Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 63185 

Dated: October 13, 2015. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–26386 Filed 10–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0645; FRL–9935–80– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; Phoenix, Arizona; 

Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Arizona. On March 9, 2005, the EPA 

redesignated Phoenix, Arizona from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

carbon monoxide (CO) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and approved the State’s plan 

addressing the area’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS for ten years. On April 2, 2013, 

the State of Arizona submitted to the 

EPA a second maintenance plan for the 

Phoenix area that addressed 

maintenance of the NAAQS for an 

additional ten years. The EPA is also 

proposing to find adequate and approve 

a transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for 

the year 2025 and beyond. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0645, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

If you need to include CBI as part of 

your comment, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets for instructions. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kelly, Planning Office (Air–2), Air 

Division, Region 9, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 

(415) 947–4151, kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials AADT mean or refer 

to Annual Average Daily Traffic. 

(iii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer 

to Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(iv) The initials ANP mean or refer to 

Annual Monitoring Network Plans, 

commonly known as Annual Network 

Plans or ANP. 

(v) The initials CO mean or refer to 

carbon monoxide. 

(vi) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(vii) The initials MAG mean or refer 

to the Maricopa Association of 

Governments. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP19OC15.006</GPH>
63186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

extended through 2015. Thus, the second 10-year 

period extends through 2025. 

(viii) The initials MCAQD mean or 

refer to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department. 

(ix) The initials MVEB mean or refer 

to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. 

(x) The initials mtpd mean or refer to 

metric tons per day. 

(xi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(xii) The initials ppm mean or refer to 

parts per million. 

(xiii) The initials RTP mean or refer 

to Regional Transportation Plan. 

(xiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xv) The initials TIP mean or refer to 

Transportation Improvement Plan. 

(xvi) The initials TSA mean or refer to 

an air monitoring program Technical 

Systems Audit. 

(xvii) The words Arizona and State 

mean or refer to the State of Arizona. 

I. Background 

A. Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona 

Attainment Status 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix 

metropolitan area in Maricopa County, 

Arizona (hereinafter referred to as 

Phoenix, the Phoenix area or the area) 

was designated and classified as a 

moderate CO nonattainment area. On 

July 29, 1996, the EPA found that the 

area had not attained the CO NAAQS by 

the moderate attainment date and the 

area was reclassified to serious 

nonattainment by operation of law, 

effective August 28, 1996. 61 FR 39343. 

The primary CO NAAQS are attained 

when ambient concentration design 

values do not exceed either the 1-hour 

35 parts per million (ppm) standard or 

the 8-hour 9 ppm standard more than 

once per year. 40 CFR 50.8(a). There 

have been no violations in Phoenix of 

the 1-hour CO standard since 1984 and 

no violations of the 8-hour standard 

since 1996. 2013 Maintenance Plan, 

page 1–1. The EPA determined in 2003 

that the area had attained the CO 

NAAQS by the area’s December 31, 

2000 attainment deadline. 68 FR 55008, 

September 22, 2003. This determination 

did not affect the designation of the area 

as nonattainment or its classification as 

a serious area. 

On May 30, 2003, the State of Arizona 

submitted a request to the EPA to 

redesignate Phoenix from 

nonattainment to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS. Along with this request, the 

State submitted a CAA section 175A(a) 

maintenance plan which demonstrated 

that the area would maintain the CO 

NAAQS for the first 10 years following 

our approval of the redesignation 

request (‘‘2003 CO Maintenance Plan’’). 

We approved the State’s redesignation 

request and 10-year maintenance plan 

on March 9, 2005, effective April 8, 

2005. 70 FR 11553. For a detailed 

history of the CO planning efforts in the 

area up to 2004, please see the 

Technical Support Document that 

accompanied the EPA’s proposal to 

approve the first 10-year maintenance 

plan for the area. 69 FR 60328, October 

8, 2004. 

B. 2013 CO Maintenance Plan 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the State to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to the 

EPA, covering a second 10-year period.1

The second maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued compliance with 

the NAAQS during this second 10-year 

period. To fulfill this requirement of the 

CAA, Arizona submitted the second 10- 

year update of the Phoenix area CO 

maintenance plan to the EPA on April 

2, 2013. The plan was developed by the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

(MAG) and is titled ‘‘MAG 2013 Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the 

Maricopa County Area’’ (hereinafter, 

‘‘2013 Maintenance Plan’’). MAG is the 

State’s delegated Agency with authority 

to develop SIPs for Maricopa County. 

With this action, we are proposing to 

approve the 2013 Maintenance Plan as 

a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the Act defines 

conformity as meeting the SIP’s purpose 

of eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the NAAQS 

and achieving expeditious attainment of 

such standards. The Act further defines 

transportation conformity to mean that 

no Federal transportation activity will: 

(1) Cause or contribute to any new 

violation of any standard in any area; (2) 

increase the frequency or severity of any 

existing violation of any standard in any 

area; or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. The Federal transportation 

conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart 

A, sets forth the criteria and procedures 

for demonstrating and assuring 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs and projects which are 

developed, funded or approved by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and 

by metropolitan planning organizations 

or other recipients of Federal funds 

under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

Transit Laws. 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. 

The transportation conformity rule 

applies within all nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. As prescribed by the 

transportation conformity rule, once an 

area has an applicable SIP with MVEBs, 

the expected emissions from planned 

transportation activities must be 

consistent with such established 

budgets for that area. 

With this action, the EPA proposes to 

find adequate and approve a CO 

transportation conformity MVEB for the 

year 2025 and beyond. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Submittal 

The 2013 Maintenance Plan contains 

the following major sections: 

1. Introduction. This section contains 

a general discussion of CO plan 

approvals and the area’s redesignation 

to attainment. 2013 Maintenance Plan, 

Chapter 1. 

2. Continued Attainment of the 

Carbon Monoxide NAAQS. This section 

includes some historical background, a 

description of the CO monitoring 

network in Phoenix, monitoring results 

and the State’s demonstration that the 

area has continued to attain the CO 

standards, and information regarding 

the State’s monitoring data quality 

assurance program. 2013 Maintenance 

Plan, Chapter 2. 

3. Maintenance Plan. This section 

includes control measures, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network 

information and verification that the 

area has continued to attain the CO 

standards, contingency provisions, a 

transportation conformity budget and 

subsequent maintenance plan revisions. 

2013 Maintenance Plan, Chapter 3. 

The following is the EPA’s evaluation 

of the ambient air monitoring 

information and maintenance plan 

provided in the State’s submittal. 

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data 

The primary NAAQS for CO are: ‘‘(1) 

9 parts per million (10 milligrams per 

cubic meter) for an 8-hour average 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year and (2) 35 parts per 

million (40 milligrams per cubic meter) 

for a 1-hour average concentration not to 

be exceeded more than once per year.’’ 

40 CFR 50.8. At the time of submittal of 

the 2013 Maintenance Plan in March 

2013, there had been no violations in 

Phoenix of the 1-hour carbon monoxide 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 63187 

2 Design values were derived from the EPA Air 

Trends (http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/ 

values.html) Web site. 

standard since 1984 and no violations of the 8-hour standard since 1996. 2013 

Maintenance Plan, page 1–1. 

TABLE 1—CO DESIGN VALUES FOR PHOENIX, AZ, YEARS 2005–2014 

Design values (ppm) 2

Years 

1-Hour 8-Hour 

7.0 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4.6 2005 

6.5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4.6 2006 

6.0 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4.1 2007 

4.5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.0 2008 

4.8 ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.3 2009 

8.9 ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.2 2010 

3.9 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.9 2011 

4.5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.5 2012 

4.2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.7 2013 

4.9 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.8 2014 

The EPA also examined monitoring 

data for Phoenix from the entire period 

covered by the first maintenance plan. 

Table 1 shows the complete, quality 

assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring design values for CO in the 

area for the years 2005 to 2014. The 

monitoring data show the area has not 

violated the CO standards during the 

first maintenance period. The EPA notes 

the trend of 8-hour CO design values 

decreasing during this period, as also 

described in the 2013 Maintenance Plan 

for the years 2004 to 2011. 2013 

Maintenance Plan, figure 2–2, page 2–8. 

B. Maintenance Plan Control Measures 

The State and MAG commit to 

continue to implement the nine control 

measures listed in the 2003 

Maintenance Plan, and have 

implemented a tenth control measure 

that had been identified in that plan as 

a contingency measure. 2013 

Maintenance Plan, page 3–1. Table 2 

lists these control measures. 2013 

Maintenance Plan, table 3–1, page 3–2. 

TABLE 2—MAINTENANCE MEASURES IN

THE 2013 MAINTENANCE PLAN

1. California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5% Oxygen Content from November 1 through March 31 

2. Off-Road Vehicle and Engine Standards 

3. Phased-in Emission Test Cutpoints 

4. One-Time Waiver from Vehicle Emissions Test 

5. Defer Emissions Associated with Government Activities 

6. Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems 

7. Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems 

8. Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emissions Test Compliance 

TABLE 2—MAINTENANCE MEASURES IN

THE 2013 MAINTENANCE PLAN— 

Continued 

9. Clean Burning Fireplace Ordinances 

10. Expansion of Area A Boundaries 

The tenth control measure listed in 

Table 2 is described in the 2003 

Maintenance Plan as a contingency 

measure. 2003 Maintenance Plan, 

Exhibit 2, Appendix A, Technical 

Support Document, Section VII–2–2. 

The State has implemented the 

expansion of Area A boundaries and the 

EPA approved the expansion of Area A 

boundaries as a revision to the Arizona 

SIP on May 22, 2013. 78 FR 30209. 

C. Emissions Inventories 

The 2013 Maintenance Plan provides 

a comparison of actual CO emissions in 

the Phoenix maintenance area in 2008 

with projected emissions in 2025. 2003 

Maintenance Plan, page 3–4, table 3–3. 

These emissions are for an average 

weekday during the winter season, the 

months November to January. The 2008 

emissions are taken from the latest 

periodic emissions inventory for the 

area, the 2008 periodic emissions 

inventory, which is included in 

Appendix A, Exhibit 1 of the 2013 

Maintenance Plan. Emissions for the 

year 2025 used growth factors for the 

area derived from the 2005 special U.S. 

census conducted in the area and EPA 

models for estimating onroad emissions 

and nonroad equipment emissions, as 

well as the Emissions and Dispersion 

Modeling System and the Federal 

Aviation Administration Terminal Area 

Forecast system database for all airports 

except Luke Air Force Base (AFB). 

Emissions of CO from the Luke AFB 

were derived from two documents: the 

first, titled ‘‘2008 Mobile Source 

Emissions Inventory for Luke Air Force 

Base,’’ prepared by Weston Solutions, 

Inc. for the Air Education and Training 

Command, U.S. Air Force, Randolph 

AFB, Texas, in June 2010; the second 

document is titled ‘‘F–35A Training 

Basing Environmental Impact 

Statement, Final Volume 1,’’ prepared 

by the U.S. Air Force in 2012. 

Several emissions reductions are 

credited in the projected emissions for 

the year 2025. The first two control 

measures listed in Table 2, California 

Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5 

percent Oxygen Content from November 

1 through March 31, and Off-Road 

Vehicle and Engine Standards, are 

estimated to produce reductions of CO 

emissions of 128.9 mtpd and 15 mtpd, 

respectively. These reductions represent 

about a 19 percent reduction of 

emissions by 2025. The State and MAG 

commit to continued implementation of 

all other control measures listed in 

Table 2. However, their collective 

reduction is expected to be less than one 

percent of 2025 emissions, and therefore 

no numeric credit was taken for those 

measures in the State’s projections of 

CO emissions in 2025. 

Details regarding the technical inputs 

and assumptions used in preparing the 

emissions inventories are provided in 

Chapter II of the technical support 

document for the 2013 Maintenance 

plan, in Appendix A, Exhibit 2. The 

results of MAG’s inventory of actual 

emissions in 2008 and projected 

emissions in 2025 are provided in Table 

3. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE WEEKDAY EMISSIONS DURING THE WINTER SEASON IN THE PHOENIX CO MAINTENANCE AREA, IN

METRIC TONS PER DAY (MTPD) 

Source category 

CO Emissions 

2008 2025 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.7 19.8 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 37.8 47.3 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................................................... 281.5 213.1 

Onroad ..................................................................................................................................................................... 581.6 359.4 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 901.6 639.6 

Compared to emissions in 2008, 

projected emissions in 2025 show a 

downward trend. Total CO emissions 

projected in the year 2025, 639.6 mtpd, 

represent approximately 70 percent of 

the actual emissions in the year 2008. 

D. Maintenance Demonstration 

The 2013 Maintenance Plan relies on 

a series of technical analyses to 

demonstrate maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS through the year 2025. MAG 

performed three different modeling 

analyses to project CO emissions out to 

the year 2025 and estimate their impact 

on maximum ambient CO 

concentration. In addition, MAG 

conducted two weight-of-evidence 

evaluations using actual trends in air 

quality and meteorological data to 

reinforce the modeling analyses. MAG 

also developed a modeling protocol to 

detail the technical approaches and 

assumptions to be used in 

demonstrating maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS. 2013 Maintenance Plan, 

Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Technical 

Support Document. 

MAG’s first modeling analysis was 

based on an emissions inventory 

comparison. MAG developed two sets of 

CO emissions inventories: one 

representing the CO modeling domain 

in 2006, 2008, 2015 and 2025; another 

representing the maintenance area in 

2008 and 2025. The modeling domain 

covers 792 square miles, including the 

busiest intersections in the area and the 

ambient air monitors with the highest 

readings, while the maintenance area is 

1,814 square miles. MAG calculated the 

ratio of the total emissions expected in 

2025 to the total emissions in a prior 

year (2006 for the modeling domain and 

2008 for the maintenance area). MAG 

then multiplied these ratios by the 

maximum concentration in the earlier 

year to yield a predicted 2025 

concentration. The maximum 8-hour CO 

concentration at West Indian School 

monitor in 2006 was 5.3 ppm. When 

multiplied by the ratio of 2025 

emissions for the maintenance area 

(403.9 mtpd) divided by 2006 emissions 

(803.0 mtpd) for the maintenance area, 

or 0.503, the predicted concentration in 

2025 at the West Indian School 

monitoring site is 2.7 ppm, well below 

the 9 ppm level of the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS. 

MAG’s second modeling analysis 

involved updating the modeling of CO 

concentrations performed in the 2003 

Maintenance Plan using the EPAapproved Urban Airshed Model (UAM) 

and the intersection hotspot model 

(CAL3QHC). In particular, MAG 

updated the projections of 

concentrations for the years 2006 and 

2015 in the 2003 Maintenance Plan by 

adjusting by the ratio of new to old 

emissions inventory totals and then 

scaling them for the year 2025. The 

highest concentrations in 2025 

predicted at the two busiest 

intersections in Phoenix (at the Phoenix 

Grand Avenue and West Indian School 

monitors) using these models was 4.0 

ppm, less than half of the level of the 

8-hour standard. 

MAG’s third modeling approach in 

the 2013 Maintenance Plan was an 

intersection hotspot analysis. The three 

intersections projected to have the 

highest traffic volumes and the three 

intersections projected to have the worst 

traffic congestion were identified using 

the MAG TransCAD traffic assignment 

for the year 2025. MAG used CAL3QHC 

to determine the maximum 8-hour 

concentration at these intersections in 

2025, then added the expected 

background concentration, 1.3 ppm CO. 

The highest CO concentration expected 

in 2025 was 1.7 ppm at two 

intersections, 16th Street and 

Camelback Road, and Priest Drive and 

Southern Avenue. This level is also well 

below the 8-hour CO NAAQS. 

In addition to the above three 

modeling exercises, MAG conducted 

two weight-of-evidence evaluations to 

support the maintenance demonstration. 

In one, historical trends of 1-hour and 

8-hour monitored CO concentrations 

were applied to a regression analysis to 

project concentrations in 2015 and 

2025. The monitoring data used was 

from the period 1980 to 2011. Projecting 

forward the trend lines using regression 

analysis for each monitoring site, the 

West Phoenix site has the highest 

projected 8-hour CO concentration, 2.7 

ppm in 2015 and 1.6 ppm in 2025. 

In a second weight-of-evidence 

evaluation, MAG conducted a 

meteorological analysis to assess 

whether unusually favorable 

meteorology played a role in continued 

maintenance of the CO standard. In 

particular, MAG assessed long-term 

values of key meteorological parameters, 

including temperature, wind speed, 

wind direction, atmospheric stability 

and mixing height and compared these 

values to CO monitored concentration 

trends during the same period. Four 

meteorological analyses were 

performed, comparing later 

meteorological data to the data from the 

1994 episode used in the evaluation, 

when there was an exceedance of the 8- 

hour CO standard, with the following 

results: (1) The maximum 8-hour CO 

concentrations have continued to 

decline, while meteorological 

conditions have not differed 

significantly from the 1994 episode; (2) 

8-hour CO concentrations declined 

while daily variations in wind speeds, 

temperatures and mixing heights have 

not varied significantly over time; (3) 1- 

hour CO concentrations have continued 

to decrease over time regardless of 

meteorological conditions; and (4) daily 

maximum 8-hour CO concentrations 

below the CO NAAQS were 

predominant during the period 1997 

through 2011 under the same range of 

wind speeds and mixing heights. 

The EPA finds that the three modeling 

exercises and two weight-of-evidence 

evaluations provide compelling 

evidence that the Phoenix area will 

continue to maintain the CO NAAQS. 

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Network 

The Phoenix area has maintained an 

ambient air quality monitoring network 

consisting of twelve State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). Of these 

twelve monitoring stations, 11 are 

operated by the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) and one 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 63189 

3Further information concerning the EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

the preamble to the EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193– 

62196). 

monitor is operated by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ). These agencies provide the 

EPA with Annual Monitoring Network 

Plans (commonly known as Annual 

Network Plans or ANPs) for the area, 

and have committed to continue to 

operate an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. 2013 

Maintenance Plan, page 3–17. 

The EPA approved the area’s ANPs, 

which describe the monitoring network 

for the area and any changes anticipated 

for the following year. The most recent 

ANP from the MCAQD was the 

‘‘MCAQD 2013 Final Air Monitoring 

Network Review,’’ dated December 5, 

2014. The most recent ANP from ADEQ 

was the ‘‘State of Arizona Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 

2014,’’ dated July 1, 2014. The 2014 

MCAQD ANP was approved by the EPA 

on March 31, 2015. Letter from 

Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, to William Wiley, 

Director, MCAQD, dated March 31, 

2015. The 2014 ADEQ ANP was 

approved by the EPA on October 30, 

2014. Letter from Meredith Kurpius, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, to 

Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality 

Division, ADEQ, dated October 30, 

2014. 

The EPA performs Technical Systems 

Audits (TSA) of ambient air monitoring 

programs in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58, section 2.5, which requires that 

the EPA conduct TSAs of primary 

quality assurance organizations every 

three years. The most recent TSA for the 

MCAQD was conducted by the EPA on 

September 25 to September 27, 2013. 

The EPA’s findings from this TSA are 

presented in a final report. There were 

no findings that were cause for data 

invalidation. Letter from Deborah 

Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air 

Division, to Phil McNeely, Director, 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department, dated December 12, 2014, 

transmitting ‘‘Technical System Audit, 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department, Ambient Air Monitoring 

Program, September 25–September 27, 

2013,’’ dated December 2014. 

The most recent TSA for ADEQ was 

conducted by the EPA on April 9 to 

April 13, 2012. The EPA’s findings from 

this TSA are presented in a final report. 

There were no findings that were cause 

for data invalidation. Letter from 

Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA 

Region 9 Air Division, to Eric Massey, 

Director, ADEQ Air Division, dated 

January 18, 2013, transmitting 

‘‘Technical System Audit, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Ambient Air Monitoring Program, April 

9–April 13, 2012,’’ dated January 2013. 

The EPA is confident that the area’s 

air quality monitoring network is being 

implemented in accordance with 

requirements in the CAA and 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

part 58. 

F. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of an area. A 

maintenance plan’s contingency 

measures are not required to be fully 

adopted. However, the plan should 

contain clearly identified contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the State. In addition, 

specific indicators should be identified 

which will be used to determine when 

the contingency measures need to be 

implemented. EPA memorandum, 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

September 4, 1992. 

Two contingency measures that were 

included in the 2003 Maintenance Plan 

are included in the 2013 Maintenance 

Plan: Gross Polluter Option for I/M 

Program Waivers, and Increased Waiver 

Repair Limit Options. These 

contingency measures have already 

been implemented in the area. A third 

contingency measure has been added to 

the 2013 Maintenance Plan: 

Reinstatement of the Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance (VEI) 

Program for Motorcycles. The VEI 

program for motorcycles was a control 

measure in the area prior to 

redesignation to attainment, but the 

State subsequently exempted 

motorcycles from the VEI program. 

Pursuant to section CAA section 

175A(d) of the CAA, the contingency 

provisions of a maintenance plan must 

include all the control measures that 

were included in the SIP for the area 

before redesignation. Therefore, the 

State is required to include the VEI 

program for motorcycles as a 

contingency measure in the 2013 CO 

Maintenance Plan. ADEQ has fulfilled 

this requirement by submitting a SIP 

revision committing to request 

Legislative action to reinstate emissions 

testing for motorcycles in the Phoenix 

area should the area experience a 

violation of the CO standards. See 78 FR 

30209, May 22, 2013. In addition, as 

noted above, the State has expanded 

Area A in Maricopa County, which 

extends additional controls beyond the 

previous boundary for Area A, 

converting this expansion from a 

contingency measure in the 2003 

Maintenance Plan, to a control measure 

in the 2013 Maintenance Plan. 

We propose to find that the 

contingency plan in the 2013 

Maintenance Plan is sufficient to meet 

the requirements of section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

G. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

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 (CAA 

section 176(c)(1)(B)). The EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A requires that transportation 

plans, programs and projects conform to 

SIPs and establish the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they conform. To effectuate its 

purpose, the conformity rule generally 

requires a demonstration that emissions 

from the Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP) and the Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) are 

consistent with MVEBs contained in the 

control strategy SIP revision or 

maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 

93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area.3

The EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of 

a SIP submission; (2) providing the 

public the opportunity to comment on 

the MVEB during a public comment 

period; and, (3) making a finding of 

adequacy or inadequacy. See 40 CR 

93.118(f). The 2003 Maintenance Plan 

established CO MVEBs (calculated for 

Friday in December) of 699.7 mtpd in 

2006 and 662.9 mtpd in 2015. The EPA 

found the CO MVEBs adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes on 

September 29, 2003, 68 FR 55950, and 

approved the MVEBs on March 9, 2005, 

70 FR 11553. 

The 2013 Maintenance Plan 

establishes a 2025 MVEB of 559.4 mtpd 

for the CO maintenance area. We are not 

announcing the availability of this 

MVEB through the EPA’s Adequacy 

Web site and providing a separate 

comment period on the adequacy of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

MVEB. Instead, we are reviewing the 

adequacy of the MVEB simultaneously 

with our review of the 2013 

Maintenance Plan itself. See 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2). In order to determine 

whether this MVEB is adequate and 

approvable, we have evaluated whether 

the MVEB meets the conformity 

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). The details of the 

EPA’s evaluation of the MVEB for 

compliance with the budget adequacy 

criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) are provided 

in a memo to file for this proposed 

rulemaking. Memo from John J. Kelly, 

Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, to 

Docket EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0645, 

dated September 29, 2015. Based on this 

evaluation, we propose to find the 2025 

MVEB adequate and to approve it. Any 

and all comments on the adequacy and 

approvability of the 2025 MVEB should 

be submitted during the comment 

period stated in the DATES section of this 

document. 

If today’s proposed action is finalized, 

the 2015 MVEB, which is already 

approved for 2015 and later years, 

would apply only up to the year 2024. 

For the year 2025 and later years, the 

budget will be 559.4 mtpd. See Table 4. 

TABLE 4—APPROVED AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE

PHOENIX CO MAINTENANCE AREA, IN METRIC TONS PER DAY (MTPD) 

Approved Approved Proposed 

Year 2006 2015 2025 

CO MVEB .................................................................................................................................... 699.7 662.9 559.4 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

2013 Maintenance Plan submitted on 

April 3, 2012. This maintenance plan 

meets the applicable CAA requirements 

and the EPA has determined it is 

sufficient to provide for maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS over the course of the 

second 10-year maintenance period out 

to 2025. 

The EPA is also proposing to find 

adequate and approve the CO MVEB of 

559.4 mtpd for use in the year 2025 and 

later years. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2015–26405 Filed 10–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 150826781–5781–01] 

RIN 0648–BF33 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2016 

Red Snapper Commercial Quota 

Retention 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

management measures described in a 

framework action to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), 

as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council). 

If implemented, this proposed rule 

would withhold 4.9 percent of the 2016 

red snapper commercial quota prior to 

the annual distribution of red snapper 

allocation to red snapper Individual 

Fishing Quota Program (IFQ) 

shareholders on January 1, 2016. The 

purpose of this proposed rule is to allow 

the allocations being established 

through Amendment 28 to the FMP 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS