Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39007 

§ 301.7611–1 [Amended] 

Par. 3. For each section listed in the 

table, remove the language in the 

‘‘Remove’’ column and add in its place 

the language in the ‘‘Add’’ column as set 

forth below: 

Section Remove Add 

§ 301.7611–1 A–1 first sentence ........................ appropriate Regional Commissioner (or higher 

Treasury official).

Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–7 first sentence ........................ appropriate Internal Revenue Service Regional Commissioner.Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–9 first sentence ........................ appropriate Regional Commissioner ............... Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–10 first sentence ...................... appropriate Regional Counsel ......................... Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–10 paragraph (b) first sentence At the time the notice of examination (second 

notice) is provided to the church, a copy of 

the same notice will be provided to the appropriate Regional Counsel.

Before the notice of examination (second notice) is provided to the church, a copy of 

the same notice will be provided to the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, Tax 

Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–10 paragraph (b) second sentence.Regional Counsel ............................................. Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–11 paragraph (c) first, second 

and third sentences.

Regional Counsel ............................................. Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–15 paragraph (c) first and third 

sentences.

appropriate Regional Commissioner ............... Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–15 paragraph (c) second sentence.Regional Commissioner ................................... Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–16 first sentence ...................... Assistant Commissioner (Employee Plans and 

Exempt Organizations).

Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government 

Entities or the Deputy Commissioner, Tax 

Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–16 second sentence ................ Assistant Commissioner’s approval ................. approval of the Commissioner, Tax Exempt 

and Government Entities or the Deputy 

Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–16 paragraph (a) second sentence.Assistant Commissioner (Employee Plans and 

Exempt Organizations).

Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government 

Entities or the Deputy Commissioner, Tax 

Exempt and Government Entities. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–17 first sentence ...................... Regional Commissioner ................................... Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–17 paragraph(a) third sentence Regional Commissioner ................................... Director, Exempt Organizations. 

§ 301.7611–1 A–17 paragraph (a) fourth sentence.appropriate Regional Commissioner’s belief ... belief of the Director, Exempt Organizations. 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–18659 Filed 7–31–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0379; FRL–8940–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Maintenance Plan for Carbon 

Monoxide; State of Arizona; Tucson 

Air Planning Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 

EPA is proposing to approve two State 

implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of Arizona. The 

State submitted the 2008 Revision to the 

Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance 

Plan for the Tucson Air Planning Area 

on July 10, 2008. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2008 Limited Maintenance 

Plan because it provides for the 

maintenance of the carbon monoxide 

national ambient air quality standard 

within the Tucson Air Planning Area 

through the second 10-year portion of 

the maintenance period. EPA is also 

proposing to approve a statutory 

provision that was submitted by the 

State on June 22, 2009 as a revision to 

the State implementation plan and that 

extends the life of the State’s vehicle 

emissions inspection program through 

the end of 2016. EPA is taking this 

action pursuant to those provisions of 

the Clean Air Act that obligate the 

Agency to take action on submittals of 

revisions to State implementation plans. 

The effect of this action would be to 

make certain commitments related to 

maintenance of the carbon monoxide 

standard in the Tucson Air Planning 

Area Federally enforceable as part of the 

Arizona State implementation plan. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before September 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0379, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: robin.marty@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin (AIR– 

2), 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 http://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 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov portal is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send e-mail directly to EPA 

without going through http:// 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disc or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. 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: 

Marty Robin, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901, (415) 972–3961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Action 

II. Background 

III. Arizona’s SIP Submittals 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Procedural Requirements 

B. Substantive Requirements 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

4. Contingency Plan 

C. Conclusion 

V. Transportation and General Conformity 

VI. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Action 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’), EPA is proposing to approve the 

2008 Revision to the Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan for the 

Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) 

(‘‘2008 CO Maintenance Plan’’), adopted 

by the Pima Association of Governments 

(PAG) on June 26, 2008, and submitted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as a 

revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 10, 

2008. In the 1970s, TAPA was 

designated as a nonattainment area for 

the carbon monoxide (CO) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

In 2000, in light of improved ambient 

CO conditions and implementation of 

permanent CO-emissions-reducing 

measures, EPA approved ADEQ’s 

request to redesignate the TAPA to 

attainment for the CO NAAQS and 

approved the 1996 Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan for the 

Tucson Air Planning Area (‘‘1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan’’), which provides for 

maintenance of the standard for the first 

10 years after redesignation. The 2008 

CO Maintenance Plan submitted by 

ADEQ on July 10, 2008 is designed to 

maintain the CO standard within the 

TAPA for a second ten-year period 

beyond redesignation, and we are 

proposing to approve the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan because we conclude 

that it meets all applicable requirements 

under CAA sections 110 and 175A. 

As a general matter, the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan relies on the same 

control measures and contingency 

provisions to maintain the CO NAAQS 

during the second ten-year portion of 

the maintenance period as the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan relied upon for the 

first 10-year period. One of the control 

measures, the State’s vehicle emissions 

inspection (VEI) program, is subject to a 

legislative sunset clause. To provide for 

the continuation of the VEI program, on 

June 22, 2009, ADEQ submitted, and 

EPA is proposing to approve, a SIP 

revision containing a statutory provision 

that extends the life of the State’s VEI 

program through the end of 2016. While 

the second 10-year maintenance period 

extends until 2020, based on the 

Arizona’s Legislature’s support for the 

VEI program in the past, we expect the 

Legislature to extend the life of the VEI 

program once again prior to 2016. 

II. Background 

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless 

and odorless gas, formed when carbon 

in fuel is not burned completely. It is a 

component of motor vehicle exhaust, 

which contributes about 60 percent of 

all CO emissions nationwide. High 

concentrations of CO generally occur in 

areas with heavy traffic congestion. Peak 

CO concentrations typically occur 

during the colder months of the year 

when CO automotive emissions are 

greater and nighttime inversion 

conditions (where air pollutants are 

trapped near the ground beneath a layer 

of warmer air) are more frequent. CO 

enters the bloodstream through the 

lungs and reduces oxygen delivery to 

the body’s organs and tissues. The 

health threat from levels of CO 

sometimes found in the ambient air is 

most serious for those who suffer from 

cardiovascular disease, such as angina 

pectoris. 

Under the CAA, as amended in 1970, 

EPA promulgated NAAQS to protect 

public health and welfare for six criteria 

pollutants, including CO. EPA set the 

NAAQS for CO at 35 parts per million 

(ppm), one-hour average, and 9 ppm, 

eight-hour average. The CO NAAQS 

remain the same today. See 40 CFR 50.8. 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

adopt and submit plans to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the NAAQS 

throughout the State. Such plans are 

referred to as State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs). 

Pursuant to the CAA, as amended in 

1977, EPA designated all areas of the 

country as attainment, nonattainment, 

or unclassifiable for each of the NAAQS. 

EPA designated the TAPA as 

nonattainment for the CO NAAQS 

although the specific boundaries of the 

area have changed over time. See 43 FR 

8962, at 8968 (March 3, 1978); 44 FR 

16388, at 16392 (March 19, 1979); and 

51 FR 27843, at 27844 (August 4, 1986). 

The current boundary of the TAPA 

defined by township and range as is set 

forth in the CO table contained in 40 

CFR 81.303. Pursuant to the CAA as 

amended in 1990, TAPA’s 

nonattainment area designation was 

carried forward by operation of law, but 

TAPA was not further classified under 

the 1990 CAA Amendments because no 

CO violations had been recorded in the 

area during 1988 and 1989. See 56 FR 

56694, at 56716 (November 6, 1991). 

In the mid-1990s, in response to the 

full implementation of a number of CO 

reduction measures and an extended 

period during which no CO violations 

were monitored in the TAPA, ADEQ 

requested redesignation of TAPA to 

‘‘attainment’’ for the CO NAAQS. For 

EPA to approve a redesignation request, 

among other criteria, a State must 

submit (and EPA approve) a 

maintenance plan that covers the period 

extending 10 years after redesignation. 

See CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 

175A. EPA has published guidance for 

States on developing such maintenance 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39009 

1Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

September 4, 1992. 

2The design value is the highest of the second 

high eight-hour concentrations observed at any site 

in the area. 

3Paisie, Joseph W., Group Leader, Integrated 

Policy and Strategies Group, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ October 6, 1995. 

plans.1 For certain ‘‘not classified’’ CO 

nonattainment areas (i.e., those with 

design values 2 at or below 85% of the 

standard, or 7.65 ppm, eight-hour 

average), such as the TAPA, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow States to 

develop more limited maintenance 

plans, referred to as Limited 

Maintenance Plans (LMPs).3

As the designated metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) for the 

Tucson region, the Pima Association of 

Governments (PAG) is responsible 

under Arizona law for development of 

nonattainment and maintenance plans 

for the TAPA. PAG opted to develop an 

LMP for the TAPA, and in 1997, ADEQ 

submitted PAG’s 1996 Carbon 

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for 

the Tucson Air Planning Area (‘‘1996 

CO Maintenance Plan’’) to EPA as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP. In 2000, 

EPA approved the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan and the State’s 

request to redesignate the TAPA to 

attainment for the CO NAAQS. See 65 

FR 36353 (June 8, 2000), as corrected at 

65 FR 50651 (August 21, 2000) and 69 

FR 12802 (March 18, 2004). In 

connection with our approval of the 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan, we 

approved various statutory provisions 

providing for the continuation of the 

control measures and the authority for 

State agencies to implement the 

contingency measures upon which the 

maintenance plan relies. One of the 

approved statutory provisions (i.e., 

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 

41–3009.01) extended the life of the 

State’s VEI program through the end of 

2008. As the first 10-year maintenance 

plan, the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan 

was intended to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

TAPA through mid-2010. 

Under CAA section 175A(b), States 

must submit a revision to the 

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation to provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years 

following the end of the first 10-year 

period. In recognition of the continuing 

record of monitoring data showing 

ambient CO concentrations in the TAPA 

well below the LMP eligibility threshold 

(i.e., 7.65 ppm), PAG chose the LMP 

option again for the development of a 

second 10-year CO maintenance plan. 

On June 26, 2008, PAG adopted the 

second 10-year CO maintenance plan, 

entitled ‘‘2008 Revision to the Carbon 

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for 

the Tucson Air Planning Area (for 

2010)’’ (herein referred to as the ‘‘2008 

CO Maintenance Plan’’), and on July 10, 

2008, ADEQ submitted the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan to EPA as a revision 

to the Arizona SIP. 

On June 22, 2009, to extend the life 

of the VEI program through most of the 

second 10-year period, ADEQ submitted 

a statutory provision (ARS section 41– 

3017.01) as a revision to the Arizona 

SIP. ARS section 41–3017.01 extends 

the life of the State’s VEI program until 

the end of 2016. 

The 2008 CO Maintenance Plan and 

VEI-related statutory provision are the 

subjects of today’s proposed rule. 

III. Arizona’s SIP Submittals 

On July 10, 2008, the ADEQ Director 

adopted and submitted the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan to EPA as a revision 

to the Arizona SIP. The submittal 

includes the maintenance plan and 

appendices as well as certification of 

adoption of the plan by PAG. 

Appendices to the plan include 

inventory information, certain Arizona 

statutes, an updated interagency 

memorandum of agreement, a letter 

from ADEQ regarding the continuation 

of the VEI program, PAG’s ‘‘Air Quality 

Report—2007 National, State and 

Tucson Region Trends,’’ resolutions 

from the PAG jurisdictions concerning 

priorities for transportation 

improvement programs (that had been 

previously submitted and approved by 

EPA in connection with the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan), and documentation 

of notice, hearing, and public 

participation prior to adoption of the 

plan by the PAG Regional Council on 

June 26, 2008. 

The 2008 CO Maintenance Plan does 

not include any additional measures but 

relies on the same strategy as the 1996 

CO Maintenance Plan to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 

2020. Specifically, the measures upon 

which the second 10-year maintenance 

plan for the TAPA relies include the 

continuation of the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), the 

State’s VEI program, the State’s 

wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

program (1.8% oxygen content), and to 

a lesser extent, PAG’s Trip Reduction 

Program and Pima County Department 

of Environmental Quality’s (PDEQ’s) 

voluntary no-drive days program. The 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan also carries 

forward essentially the same 

contingency plan as contained in the 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan. 

On June 22, 2009, ADEQ submitted a 

supplement to the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan that includes ARS 

section 41–3017.01, a statutory 

provision that extends the life of the 

State’s VEI program until the end of 

2016, as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

In addition to the statutory provision 

itself, ADEQ’s June 22, 2009 submittal 

package includes evidence of public 

notice, public hearing, and adoption. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Procedural Requirements 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and 110(l) 

require revisions to a SIP to be adopted 

by the State after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. EPA has promulgated 

specific procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of a notice by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area of 

proposed SIP revisions, at least a 30-day 

public comment period, and an 

opportunity for a public hearing. 

Documentation in Appendix H of the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan shows that, 

on March 27, 2008, PAG published a 

notice of a 30-day comment period and 

a public hearing in newspapers of 

general circulation in the Tucson area. 

On April 29, 2008, PAG held a public 

hearing on the 2008 CO Maintenance 

Plan. No oral or written comments were 

submitted, and on June 26, 2008, the 

PAG Regional Council adopted the plan. 

Then, in accordance with State law, on 

July 10, 2008, ADEQ adopted and 

submitted the 2008 CO Maintenance 

Plan to EPA as a revision to the Arizona 

SIP. The process followed by PAG and 

ADEQ in adopting the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

EPA’s implementing regulations. 

Documentation in ADEQ’s June 22, 

2009 SIP submittal shows that 

appropriate notice, hearing, and 

adoption procedures were also followed 

by PAG and ADEQ with regards to the 

adoption and submittal of the SIP 

revision containing the statutory 

provision (ARS section 41–3017.01) that 

extends the life of the VEI program 

through the end of 2016. 

B. Substantive Requirements 

EPA has reviewed the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan, which provides the 

second 10-year update to the CO 

maintenance plan for the TAPA, as 

required under CAA section 175A(b). 

The following is a summary of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4The State’s VEI program, as approved in the 

Arizona SIP, is authorized through the end of 2008. 

In 2007, the State Legislature acted to extend the 

program through the end of 2016 (see ARS section 

41–3017.01). As noted above, on June 22, 2009, 

ADEQ submitted ARS 41–3017.01 to EPA as a SIP 

revision, and we are proposing to approve the VEI 

program extension in this notice. We recognize that 

2016 is 31⁄2 years short of the end of the second 10- 

year maintenance period. However, in a letter dated 

March 10, 2008, and included as appendix D of the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan, ADEQ explains why it 

believes that the VEI program will continue beyond 

2016 nothwithstanding the sunset date. First, ADEQ 

states that the VEI program is recognized as an 

integral component for air quality plans in both the 

Phoenix and Tucson areas and that continuation of 

the program is important to achieve and maintain 

the NAAQS in those areas. Second, ADEQ notes 

that the Arizona Legislature has consistently 

supported the program since its inception in 1976, 

and thus, can reasonably be expected to do so in 

the future. EPA believes that ADEQ’s rationale 

provides a reasonable basis for EPA to assume that 

the VEI program will be extended when it expires 

at the end of 2016. 

requirements and EPA’s evaluation of 

how each requirement is met. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

For maintenance plans, a State should 

develop a comprehensive, accurate 

inventory of actual emissions for an 

attainment year to identify the level of 

emissions which is sufficient to 

maintain the NAAQS. A State should 

develop this inventory consistent with 

EPA’s most recent guidance on 

emissions inventory development. For 

CO, the inventory should reflect typical 

wintertime conditions. 

The 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

includes a CO attainment inventory for 

the TAPA that reflects typical 

wintertime conditions in year 2008. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the 

inventory for 2008 contained in the 

maintenance plan. As shown in table 1, 

the 2008 Maintenance Plan estimates 

that on-road mobile sources contribute 

approximately 63% to the total CO 

inventory within the TAPA in 2008 and 

nonroad mobile contribute 

approximately 33%. Stationary point 

and area sources contribute less than 

4%. 

TABLE 1—2008 TYPICAL WINTER DAY CO EMISSIONS FOR THE TUCSON REGION (TONS/DAY) 

Sources CO 

(tons/day) 

Percent of 

total CO 

emissions 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9.04 1.66 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9.57 1.75 

Nonroad Mobile ....................................................................................................................................................... 182.62 33.46 

On-road Mobile ........................................................................................................................................................ 344.56 63.13 

TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 545.79 

Source: 2008 CO Maintenance Plan, page 6. 

Appendix A of the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan describes the 

methods, models, and assumptions used 

to develop the attainment inventory. As 

described in appendix A, for stationary 

point and area sources, PAG generally 

relied upon the results of a 2001 study 

of actual emissions in 2000 to project 

emissions from such sources in 2008. 

However, with respect to one particular 

area source, residential wood burning, 

PAG updated the baseline estimates to 

reflect more accurate activity level 

estimates. Nonroad mobile source 

emissions were, in part, estimated using 

EPA’s NONROAD2005 emission model 

(agricultural, commercial and mining, 

industrial and recreational equipment, 

and commercial and residential lawn 

and garden equipment). For on-road 

mobile sources, PAG used the latest 

EPA motor vehicle emissions model, 

MOBILE6.2, and the latest planning 

assumptions regarding vehicle type, 

vehicle activity, and vehicle speeds to 

estimate vehicular emissions for 2008. 

PAG’s estimates for vehicles reflect 2007 

winter meteorological conditions, local 

wintertime gasoline specifications, such 

as minimum oxygen content, the State’s 

VEI program, and the averaging of highaltitude and low-altitude MOBILE6.2 

emissions factors. 

Based on our review of the methods, 

models, and assumptions used by PAG 

to develop the CO estimates, we find 

that the 2008 Maintenance Plan 

includes a comprehensive, reasonably 

accurate inventory of actual CO 

emissions in an attainment year (2008), 

and conclude that the plan’s inventory 

is acceptable for the purposes of a 

subsequent maintenance plan under 

CAA section 175A(b). 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

The maintenance plan demonstration 

requirement is considered to be satisfied 

for areas that were once nonclassifiable 

for CO (e.g., TAPA) if the monitoring 

data show that the area is meeting the 

air quality criteria for limited 

maintenance areas (7.65 ppm or 85 

percent of the eight-hour CO NAAQS). 

PAG has opted to develop an LMP to 

fulfill the TAPA second 10-year 

maintenance period requirement under 

CAA section 175A(b). 

Under the LMP option, there is no 

requirement to project emissions over 

the maintenance period. EPA believes if 

the area begins the first 10-year 

maintenance period at or below 7.65 

ppm, eight-hour average (85 percent of 

the NAAQS), the air quality, along with 

the continued applicability of PSD 

requirements, any control measures 

already in the SIP, and Federal 

measures, should provide adequate 

assurance of maintenance over the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. 

The same holds true for the second 

10-year maintenance period. If the area 

initially qualified for the LMP option, 

and the monitoring data over the first 

10-year maintenance period continues 

to meet the air quality criteria for 

limited maintenance areas (7.65 ppm or 

85 percent of the NAAQS), then we 

believe that the air quality, along with 

the continued applicability of PSD 

requirements, any control measures 

already in the SIP, and Federal 

measures, should provide adequate 

assurance of maintenance over the 

second 10-year maintenance period. 

Table 2 presents the second highest 8- 

hour CO concentration at the six CO 

monitoring sites in the TAPA over the 

1998–2008 period. Two of the six 

monitoring sites, the 22nd Street/ 

Alvernon and Golf Links/Kolb sites, are 

considered microscale and record 

concentrations in the vicinities of 

heavily-traveled intersections. As 

shown in table 2, 2nd-high CO 

concentrations, which form the basis for 

the design value in an area, have all 

been well below the LMP option 

threshold of 7.65 ppm at all of the 

monitoring stations over the entire first 

10-year maintenance period. (The 

current design value is 2.0 ppm based 

on 2006–2008 data.) Moreover, the 2008 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39011 

4The State’s VEI program, as approved in the 

Arizona SIP, is authorized through the end of 2008. 

In 2007, the State Legislature acted to extend the 

program through the end of 2016 (see ARS section 

41–3017.01). As noted above, on June 22, 2009, 

ADEQ submitted ARS 41–3017.01 to EPA as a SIP 

revision, and we are proposing to approve the VEI 

program extension in this notice. We recognize that 

2016 is 31⁄2 years short of the end of the second 10- 

year maintenance period. However, in a letter dated 

March 10, 2008, and included as appendix D of the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan, ADEQ explains why it 

believes that the VEI program will continue beyond 

2016 nothwithstanding the sunset date. First, ADEQ 

states that the VEI program is recognized as an 

integral component for air quality plans in both the 

Phoenix and Tucson areas and that continuation of 

the program is important to achieve and maintain 

the NAAQS in those areas. Second, ADEQ notes 

that the Arizona Legislature has consistently 

supported the program since its inception in 1976, 

and thus, can reasonably be expected to do so in 

the future. EPA believes that ADEQ’s rationale 

provides a reasonable basis for EPA to assume that 

the VEI program will be extended when it expires 

at the end of 2016. 

5See EPA letter dated November 10, 2008, to 

Ursula Kramer, PDEQ, from Sean Hogan, EPA 

Region 9, in the docket for today’s action. 

CO Maintenance Plan essentially 

maintains existing controls, including 

the FMVCP, the State’s VEI program,4

the wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

program, and contingency provisions. 

TABLE 2—SECOND HIGHEST EIGHT-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) AT THE SIX CO MONITORING SITES IN THE TAPA, 

1998–2008 

Year Downtown 22nd/ 

Craycroft 

22nd/ 

Alvernon 

Children’s 

Park 

Cherry/ 

Glenn 

Golf Links/ 

Kolb 

1998 ................................................................................. 3.9 2.3 4.0 1.7 3.1 ND 

1999 ................................................................................. 3.2 2.0 3.8 1.9 3.4 ND 

2000 ................................................................................. 3.5 2.4 4.7 1.9 3.3 ND 

2001 ................................................................................. 2.5 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.6 ND 

2002 ................................................................................. 2.3 1.9 2.5 1.6 2.3 2.6 

2003 ................................................................................. 2.7 1.9 2.6 1.4 2.7 2.2 

2004 ................................................................................. 2.5 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.1 

2005 ................................................................................. 1.7 1.5 2.1 1.1 2.4 2.1 

2006 ................................................................................. 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.6 

2007 ................................................................................. 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.0 1.5 1.3 

2008 ................................................................................. 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.5 1.2 

Source: Air Quality System, Quick Look Summary Report, March 17, 2009. 

Therefore, the TAPA continues to be 

eligible for the LMP option, and the long 

record of low monitored CO 

concentrations, together with the 

continuation of existing CO emissions 

control programs, adequately 

demonstrate that the TAPA will 

maintain the CO NAAQS through the 

second 10-year maintenance period and 

beyond. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

EPA reviews the CO monitoring 

network that PDEQ operates and 

maintains, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. This network is consistent with 

the ambient air monitoring network 

assessment and plan developed by 

PDEQ that is submitted annually to EPA 

and that follows a public notification 

and review process. EPA has reviewed 

and approved the 2007 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Assessment and 

Plan (‘‘2007 Annual Network Plan’’).5

To verify the attainment status of the 

area over the maintenance period, the 

maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of an 

appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring 

network in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. As noted above, PDEQ’s monitoring 

network in the TAPA has been 

approved by EPA in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58, and the area has committed 

to continue to maintain a network in 

accordance with EPA requirements. For 

further details on monitoring, the reader 

is referred to the 2007 PDEQ Annual 

Network Plan found at: http:// 

www.pima.gov/deq/air/pdf/ 

2007NetworkReview.pdf as well as 

EPA’s approval letter for the 2007 

Annual Network Plan, which can be 

found in the docket for today’s action. 

We believe PDEQ’s monitoring network 

is adequate to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS in the 

TAPA. 

4. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. The purpose of 

such contingency provisions is to 

prevent future violations of the NAAQS 

or promptly remedy any NAAQS 

violations that might occur during the 

maintenance period. 

The 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

carries forward the same contingency 

provisions, only slightly modified, that 

were included in the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan, and that we found 

acceptable when we approved the 

earlier maintenance plan. In short, and 

much like the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan, the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

identifies events, including 

measurements of certain threshold CO 

concentrations or projections of high CO 

concentrations based on periodic 

modeling analyses, that trigger a 

requirement to conduct specific types of 

field studies and technical analyses, 

followed by adoption and 

implementation of contingency 

measures as needed to address the 

sources causing the elevated CO 

conditions. The 2008 CO Maintenance 

Plan lists potential contingency 

measures such as transportation system 

management improvements and 

incremental increases in the wintertime 

gasoline oxygen content, among others. 

The only significant difference 

between the contingency provisions in 

the approved 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan and the contingency provisions in 

the submitted 2008 CO Maintenance 

Plan relates to the use of a portable CO 

monitor. In the 1996 plan, the use of a 

portable CO monitor was not made 

contingent upon the occurrence of a 

particular event, but rather was a part of 

ongoing monitoring and modeling 

efforts to verify continued attainment. In 

contrast, the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

commits to the use of a portable CO 

monitor contingent upon the occurrence 

of certain monitored levels or a 

determination by PAG that the agency’s 

periodic modeling analyses have raised 

a reasonable probability of CO 

violations at hot-spot locations within 

the TAPA. In view of the low monitored 

CO levels in the TAPA, we find 

acceptable the reduced role for the 

portable CO monitor, and believe that 

the contingency provisions in the 2008 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

CO Maintenance Plan meet the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

C. Conclusion 

We conclude that the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan, as supplemented by 

the submittal of the statutory provision 

extending the VEI program, includes an 

acceptable update of the various 

elements of the initial EPA-approved 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan (including 

emissions inventory, assurance of 

adequate monitoring and verification of 

continued attainment, and contingency 

provisions), and essentially carries 

forward all of the control measures and 

contingency provisions relied upon in 

the earlier plan. We also find that the 

TAPA, a former nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment area, continues to qualify 

for the LMP option and that therefore 

the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

adequately demonstrates maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS through the 

documentation of monitoring data 

showing maximum CO levels less than 

7.65 ppm, eight-hour average (85 

percent of the NAAQS), and through the 

continuation of existing control 

measures. We believe the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan as supplemented, to 

be sufficient to provide for maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS in the TAPA over the 

second 10-year maintenance period (i.e., 

through mid-2020) and thereby satisfy 

the requirements for such a plan under 

CAA section 175A(b). In light of the 

above, we are therefore proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s submittal on July 10, 

2008 of the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan, 

and ADEQ’s submittal on June 22, 2009 

of the statutory provision extending the 

life of the VEI program, as a revision to 

the Arizona SIP. 

V. Transportation and General 

Conformity 

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 areas and former 

nonattainment areas, like TAPA, that 

have been redesignated as attainment 

and that are subject to a maintenance 

plan. Under either rule, one means of 

demonstrating conformity of Federal 

actions is to indicate that 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, it explains that the area may 

demonstrate conformity without 

submitting an emissions budget. Under 

the LMP option, emissions budgets are 

treated as essentially not constraining 

for the length of the applicable 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that such an area 

will experience so much growth in that 

period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result. In other words, in 

LMP areas, EPA concludes that 

emissions need not be capped for the 

maintenance period. 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. 

Similarly, in these areas, Federal actions 

subject to the general conformity rule 

are considered to satisfy the ‘‘budget 

test’’ specified in 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule. 

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 

MPO or State must document and 

ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 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 the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

93.105; 

(d) Conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every four 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 CO 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. 

We posted the 2008 Revision to the 

Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance 

Plan for the Tucson Air Planning Area 

on EPA’s transportation conformity 

adequacy Web site on October 2, 2008 

for 30 days and did not receive any 

comments on the adequacy of the plan. 

We believe that the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan demonstrates that it 

is unreasonable to expect that the area 

would experience enough growth in 

motor vehicle emissions for a violation 

of the CO NAAQS to occur and qualifies 

as an LMP, and on that basis, we are 

proposing to approve the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan for transportation 

conformity purposes. This 

determination waives the need for a 

motor vehicle emissions budget, 

although it does not relieve the area or 

the other transportation conformity 

requirements noted above. If finalized as 

proposed, PAG (the area’s MPO), the 

Federal Highway Administration, and 

the Federal Transit Administration will 

not be required to satisfy the regional 

emissions analysis (with respect to CO) 

under 40 CFR 93.118 and/or 40 CFR 

93.119 in determining the conformity of 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in the TAPA. See 40 CFR 

93.109(j). 

VI. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the 

CAA and for the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve two 

revisions of the Arizona SIP submitted 

by ADEQ. The first, submitted on July 

10, 2008, includes the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan for the Tucson Air 

Planning Area, and the second, 

submitted on June 22, 2009, includes a 

statutory provision (ARS section 41– 

3017.01) extending the life of the VEI 

program through the end of 2016. 

We are proposing to approve the 2008 

CO Maintenance Plan because we find 

that it includes an acceptable update of 

the various elements of the initial EPAapproved 1996 CO Maintenance Plan 

(including emissions inventory, 

assurance of adequate monitoring and 

verification of continued attainment, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39013 

and contingency provisions), and 

essentially carries forward all of the 

control measures and contingency 

provisions relied upon in the earlier 

plan. We also find that the TAPA, a 

former nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment area, continues to qualify 

for the LMP option and that therefore 

the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan 

adequately demonstrates maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS through 

documentation of monitoring data 

showing maximum CO levels less than 

85% of the NAAQS and continuation of 

existing control measures. We believe 

the 2008 CO Maintenance Plan to be 

sufficient to provide for maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the TAPA over the 

second 10-year maintenance period and 

to thereby satisfy the requirements for 

such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). 

If finalized as proposed, our approval 

will make Federally enforceable the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan’s 

contingency provisions, which are 

slightly modified from the 

corresponding provisions in the 1996 

CO Maintenance Plan. 

In connection with the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan, we are proposing to 

approve the statutory provision, ARS 

section 41–3017.01, that extends the life 

of the State’s VEI program (applicable to 

the TAPA and Phoenix metropolitan 

areas) until the end of 2016, and that 

was submitted to EPA as a revision to 

the Arizona SIP on June 22, 2009, based 

on our expectation that the Arizona 

Legislature will extend the VEI program 

beyond 2016. 

We also find that the 2008 CO 

Maintenance Plan qualifies for 

evaluation as an limited maintenance 

plan under our LMP policy in light of 

low monitored CO levels in the TAPA 

and therefore propose to approve the 

2008 CO Maintenance Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. If 

finalized as proposed, PAG (the area’s 

MPO), the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the Federal Transit 

Administration will not be required to 

satisfy the regional emissions analysis 

under 40 CFR 93.118 and/or 40 CFR 

93.119 in determining conformity of 

transportation plans and programs in 

the TAPA. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this document and on issues relevant to 

EPA’s proposed action. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action proposes to 

approve State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this proposed 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, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 21, 2009. 

Kathleen H. Johnson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–18693 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0028; FRL–8939–5] 

RIN 2060–AN46 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Chemical Preparations 

Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants from the 

chemical preparations area source 

category. These proposed emissions 

standards for new and existing sources 

reflect EPA’s proposed determination 

regarding the generally available control 

technology or management practices for 

the source category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2009, unless a 

public hearing is requested by August 

17, 2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rules, written comments must 

be received by September 21, 2009. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before September 

4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0028, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web Site. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0028 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for 

Chemical Preparations Manufacturing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS