in this area 

is consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

requirements. ADEQ has committed to 

continue to operate an appropriate PM10

air quality monitoring network to verify 

the attainment status of the Payson area 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. See 

section 6.0 of the Second Ten-Year 

LMP. In October 2013, ADEQ requested 

EPA approval of relocation of the 

Payson monitor to another location on 

the same property.10 EPA has not taken 

action yet on this request. 

F. Does the plan continue to meet the 

CAA provisions for contingency 

measures? 

Section 175A(d) states that a 

maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violation of the NAAQS which may 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15233 

occur after redesignation of the area to 

attainment. These contingency measures 

do not have to be fully adopted at the 

time of redesignation. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and the State 

should ensure that the contingency 

measures are adopted as soon as 

possible once they are triggered by a 

specific event. The contingency plan 

should identify the measure to be 

adopted, and provide a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the measure if they 

are required. 

In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 

Payson area, ADEQ has, in most 

respects, carried forward the 

contingency plan adopted in the First 

Ten-Year LMP, which was approved by 

EPA in 2002. First, ADEQ commits to 

continue to submit annual reports to 

EPA that will include calculation of the 

Payson area PM10 design value to verify 

continued attainment and continued 

eligibility for the LMP option. See 

section 6.0 of the Second Ten-Year LMP 

for the Payson area. 

ADEQ made a similar commitment in 

the approved First Ten-Year LMP and 

has met its commitment through 

submittal of annual reports to EPA. We 

note that the annual reports did not 

address the motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test although we 

acknowledge that doing so would not 

have changed the status of the Payson 

area with respect to eligibility for the 

LMP option. ADEQ should address the 

motor vehicle regional emissions 

analysis test in annual reports submitted 

to EPA under the Second Ten-Year 

LMP. 

Second, as part of the contingency 

plan, ADEQ has committed to determine 

whether or not PM10 NAAQS violations 

have been recorded within six months 

of the close of each calendar year, and 

to review and determine the appropriate 

contingency measure(s) by the end of 

the same calendar year. See section 5.3 

of the Second Ten-Year LMP. Table 3 

below lists the measures that ADEQ 

commits to consider for implementation 

in the event of a violation of the PM10

NAAQS or in the event the annual 

recalculation of the area’s design value 

exceeds the applicable LMP option 

criteria. The cause of the violation or 

exceedance of the LMP option criteria 

will help to determine the appropriate 

contingency measure(s) to be 

implemented. 

TABLE 3—PAYSON AREA CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Contingency measures Implementing entity 

If any PM10 industrial source operating within the maintenance area is 

found to be contributing to monitored readings above the LMP allowable limits, ADEQ will review existing air quality permit(s) to identify 

additional PM10 control measures which may be needed. If the PM10

source does not have a permit, the permitting authority will determine 

if an air quality permit and PM10 controls are needed.

ADEQ. 

If wood burning sources are found to be contributing to monitored readings above the LMP allowable limits, ADEQ will review State regulations and programs to determine appropriate action.ADEQ. 

Pave or stabilize public unpaved roads, vacant lots, or unpaved parking 

lots located in the PM10 maintenance area subject to limits of statutory authority.

Town of Payson and/or Gila County. 

Continuation of Smoke Management Plan—State and Federal land 

managers conducting prescribed burning must register with ADEQ 

for proposed burning activities under Arizona Administrative Code 

title 18, chapter 2, article 15 (Forest & Range Management Burns). 

ADEQ maintains the ability to deny permission for burning on certain 

high risk days (dependent on meteorological conditions) and may increase outreach and enforcement resources.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State 

Land Department, ADEQ. 

Finally, the State has committed to 

implement the selected contingency 

measure(s) within one year of 

determining that a PM10 NAAQS 

violation has occurred. Lastly, should 

the levels rise above the limits 

qualifying the area for the LMP option 

despite implementation of contingency 

measures, ADEQ has committed to 

develop and submit a full maintenance 

plan to EPA. We conclude that these 

measures and commitments meet the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

G. How are transportation and general 

conformity requirements being met? 

Section 176(c) of the Act requires that 

all Federal actions conform to an 

applicable SIP. Conformity is defined in 

section 176(c) of the Act as conformity 

to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating or 

reducing the severity and number of 

violations of the NAAQS and achieving 

expeditious attainment of such 

standards, and that such activities will 

not: (1) Cause or contribute to any new 

violation of any standard in any area; (2) 

increase the frequency or severity of any 

existing violation of any standard in any 

area; or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. 

EPA has established criteria and 

procedures for Federal agencies to 

follow in determining conformity of 

their actions. EPA’s rule governing 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects approved or funded by the 

Federal Highway Administration or 

Federal Transit Administration is 

referred to as the ‘‘transportation 

conformity’’ rule (see 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A), and EPA’s rule governing all 

other types of Federal agency actions is 

referred to as the ‘‘general conformity’’ 

rule (see 40 CFR part 93, subpart B). 

The transportation conformity rule 

and the general conformity rule apply to 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Both rules provide that conformity can 

be demonstrated by showing that the 

expected emissions from planned 

actions are consistent with the 

emissions budget for the area. While 

EPA’s LMP option does not exempt an 

area from the need to affirm conformity, 

the LMP policy explains that the area 

may demonstrate conformity without 

submitting an emissions budget. 

Transportation Conformity 

Under the LMP option, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period because it is 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
15234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

unreasonable to expect that qualifying 

areas would experience so much growth 

in that period that a violation of the 

NAAQS would result. Therefore, in 

areas with approved LMPs, Federal 

actions requiring conformity 

determinations under the transportation 

conformity rule are considered to satisfy 

the ‘‘budget test’’ required in 40 CFR 

93.118. 

While areas with maintenance plans 

approved under the LMP option are not 

subject to the budget test, the areas 

remain subject to other transportation 

conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 

93, Subpart A. Thus, the applicable 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) in the area or the State will still 

need to document and ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 

(TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113; 

(b) transportation plans and projects 

comply with the fiscal constraint 

element per 40 CFR 93.108; 

(c) the MPO’s interagency 

consultation procedures meet applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; 

(d) conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every three years, and conformity of 

plan amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104; 

(e) the latest planning assumptions 

and emissions model are used as set 

forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 

93.111; 

(f) projects do not cause or contribute 

to any new localized carbon monoxide 

or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

40 CFR 93.123; and 

(g) project sponsors and/or operators 

provide written commitments as 

specified in 40 CFR 93.125. 

Upon approval of the Second TenYear LMP for the Payson area, the State 

(in this case, the Arizona Department of 

Transportation) will continue to be 

exempt from performing a regional 

emissions analysis, but must continue to 

meet project-level analyses as well as 

the transportation conformity criteria 

mentioned above. 

We posted notice of receipt of the 

Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson 

area on EPA’s adequacy review Web site 

on January 23, 2014, and took comments 

until February 24, 2014. See EPA’s 

conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm. Once there, 

click on the link for the Payson LMP. 

Because LMPs do not contain budgets, 

the adequacy review period for this 

maintenance plan serves to allow the 

public to comment on whether the LMP 

option is appropriate for this area. We 

did not receive any comments during 

the adequacy review comment period. 

Lastly, if during the course of the 

second ten-year maintenance period, the 

LMP criteria are no longer satisfied and 

a full maintenance plan must be 

developed to meet CAA requirements, 

the approval of the LMP would remain 

applicable for transportation conformity 

purposes only until the full 

maintenance plan is submitted and EPA 

has found its motor vehicle emissions 

budgets adequate for conformity 

purposes under 40 CFR 93.118. 

General Conformity 

For Federal actions that are required 

to address the specific requirements of 

the general conformity rule, one set of 

requirements applies particularly to 

ensuring that emissions from a federal 

action will not cause or contribute to 

new violations of the NAAQS, 

exacerbate current violations, or delay 

timely attainment. One way that this 

requirement can be met is to 

demonstrate that ‘‘the total of direct and 

indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and 

documented by the State agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable 

SIP to result in a level of emissions 

which, together with all other emissions 

in the nonattainment area, would not 

exceed the emissions budgets specified 

in the applicable SIP.’’ 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). 

The decision about whether to 

include specific allocations of allowable 

emissions increases to sources 

(‘‘emissions budgets’’) is one made by 

the State and local air quality agencies. 

Such emissions budgets are unlike and 

not to be confused with those used in 

transportation conformity. Emissions 

budgets in transportation conformity are 

required to limit and restrain emissions. 

Emissions budgets in general conformity 

allow increases in emissions up to 

specified levels. 

ADEQ has chosen not to include any 

specific emissions allocations for 

Federal projects that would be subject to 

the provisions of general conformity in 

the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 

Payson area. Similar to transportation 

conformity, in LMP areas, Federal 

actions subject to the general conformity 

rule could be considered to satisfy the 

‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule, for the 

same reasons that the budgets are 

essentially considered to be unlimited. 

IV. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is 

approving the second ten-year limited 

maintenance plan for the Payson air 

quality planning area for the PM10

NAAQS that was submitted by ADEQ 

on January 23, 2012 as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. EPA is approving this plan 

based on the conclusion that the plan 

adequately provides for continued 

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

Payson area through 2022 and thereby 

meets the requirements for subsequent 

maintenance plans under section 175A 

of the Act. The effect of this action is to 

make the State’s continuing 

commitments with respect to 

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

Payson area federally enforceable for 

another ten years. These commitments 

include continued monitoring; 

continued implementation of control 

measures that were responsible for 

bringing the area into attainment; 

preparation and submittal of annual 

reports; consideration and 

implementation of contingency 

measures, if necessary; and submittal of 

a full maintenance plan if contingency 

measures fail to provide the necessary 

remedy. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

Payson Second Ten-Year LMP if 

relevant adverse comments are filed. 

This rule will be effective May 19, 2014, 

without further notice unless relevant 

adverse comments are received by April 

18, 2014. If we receive such comments, 

this direct final action will be 

withdrawn before the effective date. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. We will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

If no such comments are received, the 

public is advised that this action will be 

effective May 19, 2014. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15235 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves a State plan as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is 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 May 19, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(159) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(159) The following plan was 

submitted on January 23, 2012 by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 

(1) Final Update of the Limited 

Maintenance Plan for the Payson PM10

Maintenance Area (December 2011), 

adopted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on January 23, 

2012. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05669 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0796; FRL–9907–25] 

Ipconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of ipconazole in 

or on vegetable, legume, group 6. 

Chemtura Corporation requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 19, 2014. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 19, 2014, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0796, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES