7118 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0762; FRL–9906–04– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans—Maricopa 

County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; 

Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 

24-Hour PM-10 Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements 

applicable to the Maricopa County 

(Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area. 

The Maricopa County PM-10 

Nonattainment Area is located in the 

eastern portion of Maricopa County and 

encompasses the cities of Phoenix, 

Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, 

Glendale, several other smaller 

jurisdictions, unincorporated County 

lands, as well as the town of Apache 

Junction in Pinal County. The Maricopa 

County PM-10 Nonattainment Area is 

designated as a serious nonattainment 

area for the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter of ten microns or less (PM-10). 

The submitted SIP revision is the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the 

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 

(2012 Five Percent Plan). Arizona’s 

obligation to submit the 2012 Five 

Percent Plan was triggered by EPA’s 

June 6, 2007 finding that the Maricopa 

PM-10 Nonattainment Area had failed to 

meet its December 31, 2006 deadline to 

attain the PM-10 NAAQS. The CAA 

requires a serious PM-10 nonattainment 

area that fails to meet its attainment 

deadline to submit a plan providing for 

attainment of the PM-10. 

NAAQS and for an annual emission 

reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursors 

of not less than five percent until 

attainment. EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2012 Five Percent Plan as meeting 

all relevant statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0762, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Gregory Nudd 

(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 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 

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: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415– 

947–4107, nudd.gregory@epa.gov or 

www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the 

Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment Area 

II. Overview of Applicable CAA 

Requirements 

III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan’s 

Compliance with CAA Requirements 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the 

Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment Area 

The NAAQS are standards for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. 

PM-10 is among the ambient air 

pollutants for which EPA has 

established health-based standards. PM10 causes adverse health effects by 

penetrating deep in the lungs, 

aggravating the cardiopulmonary 

system. Children, the elderly, and 

people with asthma and heart 

conditions are the most vulnerable. 

On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the 

health-based national ambient air 

quality standards, replacing the 

standards for total suspended 

particulates with new standards 

applying only to particulate matter up to 

ten microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 

24672. At that time, EPA established 

two PM-10 standards, annual and 24- 

hour. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM-10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM-10 standard. 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24- 

hour PM-10 standard of 150 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) is attained 

when the expected number of days with 

a 24-hour average concentration above 

150 mg/m3 per calendar year averaged 

over a three year period, as determined 

in accordance with appendix K to 40 

CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one. 

40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the 

Act), many areas, including the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area, 

meeting the qualifications of section 

107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act were 

designated nonattainment by operation 

of law. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). 

The Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area is located in the eastern portion of 

Maricopa County and encompasses the 

cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, 

Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, as well as 

15 other jurisdictions, four tribes and 

unincorporated County lands. The 

nonattainment area also includes the 

town of Apache Junction in Pinal 

County. EPA codified the boundaries of 

the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area at 40 CFR 81.303. 

Once an area is designated 

nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of 

the CAA outlines the process for 

classifying the area as moderate or 

serious and establishes the area’s 

attainment deadline. In accordance with 

section 188(a), at the time of 

designation, all PM-10 nonattainment 

areas, including the Maricopa PM-10 

Nonattainment Area, were initially 

classified as moderate. 

A moderate PM-10 nonattainment 

area must be reclassified to serious 

PM-10 nonattainment by operation of 

law if EPA determines after the 

applicable attainment date that, based 

on air quality, the area failed to attain 

by that date. CAA sections 179(c) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7119 

1MAG has responsibility for air quality and 

transportation planning in the metropolitan 

Phoenix region. MAG develops air quality plans in 

coordination with ADEQ, the Arizona Department 

of Transportation, and the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at 

ES–1; Appendix E., Exh. 2 (Resolution to Adopt the 

MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the 

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area). 

2Also on May 25, 2012, Arizona submitted 

several Arizona statutes, Maricopa County rules, a 

Maricopa County ordinance, and related 

appendices for approval into the Arizona SIP. By 

letter dated May 21, 2013, Arizona submitted 

redacted materials to clarify its May 25, 2012 

submittal. By letter dated September 26, 2013, 

Arizona withdrew its May 21, 2013 submittal and 

submitted a table and redacted materials as a 

supplement to the May 25, 2012 submittal to clarify 

the materials it is requesting EPA to approve into 

the Arizona SIP. 

3Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, USEPA Region 9 to Henry Darwin, 

Director, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality dated July 20, 2012. 

4 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992) (General Preamble) and 57 FR 18070 (April 

28, 1992). 

5 ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers 

for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 

1994) (Addendum). 

188(b)(2). On May 10, 1996, EPA 

reclassified the Maricopa PM-10 

Nonattainment Area as a serious PM-10 

nonattainment area. 61 FR 21372. 

As a serious PM-10 nonattainment 

area, the area acquired a new attainment 

deadline of no later than December 31, 

2001. CAA section 188(c)(2). However, 

CAA section 188(e) authorizes EPA to 

grant up to a 5-year extension of that 

attainment deadline if certain 

conditions are met by the state. In order 

to obtain the extension, the state must 

make a SIP submission showing that: (1) 

Attainment by the applicable attainment 

date would be impracticable; (2) the 

state complied with all requirements 

and commitments pertaining to the area 

in the implementation plan for the area; 

and (3) the plan for the area includes the 

most stringent measures (MSM) that are 

included in the implementation plan of 

any state or are achieved in practice in 

any state, and can feasibly be 

implemented in the specific area. 

Arizona requested an attainment date 

extension under CAA section 188(e) for 

the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area from December 31, 2001 to 

December 31, 2006. 

On July 25, 2002, EPA approved the 

serious area PM-10 plan for the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area as 

meeting the requirements for such areas 

in CAA sections 189(b) and (c), 

including the requirements for 

implementation of best available control 

measures (BACM) in section 

189(b)(1)(B) and MSM in section 188(e). 

In the same action, EPA approved the 

submission with respect to the 

requirements of section 188(e) and 

granted Arizona’s request to extend the 

attainment date for the area to December 

31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. This final action, 

as well as the two proposals preceding 

it, provide a more detailed discussion of 

the history of PM-10 planning in the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area. 

See 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); 65 FR 

19964 (April 13, 2000); and 66 FR 50252 

(October 2, 2001). 

On June 6, 2007, EPA found that the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area 

failed to attain the 24-hour PM-10 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 2006 (72 FR 

31183). Accordingly, the state was 

required to submit a new plan meeting 

the requirements of section 189(d) by 

December 31, 2007. 

On December 19, 2007, the Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) 

adopted the ‘‘MAG 2007 Five Percent 

Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County 

Nonattainment Area’’ (2007 Five 

Percent Plan).1 On December 21, 2007 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted the 2007 Five Percent Plan 

and two Pinal County resolutions. EPA 

proposed to partially disapprove this 

plan on September 9, 2010. 75 FR 

54806. On January 25, 2011, prior to 

EPA’s final action on the 2007 Five 

Percent Plan, Arizona withdrew the 

plan from the Agency’s consideration. 

As a result of the withdrawal of the 

2007 Five Percent Plan, on February 14, 

2011, EPA made a finding of failure to 

make a required SIP submittal. 76 FR 

8300. This finding of failure to submit 

obligated EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) within two 

years after that date, unless the state 

submits and EPA approves a SIP 

submission meeting the requirements of 

section 189(d) by such date. CAA 

section 110(c). Because EPA’s 

evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan 

indicates that it meets the requirements 

of section 189(d), EPA is proposing to 

approve the submission in today’s 

action. 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan was 

adopted by MAG on May 23, 2012 and 

submitted to EPA by ADEQ on May 25, 

2012.2 MAG adopted and ADEQ 

submitted the 2012 Five Percent Plan 

specifically to address the CAA 

requirements in section 189(d) for the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area. 

EPA reviewed the submission and 

found it to be complete on July 20, 

2012.3 EPA is proposing approval of the 

submission as meeting the requirements 

of section 189(d) in today’s action. 

II. Overview of Applicable CAA 

Requirements 

As a serious PM-10 nonattainment 

area that failed to meet its applicable 

attainment date, December 31, 2006, the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area is 

subject to CAA section 189(d). Section 

189(d) provides that the state shall 

‘‘submit within 12 months after the 

applicable attainment date, plan 

revisions which provide for attainment 

of the PM-10 air quality standard and, 

from the date of such submission until 

attainment, for an annual reduction of 

PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions 

within the area of not less than 5 

percent of the amount of such emissions 

as reported in the most recent inventory 

prepared for the area.’’ 

The general planning and control 

requirements for all nonattainment 

plans are found in CAA sections 110 

and 172. More specific planning and 

control requirements relevant to the PM10 NAAQS are found in Part D, Subpart 

4, in CAA sections 188 and 189. EPA 

has issued a General Preamble 4 and 

Addendum to the General Preamble 5 to 

provide guidance to states for meeting 

the CAA’s requirements for the PM-10 

NAAQS. The General Preamble mainly 

addresses the requirements for moderate 

nonattainment areas and the Addendum 

addresses the requirements for serious 

nonattainment areas. EPA has also 

issued other guidance documents 

related to PM-10 plans which are 

discussed and cited below. The specific 

PM-10 plan requirements addressed by 

this proposed action are summarized 

below. 

A. Emissions Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an 

attainment plan include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutants. 

B. Section 189(d) Attainment 

Demonstration and Five Percent 

Requirement 

For serious PM-10 nonattainment 

areas that do not attain the PM-10 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date, CAA section 189(d) requires the 

state to submit plan revisions that 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS 

(i.e., an attainment demonstration) and 

provide for an annual five percent 

reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor 

emissions for each year from the date of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7120 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA has previously determined that PM-10 

precursors are not significant contributors to 

PM-10 levels in the Maricopa County PM-10 

Nonattainment Area. See 65 FR 19971 (April 13, 

2000); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002). In those 

rulemaking notices, EPA specifically determined 

that the contribution from major stationary sources 

of PM-10 precursors was less than 0.5 percent of the 

annual PM-10 NAAQS. See e.g., 65 FR 19971. 

Subsequent technical studies confirm that ambient 

PM-10 levels in the nonattainment area are 

primarily from crustal material and are not derived 

from organic compounds, nitrates or sulfates. See 

e.g., ‘‘PM-10 Source Attribution and Deposition 

Study,’’ prepared by Sierra Research, Inc. for 

Maricopa Association of Governments (March 2008) 

at pg. 2 (‘‘Local monitoring by co-located PM-10 

and PM-2.5 monitors confirms that PM-2.5 on high 

PM-10 days is a small fraction of the PM-10 

concentrations. Therefore, the PM-10 problem in 

the Maricopa County nonattainment area is largely 

attributable to coarse particles, comprised primarily 

of geologic material.’’); see also, id. at Chapter 3. 

7The 2008 PM-10 Inventory is included as 

Appendix A, Exhibit 1 to the 2012 Five Percent 

Plan. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory includes revisions 

made by MAG in 2011 to incorporate more recent 

vehicle registration data, and updated models and 

planning assumptions. See 2012 Five Percent Plan, 

Appendix B, Exh. 1, at II–10 to II–17. 

8The 2008 PM-10 Inventory notes that Maricopa 

County is approximately 9,223 square miles, 

whereas the Maricopa County PM-10 

Nonattainment Area is approximately 2,888 square 

miles. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 3–2. 

9The 2008 PM-10 Inventory also references 

‘‘typical daily emissions.’’ The 2012 Five Percent 

Plan does not rely on ‘‘typical daily emissions’’ for 

the attainment demonstration or the five percent 

reduction in annual emissions; therefore, we did 

not comprehensively analyze these values in 

connection with today’s proposed action. 

submission until attainment.6 Section 

189(d) specifies that the state must 

submit these plan revisions within 12 

months of the applicable attainment 

date that the area failed to meet. 

C. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that 

implementation plans demonstrate 

reasonable further progress (RFP) as 

defined in section 171(1). Section 171(1) 

defines RFP as ‘‘such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant as are required 

by this part [part D of title I] or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ The general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2) applies 

to SIP submissions necessary to meet 

CAA section 189(d) for the PM-10 

NAAQS. 

In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1) 

specifically applicable to the PM-10 

NAAQS requires that an 

implementation plan contain 

quantitative milestones which will be 

achieved every 3 years and which will 

demonstrate that RFP is being met. 

D. Contingency Measures 

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that 

implementation plans provide for ‘‘the 

implementation of specific measures to 

be undertaken if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress, or to attain 

the NAAQS by the attainment date 

applicable under this part [part D of title 

I]. Such measures are to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or the Administrator.’’ The 

contingency measure requirement of 

CAA section 179(c)(9) applies to the SIP 

submissions necessary to meet CAA 

section 189(d) for the PM-10 NAAQS. 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). Our conformity 

rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires 

that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they do so. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or any 

interim milestone. Once a SIP that 

contains motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) has been submitted to 

EPA, and EPA has found them adequate, 

these budgets are used for determining 

conformity: Emissions from planned 

transportation activities must be less 

than or equal to the budgets. 

F. Adequate Authority 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires 

that implementation plans provide 

necessary assurances that the state (or 

the general purpose local government or 

regional agency designated by the state 

for this purpose) will have adequate 

personnel, funding and authority under 

state law to carry out the requirements 

of such plan. Requirements for legal 

authority are further defined in 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart L (51.230–51.232) and 

for resources in 40 CFR 51.280. States 

and responsible local agencies must also 

demonstrate that they have the legal 

authority to adopt and enforce 

provisions of the SIP and to obtain 

information necessary to determine 

compliance. 

III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent 

Plan’s Compliance With CAA 

Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires all 

nonattainment area plans to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in the area at issue. Our 

policies require that the inventory be 

fully documented. The 2012 Five 

Percent Plan uses the comprehensive 

‘‘2008 PM-10 Periodic Emissions 

Inventory for Maricopa County, Revised 

2011’’ (2008 PM-10 Inventory) as a 

starting point in the analysis.7 The 2008 

PM-10 Inventory was developed by the 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD) and the Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG)— 

MCAQD prepared emission estimates 

for point sources and most area and 

nonroad mobile sources, and MAG 

prepared emission estimates for onroad 

mobile, biogenic and certain area and 

nonroad mobile sources. 2012 Five 

Percent Plan, Appendix A, Exhibit 1. 

The 2008 PM-10 Inventory was adjusted 

by MAG for economic and population 

changes to provide projected emissions 

inventories for 2007 through 2012. 2012 

Five Percent Plan at p. 3–2; Appendix 

B, Exh. 1, Section II. 

The 2008 PM-10 Inventory describes 

annual emissions from point, area, 

nonroad, on-road, and 

nonanthropogenic sources in the 

Maricopa County and the Pinal County 

portion of the nonattainment area.8 9

The 2008 PM-10 Inventory shows that 

the most significant sources of 

emissions in the Maricopa County 

Nonattainment Area are unpaved roads 

and alleys (21 percent), constructionrelated fugitive dust (17 percent), paved 

road dust (17 percent) and windblown 

dust (9 percent). 2012 Five Percent Plan, 

Table 5–3. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory 

and related inventories for 2007 through 

2012 are well documented by 

documentation meeting our guidance 

criteria. See ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations’’, EPA, August 2005 (2005 

EI Guidance). 

The base year, 2008, is a reasonably 

current year, considering the length of 

time needed to develop an inventory, 

perform the modeling, develop and 

adopt control measures, and hold public 

hearings on such a large and 

technically-complex plan. 

The MAG plan inventories are 

sufficiently comprehensive, covering all 

sources of PM-10 that have been found 

to be important sources of relevant 

emissions in this and other PM-10 

nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM-10 

Inventory includes emissions for certain 

PM-10 precursors (nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, and ammonia). The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7121 

10 40 CFR 50.6(a); 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K. 

11Technical Support Document for EPA’s Action 

on the 2012 Five Percent Plan, U.S. EPA Region 9, 

January 14, 2014, Section III. 

12See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007). 

13Arizona House Bill 2208, which added ARS 

49–457.05 and authorized creation of the Dust 

Action General Permit, was enacted in April 2011. 

2007–2012 projected inventories based 

on the 2008 PM-10 Inventory do not 

include emissions of PM-10 precursors; 

however, EPA has previously 

determined that these precursors do not 

play a significant part in the PM-10 

problems in the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area. See 65 FR 

19971 (April 13, 2000); see also, note 6. 

EPA proposes to find again that 

precursors still do not play a significant 

part in PM-10 problems in the Maricopa 

County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. 

In developing the inventory, MAG 

and MCAQD followed EPA’s 2005 

guidance and recommendations 

regarding the use of emission factors, 

activity estimates, and control factors, 

and the other source specific emission 

estimation methodologies. The relative 

accuracy of each estimate underwent 

the prescribed quality assurance 

procedures, documented in the 2008 

PM-10 Inventory, Sections 2.7, 3.7, 4.14 

and 5.5, to minimize possible errors. 

MCAQD used reasonable and accurate 

methods to calculate rule effectiveness. 

Rule effectiveness is the estimate of 

the extent to which a state rule in the 

SIP is achieving the intended 

reductions. A rule is 100 percent 

effective only if every impacted source 

is in compliance at all times. Often, 

rules are not 100 percent effective, and 

this aspect must be considered when 

calculating the emissions reductions 

from the rule. The 2008 PM-10 

Inventory generally complies with 

EPA’s guidance on calculating rule 

effectiveness found in Appendix B of 

EPA’s 2005 EI Guidance. 

EPA’s analysis indicates the inventory 

is sufficiently accurate for the purposes 

of the 2012 Five Percent Plan. Because 

we find that the inventory is current, 

comprehensive, and accurate, we 

propose to approve the 2008 PM-10 

Inventory and the adjusted inventories 

for 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 

under CAA section 172(c)(3). 

B. Attainment Demonstration 

EPA determines whether an area’s air 

quality is meeting the PM-10 NAAQS 

based on complete, quality assured, and 

certified data collected at state and local 

air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the 

nonattainment area. Attainment of the 

24-hour PM-10 standard is determined 

by calculating the average number of 

expected exceedances of the standard 

over a three-year period. Specifically, 

the 24-hour PM-10 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.10 In the case of a 

monitor that collects daily data, and has 

a full three years worth of adequate 

data, that monitor should show no more 

than one exceedance of the standard in 

a three year period. If all of the monitors 

in the nonattainment area meet the 

standard for the requisite period 

reflecting the form of the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS, then the area has attained 

the standard. This point is discussed in 

more detail in our technical support 

document (TSD).11

1. Attainment Deadline 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan predicts 

attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2012. For an area 

determined by EPA to have failed to 

attain by the applicable attainment date 

for a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, 

CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3) 

specify that the new attainment date is 

as soon as practicable, but no later than 

5 years from the date of publication of 

the nonattainment finding in the 

Federal Register. Pursuant to these 

provisions, the attainment date for the 

Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area 

would be as expeditiously as 

practicable, but not later than June 6, 

2012.12 CAA section 172(a)(2), however, 

authorizes EPA to extend the attainment 

deadline to the extent it deems 

appropriate for a period no greater than 

10 years from the publication of the 

nonattainment finding, ‘‘considering the 

severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution 

control measures.’’ EPA believes such 

an extension to December 31, 2012, is 

warranted, based on various factors, 

including the following. 

First, EPA notes that the PM-10 

NAAQS is an calendar-based standard, 

which makes setting a mid-year 

attainment deadline (such as June 6) 

less appropriate than setting an end of 

calendar year date that would include 

the entire year of monitored data for 

comparison against the NAAQS. In 

addition, the 2012 Five Percent Plan 

explains that an extension is reasonable 

because modeled attainment of the PM10 NAAQS requires implementation of 

a new measure, the Dust Action General 

Permit. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 

6–45 through 6–47. The Dust Action 

General Permit is a new measure 

developed by ADEQ and MAG 

following EPA’s identification of 

approvability issues in the 2007 Five 

Percent Plan, including flaws in the 

emissions inventory. These flaws 

required Arizona and MAG to develop 

a new emissions inventory and new 

attainment demonstration and to 

convene technical and stakeholder 

groups for appropriate input. One result 

of these processes was the Dust Action 

General Permit, which identifies a series 

of Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for specific dust generating operations. 

When ADEQ’s Maricopa County Dust 

Control Forecast predicts that a day is 

at high risk for dust generation, those 

dust generating operations that are not 

already required to control dust through 

a permit issued by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) or the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) are 

expected to choose and implement at 

least one BMP to reduce or prevent PM10 emissions. The Dust Action General 

Permit required action by the Arizona 

Legislature and was not finalized until 

December 30, 2011.13 ADEQ and MAG 

estimate that the Dust Action General 

Permit will increase the rule 

effectiveness of Rule 310.01 by one 

percent on high wind days, or 190 tons 

on an annual basis. 2012 Five Percent 

Plan at p. 5–4 and p. 6–45. ADEQ and 

MAG also state that modeled attainment 

cannot be shown without the reductions 

attributable to the Dust Action General 

Permit. It was necessary to extend the 

attainment date until December 2012 in 

order for the Dust Action General Permit 

to be adopted and implemented. 

For these reasons, EPA concurs that 

an extension of the attainment deadline 

to December 31, 2012 is warranted. 

2. Modeled Attainment Demonstration 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan shows 

attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS 

through modeled attainment 

demonstrations for the area near the Salt 

River in central Phoenix, (including the 

West 43rd Avenue monitor which 

recorded the most PM-10 exceedances 

during high wind conditions for the 

period 2005–2010) and for the entire 

Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area. See generally, 2012 Five Percent 

Plan, Chapter 6. MAG conducted 

modeling for two design days: May 4, 

2007 (based on data from the West 43rd 

Avenue monitor), and June 6, 2007 

(based on data from the Higley and West 

43rd Avenue monitors). In consultation 

with ADEQ and EPA, MAG selected the 

design days and locations based on the 

fact that, for the past few years, 

measured exceedances of the PM-10 

NAAQS have been associated with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7122 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14 40 CFR 50.1(j), (k), (l); 50.14; 51.930. 

15See Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, 

Director, Air Division, ADEQ, dated September 6, 

2012, May 6, 2013, and July 1, 2013. 

16Additional exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS 

occurred on six days between April and October 

2013. Arizona has indicated its intent to submit 

documentation regarding these exceedances to EPA 

and to request that EPA concur with the state’s 

determination that they qualify as exceptional 

events. EPA will evaluate the state’s submissions 

and requests consistent with the EER and relevant 

guidance. 

17EPA believes Arizona’s use of 2007 as the 

baseline for five percent reductions is reasonable 

and consistent with Congress’ intent. Section 189(d) 

states that plans are due within 12 months of the 

missed attainment deadline and that the plans 

should provide for annual five percent reductions 

from the date of the submission until attainment. 

Arizona’s attainment deadline was December 31, 

2006. 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002). Accordingly, a 

submittal to fulfill section 189(d) was due by 

December 31, 2007, and reductions should have 

begun to occur as of that date. See 72 FR 31183 

(June 6, 2007). The decline in emissions from 2007 

elevated winds. MAG’s selected design 

days were not days that would be likely 

to be considered a high wind 

exceptional event (i.e., the geographic 

extent of the exceedances did not 

suggest the occurrence of an area-wide 

storm event). EPA’s detailed analysis of 

the modeling can be found in Section IV 

of the TSD for this action. The modeling 

was conducted in a way that was 

consistent with EPA guidance and the 

input of EPA technical experts. The 

modeling indicates that the emission 

reductions in the plan should result in 

PM-10 levels that are consistent with 

the NAAQS by December 31. 2012. This 

attainment modeling was confirmed by 

the monitoring data as described in the 

next section of this proposal. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to find that the 2012 Five 

Percent Plan’s attainment demonstration 

provides sufficient assurance that the 

control measures implemented in the 

nonattainment area will be sufficient to 

ensure ongoing compliance with the 

PM-10 standard in the Maricopa County 

PM-10 Nonattainment Area. 

3. Monitoring Data Showing Attainment 

EPA is also taking into account the 

fact that monitoring data recorded at air 

quality monitors throughout the 

Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area show that the area in fact reached 

attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2012. Attainment of the 

24-hour PM-10 standard is determined 

by calculating the average number of 

expected exceedances of the standard 

over a three-year period. Specifically, 

the 24-hour PM-10 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. During the 2010– 

2012 time period, MCAQD operated 

fifteen PM-10 monitors, while ADEQ 

and the Pinal County Air Quality 

Control District (PCAQCD) operated an 

additional three PM-10 monitoring 

stations in the area. EPA’s analysis 

indicates that all of these monitors have 

an expected exceedance of less than one 

for the years 2010–2012. 

EPA’s review of monitoring data for 

the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for the 

Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area includes exceedances of the 

standard recorded during the 2010–2012 

time period. However, EPA does not 

consider these exceedances of the 

NAAQS to be violations because they 

were the result of exceptional events. 

ADEQ submitted three packages 

containing demonstrations for high 

wind PM-10 exceptional events 

covering a total of one hundred thirtythree measured exceedances occurring 

over twenty-seven days in the years 

2011 and 2012 at monitors within the 

Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area. EPA reviewed the documentation 

that ADEQ provided to demonstrate that 

the exceedances on these days meet the 

criteria for an exceptional event in 

EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule (EER).14

EPA concurred with ADEQ’s requests 

for exceptional event determinations, 

based on the weight of evidence, that 

one hundred thirty-one of the one 

hundred thirty-three exceedances were 

caused by high wind exceptional 

events.15 Accordingly EPA has 

determined that the monitored 

exceedances associated with these 

exceptional events should not be used 

for regulatory purposes, including for 

evaluation of the CAA section 189(d) 

plan submission. Excluding these 

exceedances caused predominantly by 

uncontrollable emissions, EPA proposes 

to determine that the Maricopa County 

PM-10 Nonattainment Area has attained 

the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS based on the 

monitors operated by ADEQ, MCAQD 

and PCAQD. This is consistent with 

attainment of the standard projected by 

the state in the 2012 Five Percent Plan. 

Monitors operated by tribal 

governments in the nonattainment area 

also provide data that can be considered 

to evaluate attainment. The Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

operates three PM-10 monitoring 

stations on tribal land within the 

Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 

Area that meet the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58 and are therefore 

appropriate to consider when 

determining if the area has attained the 

standard. As our analysis in Section III 

of the TSD indicates, these monitors 

show exceedances of the standard on 

three days during the 2010–2012 time 

period. Two of those exceedances (both 

on July 8, 2011) were during area-wide 

storms that resulted in exceedances at 

the non-tribal monitors that EPA has 

already determined were caused by 

exceptional events. EPA TSD Section III. 

The third exceedance (on July 2, 2011) 

appears to be related to local sources 

rather than an exceptional event. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 49.10, however, 

EPA cannot disapprove a state SIP 

submittal because of the ‘‘failure to 

address air resources within the exterior 

boundaries of an Indian Reservation or 

other areas within the jurisdiction of an 

Indian tribe.’’ Therefore, we did not 

further consider these exceedances as 

part of this proposed action to approve 

the 2012 Five Percent Plan. 

The plan submitted by the state 

projected that the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area would attain by 

December 31, 2012, because that was 

the most expeditious attainment date 

practicable considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability of 

controls in the area. Monitoring data for 

the years 2010–2012, taking into 

account EPA’s determinations with 

respect to exceptional events during that 

period, indicate that the area attained 

the standard as of December 31, 2012.16

EPA proposes to find that the 2012 

Five Percent Plan meets the requirement 

to demonstrate attainment by the 

appropriate attainment date. This 

proposed finding is based on our 

analysis of the modeling described in 

the plan and analysis of the monitoring 

data for the years 2010–2012. 

C. Five Percent Requirement 

CAA section 189(d) requires a state 

with a serious PM-10 nonattainment 

area that fails to attain the PM-10 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

deadlines to submit within 12 months 

after the applicable attainment date plan 

revisions which provide an annual five 

percent reduction in emissions of PM-10 

or PM-10 precursors in the area from the 

date of the submission until attainment, 

based on the most recent inventory. 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan’s 

demonstration of annual five percent 

reductions is found in Chapter 5. 

Arizona and MAG used the 2008 PM-10 

Inventory as the ‘‘most recent 

inventory’’ and derived emissions levels 

for years 2007–2012 based upon the 

2008 PM-10 Inventory. See Five Percent 

Plan at p. 5–4. The demonstration of 

annual five percent reductions uses 

2007 as the baseline from which the five 

percent reductions are calculated and as 

point at which the reductions should 

start.17 The 2012 Five Percent Plan’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7123 

to 2008 shows that reductions did, in fact, begin to 

occur within that time frame. See Table 1. 

Arguably, these reductions occurred outside the 

literal time frame specified by Congress (i.e., ‘‘the 

date of the submission’’ of the plan) because the 

2012 Five Percent Plan was not submitted until 

May 26, 2012. We note that Arizona had submitted 

the 2007 Five Percent Plan on December 21, 2007 

(although it withdrew the plan on January 25, 

2011). EPA believes that it is appropriate and 

consistent with Congress’s intent for expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS that we consider 

reductions that occurred prior to the submittal of 

the 2012 Five Percent Plan. 

18Table 5–2 

19Table 5–3 

20EPA has approved Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 

into the Arizona SIP. 75 FR 78167 (Dec. 15, 2010); 

74 FR 58554 (Nov. 13, 2009). EPA has also 

approved Arizona statutory provisions related to 

the Dust Action General Permit. 78 FR 72579 (Dec. 

3, 2013). EPA intends to propose action on the Dust 

Action General Permit in the near future. 

21This approach is consistent with the approach 

taken in a previous section 189(d) plan for the San 

Joaquin Valley. See 69 FR 5411 (Feb. 4, 2004) and 

69 FR 30006 (May 25, 2004). 

demonstration is summarized in Table 

1,18 19 below. 

TABLE 1—2012 FIVE PERCENT PLAN EMISSIONS BY YEAR

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Baseline Inventory 18 ........................................................ 59,218 56,681 52,123 50,497 49,743 49,673 

Controlled Inventory 19 ..................................................... 59,218 49,231 45,600 44,062 43,438 43,130 

Annual Reduction ............................................................. .................... 9,987 3,631 1,538 624 308 

Cumulative Reduction ...................................................... .................... 9,987 13,618 15,156 15,780 16,088

Target Reduction ............................................................. .................... 2,961 5,922 8,883 11,844 14,805 

The ‘‘baseline inventory’’ values are 

derived from the 2008 PM-10 Inventory 

as adjusted by population and economic 

growth factors from the University of 

Arizona. See 2012 Five Percent Plan, at 

p. 5–4 and p. 5–5, Table 5–2. The 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ values show 

emission levels after taking into account 

reductions attributable to adopted 

control measures, specifically, Rules 

310, 310.01 and 316, and the Dust 

Action General Permit. See 2012 Five 

Percent Plan at p. 5–1 through 5–6; see 

also, p. 5–7, Table 5–3. ‘‘Annual 

reduction’’ is the mathematical 

difference between the prior year 

controlled inventory and the current 

year controlled inventory. ‘‘Cumulative 

reduction’’ is the running total of actual 

reductions starting with 2007 and 

continuing to the attainment year of 

2012. The target required reduction is 

five percent of the base year (2007) 

inventory (2,961 tons per year) for the 

first year (2008), and additional 

reductions of five percent per year, until 

the attainment year of 2012. 

The ‘‘controlled inventory’’ values 

reflect emission reductions due to 

improved compliance with Maricopa 

County Rules 310 (Fugitive Dust from 

Dust-Generating Operations), 310.01 

(Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional 

Sources of Fugitive Dust) and 316 

(Nonmetallic Mineral Processing) as 

well as the benefits of the Dust Action 

General Permit in 2012.20 Maricopa 

County has been inspecting sources 

subject to these rules and tracking the 

extent to which the sources are 

complying with the regulations. Based 

on these data, MCAQD calculated rule 

effectiveness values for each rule. See 

2012 Five Percent Plan, Appendix B, 

Chapter 3. 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan 

demonstrates compliance with the five 

percent reduction requirement by 

comparing the cumulative reductions 

from the Dust Action General Permit 

and increased effectiveness of the 

Maricopa County rules against the total 

five percent reductions each year. Most 

of the required reductions were 

achieved in the early years of the plan. 

EPA encourages this approach as it 

accelerates the environmental benefits 

of the reductions.21

D. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

Pursuant to sections 172(c)(3) and 

189(c)(1), the state must demonstrate 

RFP in the 2012 Five Percent Plan. We 

have explained in guidance that for 

areas such as the Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area where ‘‘the 

nonattainment problem is attributed to 

area type sources (e.g., fugitive dust, 

residential wood combustion, etc.), RFP 

should be met by showing annual 

incremental emission reductions 

sufficient generally to maintain linear 

progress towards attainment. Total PM10 emissions should not remain 

constant or increase from 1 year to the 

next in such an area.’’ Addendum at 

42015. Further, we have stated that, ‘‘in 

reviewing the SIP, EPA will determine 

whether the annual incremental 

emission reductions to be achieved are 

reasonable in light of the statutory 

objective to ensure timely attainment of 

the PM-10 NAAQS.’’ Id. at 42016. 

CAA section 189(c) further requires 

PM-10 attainment plans to contain 

quantitative milestones that are to be 

achieved every three years and that are 

consistent with RFP for the area. These 

quantitative milestones should consist 

of elements that allow RFP to be 

quantified or measured objectively. 

Specifically, states should identify and 

submit quantitative milestones that 

allow for evaluation of whether the plan 

is obtaining emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. Id. at 42016. 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan provides 

a reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration in Chapter 6. See 2012 

Five Percent Plan at 6–34 through 6–36. 

This analysis uses the controlled 

inventory totals by year as shown in 

Table 1 of this proposal. Specifically, 

the 2012 Five Percent Plan shows the 

following levels of PM-10, which 

decline between 2007 and 2012: 

2007—59,218 tons 

2008—49,231 tons 

2009—45,600 tons 

2010—44,062 tons 

2011—43,438 tons 

2012—43,130 tons 

The analysis required for the five 

percent demonstration provides annual 

emission targets between the base year 

of 2007 and the attainment year of 2012. 

These annual totals show a steady 

downward trend in emissions that 

fulfills the milestone requirement of 

every three years. See 2012 Five Percent 

Plan at 6–36, Fig. 6–6. The trend is more 

sharply downward in the initial years 

because most of the improvements in 

rule effectiveness occurred in 2008. Id at 

35–36. EPA proposes to find that the 

2012 Five Percent Plan has 

demonstrated reasonable further 

progress and that by setting annual 

target emission levels, the plan has 

exceeded the requirement to provide for 

milestones every three years. 

E. Contingency Measures 

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that 

attainment plans provide for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7124 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

22EPA elaborated on its interpretation of this 

language in section 172(c)(9) in the General 

Preamble in the context of the ozone standard: ‘‘The 

EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as 

notification of sources, modification of permits, 

etc., would probably be needed before a measure 

could be implemented effectively.’’ General 

Preamble at 13512. 

23See ‘‘Transportation Conformity Adequacy 

Review’’ by Greg Nudd, EPA Region 9, November 

11, 2013. 

implementation of specific measures to 

be undertaken if the area fails to meet 

RFP requirements or fails to attain the 

PM-10 standard as projected in the plan. 

That section further requires that such 

measures are to take effect in any such 

case without further action by the state 

or EPA. The CAA does not specify how 

many contingency measures are 

necessary nor does it specify the level 

of emission reductions they must 

produce. 

In guidance we have explained that 

the purpose of contingency measures is 

to ensure that additional emission 

reductions beyond those relied on in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations are 

available immediately if there is a 

failure to meet RFP requirements or a 

failure to attain by the applicable 

statutory date. Addendum at 42014– 

42015. Contingency measures must 

consist of measures that the state is not 

otherwise relying on to meet other 

attainment plan requirements in the 

area. Thus, these additional emission 

reductions that will be achieved by the 

contingency measures ensure continued 

progress towards attainment while the 

state is revising the SIP to correct the 

failure to meet RFP or to attain. To that 

end, we recommend that contingency 

measures for PM-10 nonattainment 

areas provide emission reductions 

equivalent to one year’s average 

increment of RFP. Id. 

In interpreting the requirement that 

the contingency measures must ‘‘take 

effect without further action by the State 

or the Administrator,’’ the General 

Preamble provides the following general 

guidance: ‘‘[s]tates must show that their 

contingency measures can be 

implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions such as 

public hearings or legislative review.’’ 

General Preamble at 13512.22 Further, 

‘‘[i]n general, EPA will expect all 

actions needed to affect full 

implementation of the measures to 

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies 

the State of its failure.’’ Id. The 

Addendum at 42015 reiterates this 

interpretation. 

We have also interpreted section 

172(c)(9) to allow states to implement 

contingency measures before they are 

triggered by a failure of RFP or 

attainment as long as those measures are 

intended to achieve emission reductions 

over and beyond those relied on in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. Id.; 

see also, LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 

(5th Cir. 2004). The 2012 Five Percent 

Plan calculated the target for 

contingency measure reductions by 

subtracting the attainment year 2012 

emissions (43,130 tons) from the 2007 

baseline emissions (59,218 tons) and 

dividing by five years, yielding a target 

of 3,218 tons per year. 2012 Five Percent 

Plan at 6–37. EPA proposes to find that 

this method of calculating the target for 

contingency measure reductions is 

consistent with CAA requirements and 

EPA guidance and we propose to 

approve this target value for 

contingency measures. 

The contingency measures are shown 

in Table 6–22 of the 2012 Five Percent 

Plan and are composed of various 

methods to reduce fugitive dust 

emissions from roads. The most 

significant reductions are from paving 

dirt roads and alleys; other reductions 

result from street sweeping of freeways, 

ramps and frontage roads, lower speed 

limits on dirt roads and alleys, and 

paving and stabilizing of unpaved 

shoulders. The measures were 

implemented in the years 2008 through 

2012. These contingency measures are 

surplus to the measures used to 

demonstrate five percent reductions, 

RFP, and attainment. The method used 

to estimate emissions reductions from 

these contingency measures are 

consistent with EPA recommended 

calculation methods for such measures 

and the total reductions exceed the 

target of one year of RFP. EPA proposes 

to approve the contingency measures 

described in the 2012 Five Percent Plan. 

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). Our conformity 

rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires 

that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they do so. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or the 

timely achievement of interim 

milestones. 

The 2012 Five Percent Plan specifies 

the maximum transportation-related 

PM-10 emissions allowed in the 

proposed attainment year, 2012, i.e., the 

MVEB of 54.9 metric tons per day 

(mtpd). 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 6– 

43. This budget includes emissions from 

road construction, vehicle exhaust, tire 

and brake wear, dust generated from 

unpaved roads and re-entrained dust 

from vehicles traveling on paved roads. 

This budget is based on the 2012 

emissions inventory that was projected 

from the 2008 PM-10 Inventory and 

reflects emission reductions that the 

plan expects will result from the control 

measures. The budget is consistent with 

the attainment, five percent and RFP 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

On September 12, 2013, we 

announced receipt of the 2012 Five 

Percent Plan on the Internet and 

requested public comment on the 

adequacy of the MVEB by October 15, 

2013. We did not receive any comments 

during the comment period. During that 

time we reviewed the MVEB and 

preliminarily determined that it met the 

adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

and (5). We sent a letter to ADEQ and 

MAG dated November 22, 2013 stating 

that the 2012 motor vehicle PM-10 

emissions budget for the Maricopa area 

in the submitted plan was adequate. Our 

finding was published in the Federal 

Register on December 5, 2013, effective 

December 20, 2013. 78 FR 73188. 

Now that EPA has thoroughly 

reviewed the submitted SIP, we are 

proposing to approve the MVEB for 

2012 as part of our approval of the 2012 

Five Percent Plan. EPA has determined 

that the MVEB emission target is 

consistent with emission control 

measures in the SIP and the attainment 

demonstration, five percent 

demonstration and RFP demonstration. 

The details of EPA’s evaluation of the 

MVEB for compliance with the budget 

adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) is 

provided in a separate document 

included in the docket of this 

rulemaking.23

G. Adequate Legal Authority 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air 

Act requires that implementation plans 

provide necessary assurances that the 

state (or the general purpose local 

government) will have adequate 

personnel, funding and authority under 

state law. Requirements for legal 

authority are further defined in 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart L (section 51.230–232) 

and for resources in 40 CFR 51.280. 

States and responsible local agencies 

must demonstrate that they have the 

legal authority to adopt and enforce 

provisions of the SIP and to obtain 

information necessary to determine 

compliance. These requirements are 

addressed in cover letters and submittal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7125 

24See Completeness Determination Checklist 

(EPA, July 2, 2012) for details on the location of the 

documentation of authority. 

25Letter from Wesley Bolin, Governor of Arizona, 

to Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of EPA, 

February 7, 1978. 2012 Five Percent Plan, Appendix 

E, Exh. 2. 

package for the 2012 Five Percent 

Plan.24

MAG derives its authority to develop 

and adopt air quality plans, including 

the 2012 Five Percent Plan, from ARS 

49–406 and from a February 7, 1978 

letter from the Governor of Arizona 

designating MAG as responsible for 

those tasks.25 ADEQ is authorized to 

adopt and submit the 2012 Five Percent 

Plan by ARS 49–404 and ARS 49–406. 

MCAQD implements air quality 

programs within Maricopa County. 

Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District implements air quality programs 

within Pinal County. 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

propose to find that the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E) and related 

regulations have been met with respect 

to legal authority. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

189(d) plan for the Maricopa County 

(Phoenix) PM-10 nonattainment area. 

Specifically, we propose to approve the 

following: 

(A) The 2008 baseline emissions 

inventory and the 2007, 2009, 2010, 

2011 and 2012 projected emission 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA sections 172(c)(3); 

(B) the attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 189(d) and 179(d)(3); 

(C) the 5% demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 189(d); 

(D) the reasonable further progress 

and quantitative milestone 

demonstrations as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 189(c); 

(E) the contingency measures as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(9); and 

(F) the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budget as compliant with the budget 

adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 

93.118(e). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

proposed Federal approval of the SIP 

does not create any new requirements, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the 

proposed approval action does not 

include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 

Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) 

and 12875 (Enhancing the 

Intergovernmental Partnership). 

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. However, even 

though EPA is acting on a State plan, 

and that plan does not apply in Indian 

Country, there are four tribes located 

within the PM-10 nonattainment area, 

several of which have imposed 

particulate control measures of their 

own in order to reduce PM-10 

concentrations. EPA informed tribal 

environmental staff regarding the 

proposed approval so that the tribes 

could inform their leadership and 

participate in the public comment 

process if desired. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (February 16, 

1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

Executive Order has informed the 

development and implementation of 

EPA’s environmental justice program 

and policies. Consistent with the 

Executive Order and the associated 

Presidential Memorandum, the 

Agency’s environmental justice policies 

promote environmental protection by 

focusing attention and Agency efforts on 

addressing the types of environmental 

harms and risks that are prevalent 

among minority, low-income and Tribal 

populations. 

This action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or Tribal 

populations because the action 

proposed increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: January 14, 2014. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02574 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0713, FRL–9906–33– 

Region–10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10- 

Year PM10 Limited Maintenance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is reopening the 

public comment period on the notice of 

proposed rulemaking ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

Washington: Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 

Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan’’ published on 

December 26, 2013. A commenter 

requested additional time to review the 

proposal and prepare comments. In 

response to this request, the EPA is 

reopening the comment period. 

DATES: For the proposed rule published 

December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78311), 

comments must be received in writing 

by March 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0713, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013– 

0713. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS