# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 79 Fed. Reg. 55645 2014

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Sep 1 16:53:24 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

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

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana Indiana citation Subject effective EPA approval date Notes date

Article 4. Burning Regulations

Rule 1.Open Burning1

4-1-0.5

.................................... Definitions

............................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal Register citation]. 4-1-1

....................................... Scope

..................................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal Register citation]. 4-1-2

....................................... Prohibition against open burn- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal ing. Register citation]. 4-1-3

....................................... Exemptions

............................. 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal Register citation]. 4-1-4

....................................... Emergency burning

................ 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal Register citation]. 4-1-4.1

.................................... Open burning approval; cri- 12/15/2002 09/17/2014, [insert Federal teria and conditions. Register citation]. 4-1-4.2

.................................... Open burning; approval rev- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal ocation. Register citation]. 4-1-4.3

.................................... Open burning approval; dele- 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal gation of authority. Register citation].

Rule 2. Incinerators

4-2-1

....................................... Applicability

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

....................................... Incinerators

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

....................................... Portable incinerators (Re- 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531. pealed).

1EPA is approving Rule 1 for the counties of Adams, Allen, Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clay, Clinton, Crawford, Daviess Dearborn, Decatur, De Kalb, Delaware, Dubois, Elkhart, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fulton, Gibson, Grant, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Harrison, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Huntington, Jackson, Jasper, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Kosciusko, La Porte, Lagrange, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Martin, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Parke, Perry, Pike, Posey, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Ripley, Rush, St. Joseph, Scott, Shelby, Spencer, Starke, Steuben, Sullivan, Switzerland, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Union, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Wabash, Warren, Warrick, Washington, Wayne, Wells, White, and Whitley.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686; FRL9916-12- Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas forAirQuality Planning Purposes; State ofArizona; Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa Area to Attainment forthe 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is approving, as a revision
to theArizona state implementation plan, a request from the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area to attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or "standard") because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act. EPA isalso approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area for 10 years beyond redesignation, and the inventories and related motor vehicle emissions budgets within the plan, because they meetthe applicable requirements for suchplans and budgets.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686. Generally, documents in the docket for this action

are available electronically at www.regulations.govand inhard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some maynot be publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normalbusiness hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us,"

or "our" refer to EPA.

Table ofContents

I. Summary ofProposed Action

A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained theApplicable NAAQS55645

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

B. Determination That the Area Has a Fully

Approved SIPMeeting Requirements Applicable forPurposes ofRedesignation Under Section 110 and Part D C. Determination That the Improvement in

Air Qualityin the AreaIs Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions D. Approval oftheMaintenance Plan for

the Area Under CAA Section 175A II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule III. FinalAction IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary ofProposed Action

On March 26, 2014 (79 FR 16734), we proposed to take several related actions. First, under Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") section 110(k)(3), EPA proposed

to approve a March 23, 2009 submittal from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) of the Maricopa Association ofGovernments' (MAG's)plan titled "MAG Eight-Hour OzoneRedesignationRequestand MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa Nonattainment Area," (February 2009) ("Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan")

as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP).'

In connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA proposed
to find that the maintenance demonstration showing that the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS 2for 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency provisions meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. EPA also proposed to find adequate and approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Planbecause

we found that they meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve ADEQ's request that accompanied the submittal ofthe maintenance plan to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We did so based on our proposed approval ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, and our conclusion thatthe area has met the criteria for redesignation

'The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozonenonattainment

area is sometimes referred toas the Maricopa nonattainment area. The preciseboundaries ofthe

area are found at 40CFR 81.303.

2The 1997 8-hour ozonestandard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm)averaged over an 8-hourtime frame. Ground-level ozone isan oxidant that is formed from photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic compounds (VOC)and oxides ofnitrogen (NOx)in thepresence ofsunlight. under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion wasbased on our determination that the area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that relevant portions oftheArizona SIP are fully approved, that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, and that Arizona has met all the section 110 and part D requirements ofthe CAA that are applicable to thePhoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for purposes ofredesignation.

For thepurposes ofthisfinal rule, we have summarized thebasis for our findings in connection with the proposed approvals oftheEight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and redesignation request. Fora more detailed explanation as well as background information concerning the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA requirements forredesignation, and the

ozone planning history ofthe PhoenixMesa area, please see our March 26, 2014, proposed rule.

A. DeterminationThattheAreaHas AttainedtheApplicableNAAQS

Prior to redesignating an area to attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that we determine thatthe area has attained theNAAQS. Forour proposed rule, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air monitoring data for themonitoring period from 2010 through 2012, as recorded in the EPAAir Quality System (AQS) database, and determined, based

on the complete, quality-assured, and certified data for 2010-2012, thatthe Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because the design value3is lessthan 0.084ppm. 4

We alsoreviewed preliminary data from 2013 and found thatit was consistent with continued attainment ofthe standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area. See pages 16737-16739 ofourMarch 26, 2014 proposed rule.

In the proposed rule, we anticipated thatby the time we tookfinal action, data for year 2013 wouldbe certified, and that preliminary data for a portion ofyear 2014 would be available. In

3The design value for the 8-hour standard is the three-year averageof the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration atthe
worst-case monitoring site in the area. Whenthe design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFRpart 50, appendix I) at each monitoring site within the
area, the area is meetingthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

4Our proposedrule also includes a table (atpage 16743, table 2) that shows that design values have been consistent with attainment ofthe 1997 ozone standard since the 2005-2007 period. anticipation ofthe newly certified and available data, we also indicated that,in

our final action, we would update our attainment determination for the Phoenix-Mesa area based on complete, certified data for 2011-2013 and would review preliminary data for 2014. As expected, the relevant certifications have been submitted,5 andbased on review ofcomplete, certified data for 2011-2013, we findthat the 8-hour

ozone design value for 2011-2013 for the Phoenix-Mesa area is 0.081 parts per million (ppm)based onthe data from the monitoring site (North Phoenix) recording the highest design value among the various monitoring sites within the nonattainment area.Like the designvalue for 2010-2012 documented in the proposed rule, the design value for 2011-2013 isbelow 0.084ppm, and is, thus, consistent with attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Preliminary datafor 2014 are also consistent with continued attainment.

B. DeterminationThattheAreaHasa FullyApprovedSIPMeeting RequirementsApplicableforPurposes ofRedesignationUnderSection110and PartD

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)ofthe CAA require EPAto determine thatthe

area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) thatmeets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part Dfor the purposes of redesignation. For the reasons summarized below, we findthat the Phoenix-Mesa area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that
meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes ofredesignation. See pages 16739- 16741 ofour March 26, 2014 proposed rule.

With respect to section 110 ofthe CAA (General SIP Requirements), we conclude thatthe Phoenix-Mesa portion ofthe approved SIP, which includes rules pertaining to areas and sources under the jurisdiction ofADEQ, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD), meet all SIP requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa area that are applicable for purposes of redesignation. Our conclusion in this regard isbased on our review ofthe Phoenix-Mesa portion oftheArizona SIP.

5See letters from Michael Sundblom, Air Quality Director, Pinal County Air QualityControl District, dated April 21, 2014; Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division,ADEQ, datedMay 30, 2014; and Dennis Dickerson, Acting Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, datedJune 3, 2014.

### Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55647

With respect to partD (oftitle I ofthe CAA), we reviewed the Phoenix-Mesa portion oftheArizona SIP for compliance with applicable requirements for nonattainment areas under both subparts 1and 2.6 First, we note thatEPA previously approved the Eight-Hour Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area based upon the determination that itmet all applicable requirements for such plans under subpart 1ofpart D, title 1 ofthe CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 35285, June 13, 2012), including the requirements for an emissions inventory, for contingency measures, and for demonstrations of implementation ofreasonably available control measures, ofreasonable further
progress, and ofattainment by the applicable attainment date. As tothe other applicable subpart 1requirements,

we findthat:

* Arizona has met the nonattainment applicable New Source Review (NSR) requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa eight-hour ozone nonattainment area because rules meeting the fundamental nonattainment NSR requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas are approved in the Arizona SIP; and

* The requirements for transportation conformity SIPs under section 176(c) do
not apply for the purposes ofa redesignation requestunder section 107(d)(3) because state conformity rules

are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have notbeen approved. 7

With respect to therequirements associated with subpart 2,we noted that the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was initially designated nonattainment under subpart 1ofthe CAA,but was classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8- hour ozone standard under subpart 2 of part D ofthe CAA in May 2012,8 i.e., after Arizona's submittal ofthe redesignation request. Under EPA's longstanding policy ofevaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time a redesignation request is submitted, and in consideration oftheinequity of applying retroactively any requirements that mightin the future be applied, we determined that the additional requirements for marginal nonattainment areas do not applyto the

6Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements forall nonattainment areas ofany pollutant, including ozone, governed by aNAAQS. Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific requirements forozone nonattainment areas classified undersubpart 2.

7See Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this interpretation.

877 FR 28424, May 14, 2012. Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the purposes of redesignation.

C.DeterminationthattheImprovement inAirQualityin theAreaIsDue to PermanentandEnforceableEmissions Reductions
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation ofa nonattainment area to attainment unless EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent andenforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable regulations. Based on

our review ofthe control measures that provided for attainment ofthe nowrevoked one-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan area and the additional control measures adopted and approved for attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and based on
our consideration ofother factors such

as weather patterns and economic activity, 9we find thatthe improvement in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa area is theresult ofpermanent and enforceable emissions reductions from a combination ofnumerous EPAapproved State and local stationary

source and mobile source control
measures, along with federal motor vehicle and nonroad control programs. See pages 16741-16742 ofourMarch 26, 2014 proposed rule.

D.ApprovaloftheMaintenance Plan for theArea UnderCAA Section 175A

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) precludes EPA from redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment unless EPA has fully approved a plan for maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. The required elements ofa maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment are set forth inCAA section 175A. As explained in the proposed rule, we interpret this section oftheAct
to require, in general, the following core elements: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification ofcontinued attainment, and contingency plan.

Based on our review and evaluation of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, we conclude thatit contains the

9Specifically, wereviewed temperature data to determine ifunusualmeteorological conditions could have played a significantrole in attaining the 1997 ozone standard inthe Phoenix-Mesa area and determined that unusually favorable meteorology did notplay a significantrole. We also discussed the economic slowdown affecting the Phoenix-Mesa

area starting in2008 but noted that the downward trend in ozone concentrations had already been established well before that time. core elements and meets the requirements ofCAA section 175A. See
pages 16742-16748 ofourproposed rule. Our conclusion wasbased on the following findings:

* The base year emissions inventory for 2005 iscomprehensive, the methods and assumptions usedby MAG to develop the 2005 emission inventory are reasonable, andthe inventory reasonably estimates actual ozone
season emissions in an attainment year. Moreover, we found that the 2005 emissions inventories reflect the latest planning assumptions and emissions models available at the timethe plan

was developed, and provide a comprehensive and reasonably accurate basis upon which to forecast ozone precursor emissions for years 2019 and 2025;

* MAG's photochemical modeling adequately demonstrates maintenance for atleast 10 years after redesignation
to attainment;

* The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan indicates that ADEQand MCAQD will continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network toverify the continued attainment ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS;

* The continued operation ofan

ozone monitoring network and the requirement that MCAQD, with input from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, and MAG,
must inventory emissions sources and report to EPA on a periodicbasis '0 are sufficient for thepurpose ofverifying continued attainment; and

* The contingency provisions ofthe Ozone Maintenance Plan identify specific contingency measures," contain tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed, contain a sufficient description ofthe process ofrecommending and implementing contingency measures, and contain specific timelines for action, and will, therefore, be adequate
to ensure prompt correction of a violation and comply with the contingency-related requirements under CAA section 175A(d).

Lastly, we find adequate and are approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Planbecause

10

See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A ("Air Emissions Reporting Requirements").

11The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan includes both specific contingency measures (such

as the Gross Polluter Option for I/MProgram Waivers, Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options, and Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Emissions Standards, among others) that have already been adopted and are beingimplemented early, and a mechanism to trigger the adoption of additional

measures as needed. See pages 3-21 and 3-22 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

we findthat theymeet the transportation conformity adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Specifically, we findthat,
among other things, the MVEBs, when considered with emissions from all other sources, would be consistent with maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for
ten yearsbeyond redesignation.

II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule

EPA's March 26, 2014 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received
two comment letters. One comment letter was from a member ofthe public who supports EPA's proposed actions. The other letter,from Sierra Club,
opposes the proposed actions. A
summary ofSierra Club's comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
Comment:The Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove the State of Arizona's redesignation request for the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area because the inclusion ofState and Maricopa County rules in the Arizona SIP thatprovide an affirmative defense potentially applicable to violations due to excess emissions that occur during startup, shutdown, and malfunction ("SSM events") prevents EPA from determining that all applicable Clean Air Act requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations havebeen met. Specifically, Sierra Club contends that the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP prevent EPA from determining:
That the improvement in air quality is due to enforceable reductions as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) because the affirmative defense provisions applicable during SSM
events make emission reductions unenforceable;

* that the maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance ofthe NAAQS as required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(a) when emissions can increase above the emission inventory and allowable levels during SSM events; and

* that the State has met all requirements applicable tothe area under section 110 and part D as required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(a)(2)(A) because the emission limits in the SIP, at least during SSM events, are not enforceable because of the affirmative defense provisions.

In support ofthis claim, the Sierra Club notes thatEPA has found in other actions 12 thatillegal SSM provisions related to emissions during SSM events constituted grounds for denying redesignation requests. Moreover, the Sierra Club notes thatEPA hasproposed

a SIP call forboth the State and Maricopa County affirmative defense provisions applicable during startup and shutdown events based on a finding that such provisions are inconsistent with the CAA. Sierra Club also cites a recent D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals decision (Natural ResourcesDefense Councilv.EPA,No. 10-1371 (D.C.Cir., Apr. 18, 2014- "CementKiln Decision"), 13 as standing for the principle that affirmative defense provisions, even those applicable only during malfunctions, are inconsistent with therequirements ofthe Clean Air Act because such provisions purport to alter or eliminate thejurisdiction of federal courts to assess penalties for violation in contravention ofsections 113 and 304. Lastly, Sierra Club includes a recent District Court opinion

as an example of a citizen enforcement action undermined by the presence in a SIP ofaffirmative defense provisions applicable during malfunction events. 1 4

Response:EPA does not agree that the affirmative defense provisions inthe State andMaricopa Countyportions of the Arizona SIP provide a basis for disapproving the redesignation request for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the reasons set forthbelow.

The CAA sets forth the general criteria for redesignation ofan area from nonattainment to attainment in section 107(d)(3)(E). These criteria include a determination by EPAthat the area has attained the relevant standard [section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)] and thatEPAhas fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area for purposes ofredesignation [section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)]. EPA must also determine thatthe improvement in air

12The commenter cites two FederalRegister
documents: aproposed disapproval of redesignation requests and maintenance plans for Salt Lake County, Utah County, and OgdenCity, Utah PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717, December 1, 2009), and a finalrule requiring Utah to revise SSM provisionsin its SIP (76FR 21639, April 18, 2011).

13The CementKilnDecisioninvolved a challenge
to EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013), in which EPA included

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations ofemissions standards that result from unavoidable malfunctions. In the CementKiln Decision,the Court vacated the portion ofthe 2013 rule pertaining to the affirmative defense.

14 SierraClubv.EnergyFutureHoldingsCorp., No. W-12-cv-108, W.D. Tex., memorandum opinion and orderfiled March 28, 2014. quality is due to reductions that are permanent and enforceable [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)], and that the EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under section 175A [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. EPA addressed all these criteria in the proposal to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
area. The commenter alleges that EPA's analysis is flawed because inclusion of the affirmative defense in the SIP makes the Agency's determination under redesignation criteria at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), (iv),and (v)invalid.

As EPA stated in itsproposed rule, CAA SIP requirements that are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification, including certain section 110 requirements, are not "applicable" for purposes ofevaluating compliance with the specific redesignation criteria in CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 79 FR at 16739, FN 22. EPA maintains this interpretation because these requirements remain applicable after an

area isredesignated to attainment. For at least the past 15 years, EPA has applied this interpretation withrespect to requirements to which a state will be subject after the area is redesignated. See, e.g., 73 FR 22307, 22312-22313 (April 25, 2008) (proposedredesignation ofSanJoaquin Valley; EPA concluded that section 110(a)(2)(D) transport requirements are not applicable under section 110(d)(3)(E)(v) because they "continue to apply to a state regardless ofthe designation ofany one particular

area in the state"); 62 FR 24826, 24829- 24830 (May 7, 1997) (redesignation of Reading, Pennsylvania, Area; EPA concluded that the additional controls required by section 184were not "applicable" for purposes ofsection 107(d)(3)(E) because "they remain in force regardless ofthe area's redesignation status"). Courts reviewing EPA's interpretation of"applicable" in the context ofrequirements applicable for redesignation have agreed with the Agency. See SierraClubv. EPA,375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Wallv. EPA, 265F.3d 426,438 (6th Cir. 2001). With respect to the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP, redesignation ofthe area to attainment will in no way relieve the State and Maricopa County oftheir responsibilities to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the SIP, ifEPA later takes action to require correction ofthe Arizona SIP with respect to the affirmative defense provisions. 15 Because we conclude that

15

EPA has proposed, under CAA section 110(k)(5), to find a numberof SIPs, including the 

### 55648 Federal Register/Vol. 79,

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

the affirmative defense provisions are not applicable requirements for
purposes ofthis redesignation action, the existence ofthe affirmative defense provisions in the SIP does not undermine our conclusion thatthe redesignation criteria under section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)have been met.

The affirmative defense provisions at issue provide an affirmative defense to monetary penalties forviolations due to

excess emissions for certain categories ofstationary sources during qualifying SSM events. 16 The Sierra Club maintains thatthe inclusion ofthese provisions in the SIP renders the emissions limits in the nonattainment SIP and maintenance plan that are subject to the affirmative defense provision unenforceable, thus undermining the Agency's conclusion that theimprovement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), and the conclusion that themaintenance plan will ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS prospectively as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). The Sierra Club did not explain the precise basis for its claim that potential assertion ofthe affirmative defenses at issue would render the existing EPA approved SIP inconsistent with the criteria under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv), and thus, in effect, invites EPAto determine that the existence in the SIP of affirmative defense provisions, without regard tothe types of sources relied
upon for attainment and maintenance, per se means that EPA may not make a positive determination withrespect to the redesignation criteria under CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv). We do
not believe that the redesignation criteria must be interpreted so narrowly, but may be interpreted to account for the larger planning context in a given

area.

As noted above, the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP purport to allow sources to avoid monetary penalties forviolations ofan

Arizona SIP, substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because the SIP provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions during certain SSMevents. See 78 FR 12460, at 12533- 12536 (February 22, 2013).

16

EPA approved the State's SSM affirmative
defense rules priorto designatingthe Phoenix-Mesa Area non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See [Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-310 ("Affirmative Defenses for Excess Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown")] at 66 FR 48087 (September 18, 2001) and Maricopa County's SSM affirmative defense rule [Maricopa County Rule 140 ("Excess Emissions") at 67 FR 54957 (August 27, 2002). At the time EPA approved the affirmative defense provisions as apart ofthe SIP, the Agencybelieved them to beconsistentwith CAA requirements. applicable emissions limit under certain limited circumstances, but those provisions do not prohibit the state, EPA or citizens from seeking injunctive reliefto force a source that is violating the applicable SIP emission limitations
to take steps to address the noncompliance. Penalties are not the only

means to address exceedances ofa SIP emission limitation, even though the possibility or threat ofpenalties provides deterrence against violations and may cause a source to agree more readily tocorrect a problem prospectively. The continued availability ofinjunctive reliefsupports EPA's contention that the emissions limits in the SIP are sufficiently enforceable forpurposes of redesignation, even though EPA now believes that such affirmative defense provisions in SIPs are not consistent with the CAA and mustbe revised. Second, attainment ofthe 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and maintenance ofthe standard through 2025 primarily rely upon emission limits on mobile and area sources to which the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP do not apply. For example, all ofthe specific control measures relied uponby the
state for numeric credit for attainment and maintenance planning purposes, with very minor exceptions, apply to mobile and area sources. See figures ES3and ES-4 on pages ES-4 and ES-5 in the approved Eight-Hour OzonePlan for theMaricopaNonattainment Area (June 2007); andfigures ES-2 and ES-3 on pages ES-5 and ES-6 in theEight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. These control

measures relate to nonroad equipment standards, fuel formulations, and inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements rather than stationary

source controls.

This is not to say that controls on stationary source are not an important part ofthe overall ozone control strategy in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Rather, the point isthat the extent to which individual stationary sources, which might assert an affirmative defense for

an SSM event thatwould likely have occurred even in the absence ofan affirmative defense, can affect regional

ozone concentrations in thePhoenixMesa area is likely limited. For instance, based on the emissions inventory for this area, the highest-emitting individual stationary sources in the Phoenix-Mesa area emit approximately 0.80 metric tons per day (mtpd)ofVOC and 2.55 mtpd ofNOxbased onthe individual facility data for 2005 compiled in appendix A, exhibit 1of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. Such emissions constitute approximately 0.12% and 0.94% ofthe overall regional inventory forVOC and NOx, respectively.

Moreover, overall point source 17 emissions in thePhoenix-Mesa area constitute only 1.7% and 4.0% ofVOC and NOx emissions, respectively,based

on the 2005 inventories presented on pages ES-8 and ES-9 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. These values underscore theimportance ofmobile and area (andbiogenic) sources, to which the affirmative defense provisions do not apply, tothe regional inventory, and by extension, to regional

ozone concentrations. The current design value for thePhoenix-Mesa area, meanwhile, which isequal to the projected design value, is 0.081 ppm, five percent below the applicable NAAQS. Thus, the hypothetical potential for any one individual point
source, oreven small subset ofsuch
sources, to cause a violation ofthe 1997

ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa

area due tohigher emissions thatwould likely have occurred in the absence of the affirmative defense provisions, is quite low.For these reasons, we conclude thatthe affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP donot make the emission limits relied uponfor attainment and maintenance unenforceable for the purposes ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv)or otherwise undermine EPA's approval, finalized herein, ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and related grant ofADEQ's redesignation request for the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997

ozone standard.

Sierra Club also contends thatEPA has previously found in other actions that illegal SSM provisions constitute grounds for denying redesignation requests and references EPA's December 1, 2009 proposed disapproval ofUtah's redesignation requests for Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717). However, this aspect ofthe proposed disapproval, which was one of
many deficiencies identifiedby EPA,

was based on the state's inclusion in the submittal ofnew SIP revisions that would provide blanket exemptions from compliance with emission standards during SSM events. In the redesignation
atissue here, the state did not seek to create new SIP provisions that are inconsistent with CAArequirements as part ofitsredesignation request or

17The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan defines "point sources" as stationary sources that emit 25 (English)tons peryearor more ofcarbon monoxide, 10tons peryear ormore ofozone precursors, or 5 tons ormore ofPM 10 orammonia compounds. See page 11 of appendix A, exhibit 1 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

### 55650 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations

maintenance plan, and the already existing affirmative defense provisions do not purport to preclude allpotential forms ofenforcement, or to provide a blanket exemption from compliance.

A more analogous action by EPAis the Agency's finalredesignation ofthe Ohio portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland (OH-WV-KY) nonattainment area to attainment for the fine particulate
matter standard (PM2
.5)standard. See 77 FR 76883 (December 31, 2012). In response to comments challenging the proposed redesignation due to the presence ofcertain SSM provisions in the Ohio SIP, EPA concluded thatthe SSMprovisions in the Ohio SIP did not provide abasis for disapproving the redesignation request.Id., at 76891, 76892. In so concluding, EPA noted that the SSM provisions and related SIP limits at issue in that state were approved into the SIP and thus were permanent and enforceable for the
purposes ofmeeting the criteria for redesignation, and that EPAhad other statutory mechanisms for addressing any problems associated with the SSM

measures. EPA emphasizes thatthe redesignation ofthe area to attainment does not relieve Arizona ofthe responsibility toremove legally deficient SIP provisions either independently or pursuant to a SIP call. To the contrary, EPA maintains thatit may determine thatthe affirmative defense provisions are contrary to CAA requirements and take action torequire correction ofthose provisions even after the area hasbeen redesignated to attainment. This interpretation is consistent withprior redesignation actions. See SouthwesternPennsylvania GrowthAlliancev. EPA, 114 F.3d 984 (6thCir. 1998) (Redesignation of Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area determined valid even though the Agency subsequently proposed a SIP call torequire Ohio and other states to revise their SIPs to mitigate ozone transport to other states).

As ofthis time, the State's and Maricopa County's affirmative defense provisions are part ofthe approved SIP, andEPA is not required to re-evaluate the validity ofpreviously approved SIP provisions as part ofthis redesignation.18 Ifapproved SIP provisions are separately determined to be deficient, EPA is able to evaluate

18

See September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at page 3; SouthwesternPennsylvaniaGrowthAlliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d, 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); 68 FR 25418, 25426, May 12, 2003. those concerns in the appropriate context, and can, ifnecessary, issue a "SIP call," whichtriggers a requirement for states to submit a corrective SIP revision.

EPA acknowledges that we are currently evaluating a petition that pertains to EPA's SSM Policythat interprets the requirements ofthe CAA with respect to the propertreatment of

excess emissions during SSM events in SIP provisions. As part ofthatprocess, EPA is separately evaluating the issue of whether states have authority tocreate, and EPA has authority to approve, any affirmative defense provisions in SIPs. On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a "Petition to Find Inadequate and Correct Several State Implementation Plans under Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and/or Maintenance Provisions." The petition includes interrelated requests concerning the
treatment ofexcess emissions in state rules by sources during periods ofSSM. On February 22, 2013, EPAproposed to grant in part and deny in part the request in the petition to rescind its policy interpreting the CAAto allow
states tohave appropriately drawn SIP provisions that provide affirmative defenses to monetary penalties for violations during periods ofSSM (78 FR 12460). EPA also proposed either to grant or to deny the petition with respect to the specific existing SIP provisions related to SSM events in each ofthe 39 states identified by the Sierra Club as inconsistent with the CAA. In this context, EPAhas proposed
to grant the petitionwith respect toboth the State's and Maricopa County's affirmative defense provisions for startup and shutdown periods, and to deny the petition withrespect to the arguments concerning the agencies' affirmative defense provisions for periods ofmalfunction. Under EPA's February 2013 proposal, a schedule has been proposed for states to submit corrective SIP revisions.

The Sierra Club also argues thatthe CementKilnDecision,issuedby the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals on April 18, 2014, prevents EPA from approving
any affirmative defense provisions in SIPs because they are inconsistent with CAA provisions relevant to citizen enforcement under sections 113 and 304. In the decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated affirmative defense provisions applicable toviolations due to unavoidable malfunctions provided in EPA's standard for emissions from Portland cement plants.19 The court concluded that sections 113 and 304 preclude EPA from creating such affirmative defense provision in its own regulations because itwould purport to alteror eliminate thejurisdiction of federal courts to assess civil penalties for violations ofCAA requirements. EPA is currently analyzing this opinion and is evaluating its impact on our interpretation ofthe CAA regarding the permissibility ofaffirmative defenses in SIP provisions, including those applicable to malfunctions. In the event that EPA determines thatno affirmative defense provisions are permissible in SIPs, the Agency will have the authority and discretion to require the states to

remove deficient provisions from the SIPs pursuant to section 110(k)(5). EPA maintains thatthis concern isbetter addressed through the exercise ofthat authority, than through its authority to redesignate areas that otherwise attain the NAAQS and meet the requirements ofsection 107(d)(3), consistent with EPA's long standing approach to evaluating requests for redesignation to attainment.

In conclusion, withregard to the redesignation ofthe Phoenix-Mesa area, Arizona has a fully approved SIP. The provisions that the Sierra Club objects to do not preclude EPA's determination that the emissions reductions thathave provided for attainment and thatwill provide for maintenance ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone standard in thePhoenixMesa area are permanent and enforceable, as those terms are meant in section 107(d)(3) ofthe CAA, or that the
state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes ofredesignation. In addition, the area has attained the 1997 8-hourozone standard since 2007, and has demonstrated itcan maintain compliance with the standard for at least 10 years after redesignation to attainment. EPA notes, moreover, thatit is approving contingency provisions under section 175A(d) as part ofthe area's maintenance plan. The contingency element ofthe maintenance plan provides assurance thatthe area

canpromptly correct a violation that might occur after redesignation. Finally, EPA is addressing the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP in separate action or actions, and redesignation ofthe area to attainment will in no way relieve the State and Maricopa County oftheir responsibilities to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the SIP, ifEPA later takes final action to

19National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Industry and Standards ofPerformance for Portland Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013).

### Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55651

require suchrevisions to theArizona SIP.

III. Final Action

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons provided above and in the proposed rule, EPA is approving ADEQ's submittal dated March 23, 2009 oftheMAG Eight-Hour Ozone RedesignationRequest and MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009) ("Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan") as a revision to the Arizona SIP. In connection with the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency provisions
meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A.

EPA isalso finding adequate and approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for transportation conformity purposes because we findthatthey meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). The MVEBs are 43.8 metric tonsper day (mtpd)ofVOC and 101.8 mtpd ofNOx. They include a 10% safety margin, and correspond to the peak episode day (Thursday)in June 2025 thatwas used
to model maintenance ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

These new MVEBs become effective

on the date ofpublication ofthis final rule in the FederalRegister (see 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)) and must be used by U.S. Department ofTransportation and the Maricopa Association ofGovernments for future transportation conformity analyses for the Phoenix-Mesa area with applicable horizon years after 2024. The existing 2008 VOC and NOxMVEBs established in MAG's approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan also remain in effect. On-road motorvehicle emissions in any required analysis years up to and including 2024 cannot exceed levels established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs.

Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving ADEQ's request, which accompanied the submittal ofthe maintenance plan, to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2 0
We are doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this regard isin turn based on our determination that the area has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS; thatrelevant portions ofthe Arizona SIP are fully approved; that the improvement in air quality isdue to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; that Arizona has met all requirements applicable tothe Phoenix-Mesa area with respect to section 110 and partD ofthe CAA; and that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the requirements ofCAA section 175A (i.e., the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan approved herein).

IV. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation ofan

area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying approval ofa maintenance plan as a SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) are actions that affect the status ofa geographical area and do notimpose
any additional regulatory requirements

on sources beyond those imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and ofitselfcreate any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability ofrequirements contained in the CAA for areas thathave been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator isrequired to approve

a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role isto approve State choices, provided that theymeet the criteria ofthe Clean AirAct. Accordingly, these actions merely approve a State plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposedby
state law. Forthese reasons, these actions: * Are not a "significant regulatory action" subject toreview by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); * Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions

20As noted in ourproposed rule at 79 FR 16736, EPAhas lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the2008 8-hour ozone standard), and has designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Today's action redesignates the Phoenix-Mesa area

as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard only. The Phoenix-Mesa area remains nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour

ozone standard until redesignated for that standard. ofthePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

* Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.);

* Do not contain any unfunded mandate orsignificantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (Pub.L. 104-4);

* Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

* Are not an economically significant regulatory actionbased onhealth or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

* Are not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

* Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition,this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Nonetheless, in accordance with EPA's 2011 Policy onConsultation and Coordination with Tribes, EPAhas discussed the actions with the three Tribes located within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hourozone nonattainment area: The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and the Tohono O'odham Nation.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rulemust submita rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General oftheUnited States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United Statesprior to publication ofthe rule in55652 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17,

the Federal Register. A majorrule
cannot take effectuntil 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by theAdministrator of this final rule does not affect the finality ofthis action for the purposes ofjudicial review nordoes itextend the time within which a petitionfor judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule

oraction. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40CFRPart 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFRPart81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: August 20, 2014. Jared Blumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX. Chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

m 1. The authority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart D-Arizona

* 2.Section 52.120 is amendedby adding paragraph (c)(160) to read as follows:
§52.120 Identificationof plan.

(c) * * * (160) The following plan was submitted on March 23, 2009, bythe Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional materials. (A)Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (1)MAGEight-HourOzone RedesignationRequest and MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009), adopted by theArizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 23, 2009, excluding the appendices.

* * * * *

PART 81-DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES

* 3.The authority citationfor part81 continues to read as follows:

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

* 4. Section 81.303 is amended by: * a.Removing thetable heading "Arizona-Ozone (Arizona-1997 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" and adding in its place "Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and * b. Inthe newly headed table "Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)," under "Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:" revising the entries for "Maricopa County (part)" and "Pinal County (part)".

The revision reads as follows:
§81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]

Designation a Category/ Designated area classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: M

aricopa County (part)

..................................................................................... 10/17/2014 Attainment. 2014 /Rules and RegulationsFederal Register/Vol. 79, No. 180/Wednesday, September 17, 2014/Rules and Regulations 55653

ARIZONA-1997 8-HoUR OZONE NAAQS-Continued [Primary and Secondary]

Designation a Category/ Designated area classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

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

T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E; T1N, RiW; T1N, R2W; T1N, R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E; T2N, R5E, T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N, R1OE; T2N, R11E; T2N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R13E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, RiW; T2N, R2W; T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N, R7W; T3N, R1E; T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E; T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, RllE (exceptthat portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, RiW; T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N, R5W; T3N, R6W; T4N, R1 E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E; T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, Ri 1E (exceptthat portion in Gila County); T4N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, RiW; T4N, R2W; T4N, R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E; T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; T5N, R7E; T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T5N, RiW; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W; T6N, R1 E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E; T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, RiW (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W; T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, RiE (except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R2E; (except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E; T7N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T7N, RiW (except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R2W (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R2E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R5E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R6E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T8N, R9E (exceptthat portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1 S, R1 E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that portion in Pinal County and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S, RiW; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T2S, R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, RiW; T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, RiW; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W; T4S, 1E; T4S, RiW; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S, R5W. PinalCoun ty (part)

................................................................................................... Apache Junction: T1N, R8E; T1S, R8E (Sections 1through 12) 10/17/2014 Attainment.

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

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0324; FRL-9915-81]

ButanedioicAcid, 2-methylene-, Polymer With 2,5-fuandione, Sodium and Ammonium Salts, Hydrogen Peroxide-Initiated; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues ofbutanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 2,5- furandione, sodium and ammonium salts, hydrogen peroxide-initiated when used as an inert ingredient in apesticide formulation. Technology Sciences Group Inc. onbehalf ofSpecialty Fertilizer Products LLC. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to