16734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

implement transportation conformity 

requirements provides evidence of the 

State’s ability to consult with other 

governmental agencies on air quality 

issues. 

Based on the analysis above, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

February 14, 2012, submittal from the 

State of Idaho to demonstrate that the 

SIP meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the Pb 

NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 

2008. Specifically, we are proposing to 

find that the Idaho SIP meets the 

following CAA section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; 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, 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 the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 13, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06666 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686; FRL–9908–69– 

Region–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Arizona; 

Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve, as a revision of 

the Arizona State Implementation Plan, 

the State’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for ozone averaged over eight hours (8- 

hour ozone standard) in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for ten years 

beyond redesignation, and the related 

motor vehicle emission budgets, 

because they meet the applicable 

requirements for such plans and 

budgets. EPA is also proposing to 

approve a request from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the 

request meets the statutory requirements 

for redesignation under the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2013–0686, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Postal Mail or Delivery: Ginger 

Vagenas (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. Deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

The online docket system at http://

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous 

access system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 9 office. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may not be specifically 

listed in the index to the docket or may 

be publicly available only in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 9 office (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports, or otherwise 

voluminous materials), and some may 

not be publicly available in electronic or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16735 

1The MAG membership currently consists of the 

27 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa 

County and the contiguous urbanized area, the Gila 

River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima 

Maricopa Indian Community, Fort McDowell 

Yavapai Nation, Maricopa and Pinal Counties. 

Representatives of the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens 

Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) also 

serve on the Regional Council for transportationrelated issues. 

2See letter from Patrick J. Cunningham, Acting 

Director, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, March 23, 2009. 

This letter included three enclosures, one of which 

is the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, 

including appendices A and B organized into 

volumes 1, 2, and 3. 

3See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). 

4See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

hard copy form (e.g., confidential 

business information). To view the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–2), San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Ginger 

Vagenas can also be reached at (415) 

972–3964, or via electronic mail at 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. Background 

III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

V. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation 

Request for the Phoenix-Mesa Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 and Part D 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

2. Part D Requirements 

a. Introduction 

b. Permits for New and Modified Major 

Sources 

c. Conformity Requirements 

C. The Area Must Show the Improvement 

in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emission Reductions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 

175A 

1. Attainment Inventories and Projected 

Future Inventories 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. Contingency Provisions 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

7. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. First, under section 

110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

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

a revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan 

developed by the Maricopa Association 

of Governments (MAG),1 entitled MAG 

Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Maricopa Nonattainment Area, dated 

February 2009 (‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan’’), and submitted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA 

on March 23, 2009.2

In connection with the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA is 

proposing to find that the maintenance 

demonstration shows that the PhoenixMesa area will continue to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) for 10 years beyond 

redesignation and that the contingency 

provisions, which include already 

implemented measures as well as a 

process for identifying new or more 

stringent measures in the event of a 

future monitored violation, meet all 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and the related 

contingency provisions of CAA section 

175A. EPA is also proposing to approve 

motor vehicle emission budgets in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

because we find they meet the 

applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

Second, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA is proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s request to redesignate 

the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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). This conclusion is based 

on our proposed determination that: 

The area has attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; relevant portions of the 

Arizona SIP are fully approved; 

improvement in air quality in the area 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions; Arizona has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area with respect to 

section 110 and part D of the CAA; and, 

as part of this action, our proposed 

approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

II. Background 

Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that 

is formed from photochemical reactions 

in the atmosphere between volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight. These two pollutants, referred 

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by 

many types of pollution sources 

including on-road motor vehicles (cars, 

trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles 

and engines, power plants and 

industrial facilities, and smaller area 

sources such as lawn and garden 

equipment and paints. 

In 1971, under section 109 of the Act, 

as amended in 1970, EPA promulgated 

the original NAAQS for pervasive air 

pollutants, including photochemical 

oxidants.3 The NAAQS are 

concentration levels that, the attainment 

and maintenance of which, EPA has 

determined to be requisite to protect 

public health (i.e., the ‘‘primary’’ 

NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the 

‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS). In 1979, EPA 

revised the chemical designation of the 

NAAQS from ‘‘photochemical oxidants’’ 

to ‘‘ozone,’’ and established a 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million 

(ppm).4

In March of 1978, Maricopa County 

was designated as a 1-hour oxidant 

nonattainment area (43 FR 8962). In 

1979, EPA revised Maricopa County’s 

designation to refer to ozone (rather 

than oxidant) and reduced the 

geographic extent of the nonattainment 

area to reflect MAG’s Urban Planning 

Area (‘‘Phoenix metropolitan area’’) 

rather than the entire county. See 44 FR 

16388 (March 19, 1979). Under the 

CAA, states with nonattainment areas 

are required to submit revisions to their 

SIPs that include a control strategy 

necessary to demonstrate how the area 

will attain the NAAQS, and EPA took 

action on a number of related SIP 

revisions submitted by Arizona in the 

late 1970s and 1980s for the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. However, by 1990, 

the area still had not attained the 

standard, and under the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix 

metropolitan area was classified as a 

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment area with an 

attainment deadline of November 15, 

1996 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). 

The area was later reclassified as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area with a 

deadline of November 15, 1999 (62 FR 

60001, November 6, 1997). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16736 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5See 62 FR 33856 (July 18, 1997). 

6On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA lowered 

the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard), and on May 21, 2012, EPA 

designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard 

(77 FR 30088). Today’s proposed action relates to 

a maintenance plan and redesignation request for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, not the more 

stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

7The precise boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area and the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment are found 

in 40 CFR 81.303. 

8A more detailed description of the history of 1- 

hour ozone planning in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area is presented in section II of EPA’s proposed 

redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 70 

FR 13425 at 13426–13428 (March 21, 2005). 

9See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 

81.303. 

10See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

11See 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012). June 13, 2012 

is the effective date for the ‘‘marginal’’ classification 

of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

12See 77 FR 21690 (April 11, 2012) and 77 FR 

35285 (June 13, 2012). 

In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for 

ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged 

over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to 

herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’) to replace the existing 1-hour 

ozone standard of 0.12 ppm.5 6 In 2004, 

EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa area 

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and established June 15, 

2005 as the date when the 1-hour ozone 

standard would be revoked. The 

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area covers a much larger 

portion of Maricopa County than the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone area 

and also includes the Apache Junction 

portion of Pinal County.7 Just prior to 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard, 

EPA redesignated the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment (70 FR 

34362, June 14, 2005).8

On April 15, 2004, EPA designated 

Phoenix-Mesa as Subpart 1 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard under CAA section 172 

with an attainment deadline no later 

than June 15, 2009.9 The designation 

became effective on June 15, 2004. The 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area is 

located in the central portion of Arizona 

and encompasses 4,880 square miles, 

including the urban portions of 

Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and areas 

of Indian country of the Fort McDowell 

Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima 

Maricopa Indian Community, and the 

Tohono O’odham Nation. For a precise 

description of the geographic 

boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.303 

and figure 1–1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. MAG is the agency 

with primary responsibility for 

developing air quality plans related to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. 

Under part D, subpart 1 of the Act, 

states must submit plans to come into 

attainment within 3 years of the 

effective date of the nonattainment 

designation and must attain the 

standard as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than 5 years after the 

effective date of the designation. Later, 

in the wake of a court decision partially 

vacating EPA’s regulations 

implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard,10 EPA classified the PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area as 

‘‘marginal’’ under subpart 2 of part D of 

title I of the CAA.11

On June 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted a 

SIP revision demonstrating attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by 

the attainment date of June 15, 2009 

(‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan’’). 

In June 2012, EPA approved the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan.12 On 

March 23, 2009, ADEQ submitted the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as 

a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

In summary, the Phoenix 

metropolitan area was originally 

designated as nonattainment for the 

photochemical oxidant, later 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, but was later 

redesignated as attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS prior to the 

revocation of that standard. With 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA designated a larger 

geographic area, the Phoenix-Mesa area, 

as nonattainment, later classified as 

‘‘marginal,’’ for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. ADEQ’s request to redesignate 

the Phoenix Mesa area as attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the 

subject of today’s proposed action. 

Lastly, EPA has also designated the 

Phoenix Mesa area as ‘‘marginal’’ 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Today’s proposed action does 

not affect the designation of the 

Phoenix-Mesa area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

III. Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP 

Revisions 

Section 110(l) of the Act requires 

States to provide reasonable notice and 

public hearing prior to adoption of SIP 

revisions. Appendix B, Exhibit 1 of the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

documents the public review process 

followed by MAG in adopting the plan 

prior to transmittal to ADEQ for 

subsequent submittal to EPA as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP. The 

documentation in Exhibit 1 also 

provides evidence that reasonable 

notice of a public hearing was provided 

to the public and that a public hearing 

was conducted prior to adoption. 

Specifically, notice of the availability 

of, and opening of a 30-day comment 

period on, the public-draft Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan was published 

on December 23, 2008, in a newspaper 

of general circulation within the 

Phoenix area. The public hearing was 

held on January 22, 2009. One 

individual commented on the draft 

maintenance plan during the public 

hearing. No written comments were 

received during the public comment 

period. MAG provided responses to 

comments in Exhibit 1 of Appendix B. 

On February 25, 2009, the MAG 

Regional Council adopted the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan, as 

certified in Appendix B, Exhibit 2 of the 

plan. Following adoption, MAG 

provided the maintenance plan to 

ADEQ, and ADEQ adopted the plan and 

submitted it to EPA for approval on 

March 23, 2009. 

Based on the documentation provided 

in Appendix B, we find that the 

submittal of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision 

satisfies the procedural requirements of 

section 110(l) of the Act. 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

The CAA establishes the requirements 

for redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that the following criteria are 

met: (1) EPA determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

110(k); (3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions; 

(4) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 175A; 

and (5) the State containing such area 

has met all requirements applicable to 

the area under section 110 and part D 

of the CAA. Section 110 identifies a 

comprehensive list of elements that SIPs 

must include, and part D establishes the 

SIP requirements for nonattainment 

areas. Part D is divided into six 

subparts. The generally-applicable 

nonattainment SIP requirements are 

found in part D, subpart 1, and the 

ozone-specific SIP requirements are 

found in part D, subpart 2. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in a document entitled 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16737 

13See 40 CFR 50.10; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, 

C, D, and E. 

14See 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix I. 

15See EPA letters to MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and 

ADEQ concerning annual network plan reports, 

which are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

16For the most recent technical system audits 

(TSAs), see EPA’s report on the Agency’s September 

2008 audit of MCAQCD’s network, EPA’s final TSA 

report for ADEQ’s network dated January 2013, and 

EPA’s final TSA report for PCAQCD’s network 

dated June 2013, which are included in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

17The Mesa ozone monitor, operated by MCAQD, 

began operation on November 1, 2012 and therefore 

only gathered data for two months during the 2010– 

2012 design value period. As a result, this monitor 

is not appropriate to consider in determining 

whether the area has attained the 1997 ozone 

standard. In the future, as complete data become 

available, the monitor will be eligible for use in 

determining continued attainment. 

18For the most recent data certification 

submittals, see MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ 

letters concerning data certification for 2010, 2011, 

and 2012, which are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

19The sources of information for this paragraph 

include ADEQ’s ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring 

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

2013; MCAQD’s ‘‘2012 Air Monitoring Network 

Review,’’ undated; and PCAQCD’s ‘‘2013 Ambient 

Monitoring Network Plan and 2012 Data 

Summary,’’ dated July 1, 2013. 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990’’, published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 

13498), and supplemented on April 28, 

1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein 

as the ‘‘General Preamble’’). Additional 

guidance was issued in a September 4, 

1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

(referred to herein as the ‘‘Calcagni 

memo’’). Maintenance plan submittals 

are SIP revisions, and as such, EPA is 

obligated, under CAA section 110(k), to 

approve them or disapprove them 

depending upon whether they meet the 

applicable CAA requirements for such 

plans. 

For reasons set forth below in section 

V of this document, we propose to 

approve ADEQ’s request for 

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on our conclusion that all the 

criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

have been satisfied. 

V. Evaluation of the State’s 

Redesignation Request for the PhoenixMesa Ozone Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires 

that we determine that the area has 

attained the NAAQS. EPA generally 

makes the determination of whether an 

area’s air quality meets the ozone 

NAAQS based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data gathered at established State and 

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) 

in the nonattainment area and entered 

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state or local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to 

AQS. Heads of monitoring agencies 

annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on 

data in AQS when determining the 

attainment status of areas.13 All data are 

reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, the 1997 ozone standard is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration is less than 

or equal to 0.08 ppm.14 This 3-year 

average is referred to as the design 

value. When the design value is less 

than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on 

the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I) at each monitoring site 

within the area, the area is meeting the 

NAAQS. The data completeness 

requirement is met with the 3-year 

average percent of days with valid 

ambient monitoring data is at least 90 

percent of the days during the 

designated ozone monitoring season, 

and no single year has less than 75 

percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 50. 

Three state or local agencies are 

responsible for monitoring ambient air 

quality data in the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area: The Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

(MCAQD), the Pinal County Air Quality 

Control District (PCAQCD), and ADEQ. 

These agencies submit monitoring 

network plan reports to EPA on an 

annual basis. These reports discuss the 

status of the air monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR part 58. 

Beginning in 2007, EPA has reviewed 

these annual plans for compliance with 

the applicable reporting requirements in 

40 CFR 58.10. With respect to ozone, we 

have found that MCAQD’s, PCAQCD’s, 

and ADEQ’s annual network plans meet 

the applicable reporting requirements 

under 40 CFR part 58.15

EPA conducts periodic technical 

system audits of the state and local 

ambient air monitoring networks, and 

has done so for ADEQ, MCAQD, and 

PCAQCD. For the purposes of this 

action, EPA has reviewed the findings 

in EPA’s technical system audits of the 

networks operated by the three relevant 

agencies and notes that none of the 

findings in these reports cast doubt on 

the reliability of the ozone data 

collected at the various monitoring sites 

in these networks.16

During the relevant time period, the 

ozone monitoring network in the 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area 

comprised 20 ozone monitors: MCAQD 

operated 18 monitors,17 ADEQ operated 

one monitor, and PCAQCD operated one 

monitor. Please see Figure 2–1 in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

a map showing the locations of the 

monitors constituting the State and local 

agency regional ozone monitoring 

network. Based on population and 

ambient ozone, EPA regulations 

required only three ozone monitoring 

sites in the Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

during the 2010–2012 period. Thus, the 

ozone monitoring network in the 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area 

exceeds the requirements for the 

minimum number of monitoring sites 

designated as SLAMS for that pollutant. 

MCAQD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ 

annually certify that the data they 

submit to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured.18 All 20 sites 

monitored ozone concentrations on a 

continuous basis using Federal 

Equivalent Method (FEM) analyzers. 

The spatial scale and site type 

(monitoring objective type) of most of 

the ozone monitoring sites in the 

nonattainment area are ‘‘neighborhood’’ 

and ‘‘population exposure,’’ 

respectively. The Blue Point, Cave 

Creek, Pinnacle Peak, and Rio Verde 

sites are classified as ‘‘urban’’ scale with 

site types of ‘‘maximum ozone 

concentrations,’’ while the Humboldt 

Mountain site is classified as ‘‘regional 

scale’’ with a site type of ‘‘maximum 

ozone concentrations.’’ The Fountain 

Hills and JLG Supersite sites are also 

sited to measure ‘‘maximum ozone 

concentrations’’ but are located at the 

‘‘neighborhood’’ scale.19

In addition to the SLAMS ozone 

network maintained by MCAQD, 

PCAQCD, and ADEQ, there are five 

tribal monitors located within the 

nonattainment area. The Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Salt 

River) operates four ozone monitors and 

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Fort 

McDowell) operates one monitor on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16738 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

20The Pinnacle Peak site was temporarily shut 

down on November 16, 2011 and relocated to a 

nearby location on July 1, 2012. See Letter from Ben 

Davis, Air Monitoring Manager, MCAQD, to 

Michael Flagg, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA 

Region 9, dated January 31, 2012. 

tribal lands located in the eastern 

portion of the nonattainment area. The 

ozone monitoring data from Fort 

McDowell is characterized as 

‘‘informational’’ and therefore not 

suitable for comparison against the 1997 

ozone standard. Conversely, the Salt 

River ozone monitors have the basic 

monitoring objective of ‘‘NAAQS 

comparison’’ and the data should be 

considered ‘‘regulatory’’ and 

appropriate for use when determining if 

the nonattainment area is attaining the 

1997 ozone standard. 

Consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has 

reviewed the ozone ambient air 

monitoring data as recorded in AQS for 

the monitoring period from 2010 

through 2012 collected at the 

monitoring sites discussed above and 

found that the data meet our 

completeness criteria (see table 1). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AMBIENT DATA FOR OZONE COLLECTED WITHIN PHOENIX-MESA OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA, 

2010–2012 

Site Site ID Agency Parameter 

2010–2012 

Design value (DV) 

and % complete 

Apache Junction ........................................................................................... 04–013–3001 PCAQCD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 98 

Blue Point ..................................................................................................... 04–013–9702 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .075 

% complete ..... 99 

Buckeye ........................................................................................................ 04–013–4011 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .066 

% complete ..... 100 

Cave Creek .................................................................................................. 04–013–4008 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .077 

% complete ..... 100 

Central Phoenix ............................................................................................ 04–013–3002 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 100 

Dysart ........................................................................................................... 04–013–4010 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .071 

% complete ..... 100 

Falcon Field .................................................................................................. 04–013–1010 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .069 

% complete ..... 99 

Fountain Hills ................................................................................................ 04–013–9704 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .076 

% complete ..... 99 

Glendale ....................................................................................................... 04–013–2001 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .076 

% complete ..... 100 

High School .................................................................................................. 04–013–7024 SRPMIC DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 99 

Humboldt Mountain ...................................................................................... 04–013–9508 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .075 

% complete ..... 100 

JLG Supersite ............................................................................................... 04–013–9997 ADEQ ..... DV (ppm) ........ 0 .076 

% complete ..... 98 

Lehi ............................................................................................................... 04–013–7022 SRPMIC DV (ppm) ........ 0 .073 

% complete ..... 98 

North Phoenix ............................................................................................... 04–013–1004 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .081 

% complete ..... 100 

Pinnacle Peak .............................................................................................. 04–013–2005 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .077 

% complete ..... 20 78 

Red Mountain ............................................................................................... 04–013–7021 SRPMIC DV (ppm) ........ 0 .077 

% complete ..... 93 

Rio Verde ..................................................................................................... 04–013–9706 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 98 

Senior Center ............................................................................................... 04–013–7020 SRPMIC DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 95 

South Phoenix .............................................................................................. 04–013–4003 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .076 

% complete ..... 98 

South Scottsdale .......................................................................................... 04–013–3003 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .077 

% complete ..... 100 

Tempe .......................................................................................................... 04–013–4005 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .070 

% complete ..... 99 

West Chandler .............................................................................................. 04–013–4004 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .074 

% complete ..... 100 

West Phoenix ............................................................................................... 04–013–0019 MCAQD DV (ppm) ........ 0 .078 

% complete ..... 100 

Table 1 summarizes the site-specific 

3-year ozone design values for all 

monitoring sites within the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for the period 

of 2010–2012. As shown in table 1, the 

design value for the 2010–2012 period 

was less than 0.084 ppm at all of the 

monitors in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone 

nonattainment area. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine, based on 

complete quality-assured data for the 

2010–2012 period, that the PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Preliminary data for 2013 are 

also consistent with continued 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16739 

21See the AQS Preliminary Design Value Report 

for 2013 dated March 6, 2014, included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

22We note that SIPs must be fully approved only 

with respect to the applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain 

certain measures to prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality problems in 

another state (transport SIP). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s designation 

and classification in that state. EPA believes that 

the requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and classification 

are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing 

a redesignation request. The transport SIP 

requirements, where applicable, continue to apply 

to a state regardless of the designation of any one 

particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe 

that these requirements should be construed to be 

applicable requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the 

other section 110 elements that are not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions and not 

linked with an area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation. The State will still be subject to these 

requirements after the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment 

area is redesignated. 

This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for 

redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirements. 

See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174 dated October 10, 1996 

and 62 FR 24816 dated May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458 

dated May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748 dated December 7, 1995). 

See also the discussion of this issue in the 

Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879 at 37890 

dated June 19, 2000), in the Pittsburgh 

redesignation (66 FR 53094 dated October 19, 

2001), and in the South Coast redesignation (72 FR 

6986 dated February 14, 2007 and 72 FR 26718 

dated May 11, 2007). 

23On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398) EPA 

issued a partial approval and partial disapproval of 

Arizona’s ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. While this final rule was not a full 

approval, it does not represent an obstacle to 

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 ozone 

nonattainment area because the infrastructure 

elements effective in the Phoenix-Mesa area that 

EPA disapproved (i.e., certain PSD program 

elements, composition of air quality hearing boards) 

are not related to the nonattainment SIP 

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone 

nonattainment area and thus are not relevant for the 

purposes of redesignation. 

attainment.21 Given the timing of this 

proposed action after the end of 2013 

but before the monitoring agencies must 

enter data collected during the final 

quarter of the 2013 into AQS, we will 

be updating this determination based on 

design values calculated for 2011–2013, 

and preliminary review of available 

2014 data, for the purposes of the final 

action. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require 

EPA to determine that the 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 of redesignation. 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the general 

elements that a SIP must contain in 

order to be fully approved. EPA has 

analyzed the Arizona SIP and 

determined that it is consistent with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2). The 

Phoenix-Mesa portion of the approved 

Arizona SIP, which includes rules 

pertaining to areas and sources under 

the jurisdiction of ADEQ, MCAQD, and 

PCAQCD, contains enforceable emission 

limitations; requires monitoring, 

compiling, and analyzing of ambient air 

quality data; requires preconstruction 

review of new or modified stationary 

sources; provides adequate funding, 

staff, and associated resources necessary 

to implement its requirements; and 

provides the necessary assurances that 

the State of Arizona maintains 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of the SIP where the 

State is relying on local or regional 

governments or agencies for 

implementation of the SIP.22

On numerous occasions, we have 

approved Arizona submittals addressing 

the basic CAA section 110 provisions. 

There are no outstanding or 

disapproved applicable SIP submittals 

with respect to the Phoenix-Mesa 

portion of the SIP that prevent 

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard.23 Therefore, we 

propose to find that Arizona has met all 

SIP requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 

ozone area applicable for the purposes 

of redesignation under section 110 of 

the CAA (General SIP Requirements). 

2. Part D Requirements 

a. Introduction 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subparts 1 and 2, that 

address planning and emission control 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas. Both of these subparts are found 

in title I, part D of the CAA; sections 

171–179 and sections 181–185, 

respectively. Subpart 1 contains general, 

less prescriptive requirements for all 

nonattainment areas of any pollutant, 

including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. 

Subpart 2 contains additional, more 

specific requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2. 

The applicable subpart 1 

requirements are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9) and 176 of the CAA. Under 

subpart 1, with respect to the PhoenixMesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

the state of Arizona is required to 

submit SIP revisions that provide for: 

• Implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including, at a minimum, reasonable 

available control technology for existing 

sources and attainment of the standard 

(section 172(c)(1)); 

• Reasonable further progress (RFP) 

(section 172(c)(2)); 

• A comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in the area (section 172(c)(3)); 

• Identification and quantification of 

the emissions, if any, of any such 

pollutant which will be allowed in 

accordance with section 173(a)(1)(B) 

(i.e., new or modified stationary sources 

located in established economic 

development zones) (section 172(c)(4)); 

• Permits for the construction of new 

and modified major stationary sources 

in the nonattainment area (section 

172(c)(5))(herein, referred to as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ or ‘‘NSR’’); 

• Enforceable emission limitations as 

may be necessary or appropriate to 

provide for attainment of such standard 

in such area by the applicable 

attainment date (section 172(c)(6)); 

• Compliance with section 110(a)(2) 

of the Act (section 172(c)(7)); 

• Use of equivalent modeling 

emission inventory, and planning 

procedures if approved by EPA (section 

172(c)(8)); 

• Contingency measures (section 

172(c)(9)); and 

• Interagency consultation and 

enforceability for the purposes of 

transportation conformity (section 

176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390). 

On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35285), EPA 

approved the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area based on the 

determination that it met all applicable 

requirements for such plans under 

subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, we approved the following 

SIP elements: 

• The RACM demonstration and 

attainment demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of section 172(c)(1), 40 

CFR 51.912(d), and 40 CFR 51.908; 

• The RFP demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.910; 

• The 2002 base year emission 

inventory as meeting the requirements 

of section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.915; 

and 

• The contingency measures for 

failure to make RFP or to attain as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16740 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24The requirements for SIP revisions to 

demonstrate RACM, RFP, attainment, and 

contingencies (for failure to meet RFP or 

attainment) in subpart 1 are not applicable for the 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. 

Such requirements are directed at ensuring 

attainment by the applicable attainment date, and 

since, as discussed in section V.A., the area is 

showing attainment, the requirements have no 

meaning at this point. See the General Preamble, 74 

FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). 

25 In any event, the State of Arizona is not 

required to submit further SIP revisions to satisfy 

additional requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A) 

to correct RACT rules for the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area because we already 

determined that the State had met the VOC RACT 

requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A). See our 

proposed rule (70 FR 13425, at 13435, March 21, 

2005) and final rule (70 FR 34362, at 34363, June 

14, 2005) redesignating the Phoenix metropolitan 

area as attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We 

also note that the State of Arizona previously 

submitted, and EPA approved, an ‘‘enhanced’’ 

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program 

that exceeds the requirements of section 

182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment 

area, if those requirements were applicable for the 

purposes of redesignation. See 69 FR 2912 (January 

22, 2003). Lastly, the State of Arizona previously 

submitted, and EPA approved Maricopa County’s 

emissions statement rule and thereby has complied 

with section 182(a)(3)(B), if that requirement were 

applicable for the purposes of redesignation for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 7038 

(February 10, 2005). 

26See the Calcagni memo; see also Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for 

Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 

15, 1992,’’ from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation dated 

September 17, 1993; Redesignation of Detroit-Ann 

Arbor, Michigan, 60 FR 12459 (March 7, 1995); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), 

upholding this interpretation; and Redesignation of 

St. Louis, Missouri, 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 

(May 12, 2003). 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(9). 

In addition, we note that the approved 

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

relied on enforceable emission 

limitations necessary to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date in compliance with 

section 172(c)(6) and the plan was 

adopted and submitted in compliance 

with section 110(a)(2) as required under 

section 172(c)(7). Furthermore, the State 

of Arizona did not rely on sections 

172(c)(4) (i.e., identification and 

quantification of certain emission 

increases) or 172(c)(8) (equivalent 

techniques) in connection with the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. The 

approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Plan did not address the following SIP 

elements: (1) NSR permit requirements 

in the nonattainment area (section 

172(c)(5)) and (2) transportation 

conformity provisions related to 

interagency consultation and 

enforceability (section 176(c)(4) and 40 

CFR 51.390). We address these two 

remaining part D SIP elements later in 

this subsection.24

As noted above, the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area was initially 

designated nonattainment under subpart 

1 of the CAA, but was subsequently 

classified as marginal nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under 

subpart 2 of the CAA (77 FR 28424, May 

14, 2012). The effective date of the 

classification of the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area as marginal was 

June 13, 2012, and under our subpart 2 

classifications rule, states had one year 

from the effective date of that final rule 

(i.e., until June 13, 2013) to submit SIP 

revisions. 

ADEQ has not submitted any SIP 

revisions for the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area in response to the 

area’s classification to marginal.25

However, EPA believes that this does 

not preclude this redesignation from 

being approved, based on (1) EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time the 

redesignation request is submitted; and 

(2) consideration of the inequity of 

retroactively applying any requirements 

that might be applied in the future. 

Under EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of section 170(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, 

states requesting redesignation to 

attainment must meet only the relevant 

SIP requirements that came due prior to 

the submittal of a complete 

redesignation request.26 At the time the 

redesignation request was submitted 

(i.e., March 23, 2009), the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area was not classified 

under subpart 2, and thus, subpart 2 

requirements were not yet due for this 

area. 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the 

inequity in such retroactive 

rulemakings. See Sierra Club v. 

Whitman 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), 

in which the court upheld a district 

court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive an EPA determination of 

nonattainment that was past the 

statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The court 

stated, ‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the states, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly here, it would be unfair to 

penalize the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area by applying to it, for 

purposes of redesignation, additional 

SIP requirements under subpart 2 that 

were not in effect or yet due at the time 

it submitted its redesignation request, or 

the time that the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

In the following subsection, we 

address the following SIP elements: (1) 

NSR permit requirements in the 

nonattainment area (section 172(c)(5)) 

and (2) transportation conformity 

provisions related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability (section 

176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390). 

b. Permits for New and Modified Major 

Sources 

To meet the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(5), states must submit SIP 

revisions that meet the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.165 (‘‘Permit 

requirements’’), and EPA regulations at 

40 CFR 51.914, which extend the SIP 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 to areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Under 40 CFR 51.165, states are 

required to submit SIP revisions that 

establish certain requirements for new 

or modified stationary sources in 

nonattainment areas, including 

provisions to ensure that major new 

sources or major modifications of 

existing sources of nonattainment 

pollutants incorporate the highest level 

of control, referred to as the lowest 

achievable emission rate (LAER), and 

that increases in emissions from such 

stationary sources are offset so as to 

provide for reasonable further progress 

towards attainment. 

The process for reviewing permit 

applications and issuing permits for 

new or modified stationary sources of 

air pollution is referred to as new source 

review. With respect to new major 

sources or major modifications at 

existing major sources of nonattainment 

pollutants in nonattainment areas, this 

process is referred to as nonattainment 

NSR or simply NSR. With respect to 

new major sources or major 

modifications at existing major sources 

of pollutants for which as area is 

designated attainment or unclassifiable, 

states are required to submit SIP 

revisions that ensure that major new 

stationary sources and major 

modifications of existing stationary 

sources meet the federal requirements 

for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), including 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16741 

27 In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), 

which eliminated the requirement for States to 

adopt and submit conformity SIPs addressing 

general conformity requirements. See 75 FR 17254 

(April 5, 2010) for conforming changes to EPA’s 

general conformity regulations. 

28See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 

2001) upholding this interpretation. 

application of the best available control 

technology (BACT) for each applicable 

pollutant emitted in significant 

amounts, among other requirements. 

In the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment 

area, EPA, MCAQD, PCAQCD, and 

ADEQ share responsibility for issuing 

permits. EPA has the responsibility for 

permit application review and permit 

issuance for new or modified stationary 

sources in Indian country of the Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt 

River-Pima Maricopa Indian 

Community, and the Tohono O’odham 

Nation. MCAQD and PCAQCD are 

responsible for permitting for most 

stationary sources located within their 

respective counties and to portable 

sources that operate solely within the 

boundaries of the counties. ADEQ has 

jurisdiction over refineries, copper 

smelters, coal-fired power plants, 

Portland cement plants throughout the 

State and over sources that operate in 

multiple counties or outside the 

boundaries of Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal counties. 

EPA has promulgated nonattainment 

NSR rules at 40 CFR 49.166 through 

49.175 that establish the necessary 

permitting requirements for new or 

modified major stationary sources in the 

areas of Indian country located within 

the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. 

With respect to PCAQCD, the existing 

Arizona SIP does not include rules that 

meet nonattainment NSR requirements 

for Pinal County; however, because the 

Pinal County portion of the 

nonattainment area was newly 

designated as nonattainment for ozone 

in 2004, i.e., had not previously been 

part of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, EPA’s 

regulations in appendix S to 40 CFR 

part 51 apply until such time as 

nonattainment NSR rules meeting the 

applicable requirements are approved 

by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

See 40 CFR 52.24(k). 

EPA has not approved nonattainment 

NSR rules for ADEQ and MCAQD since 

the 1980s, and the existing SIPapproved NSR rules do not comply with 

all of the current SIP NSR requirements 

under the CAA, as amended in 1990, 

and under 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone 

nonattainment areas. However, the 

existing SIP-approved NSR rules for 

both ADEQ and MCAQD meet the basic 

requirements of a nonattainment NSR 

program, including the definition of 

‘‘major stationary source’’ as any 

stationary source in a nonattainment 

area with a potential to emit 100 tons 

per year or more, emissions limitations 

that constitute LAER, and emissions 

reductions to offset emissions increases 

that would otherwise occur. See 

Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) 

section R9–3–101 (‘‘Definitions’’) and 

section R9–3–302 (‘‘Installation permits 

for sources in nonattainment areas’’); 

and Maricopa County Rule 21.0 

(‘‘Procedures for Obtaining an 

Installation Permit’’). Also, because the 

SIP-approved NSR rules apply ‘‘in any 

nonattainment area for the pollutant(s) 

for which the source is classified as a 

major source,’’ AAC R9–3–302(A), the 

requirements apply throughout the 

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, except for Indian 

country and for sources subject to Pinal 

County jurisdiction, as discussed above. 

Moreover, ADEQ’s and MCAQD’s SIPapproved NSR rules have served as a 

federally-enforceable constraint on the 

growth of stationary source emissions, 

and thus have supported the region’s 

efforts to lower ambient ozone 

concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa 

area. Those efforts have resulted in 

attainment of the standard since 2007 

(see table 2, below) and thus we find 

that ADEQ’s and MCAQD’s SIPapproved NSR rules are likely to 

continue to support continued 

attainment of the standard during the 

maintenance phase after redesignation. 

Therefore, given that a portion of the 

nonattainment area is subject to federal 

rules implementing the nonattainment 

NSR requirements (Indian country and 

the Pinal County portion of the 

nonattainment area) and given that the 

fundamental nonattainment NSR 

requirements are approved into the SIP 

for the other portions of the 

nonattainment area, we conclude that 

the State has met the applicable NSR 

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 

eight-hour ozone nonattainment area for 

the purposes of redesignation of the area 

for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. 

c. Conformity Requirements 

Under section 176(c) of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, States are required to 

establish criteria and procedures to 

ensure that federally-supported or 

funded projects conform to the air 

quality planning goals in the applicable 

SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that 

state conformity provisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations that the CAA required EPA 

to promulgate. EPA’s conformity 

regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part 

93, subparts A (referred to herein as 

transportation conformity) and B 

(referred herein as general conformity). 

Transportation conformity applies to 

transportation plans, program, and 

projects developed, funded, and 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the 

Federal Transit Act. General Conformity 

applies to all other federally-supported 

or funded projects. SIP revisions 

intended to address conformity 

requirements are referred to herein as 

conformity SIPs. 

The State of Arizona has adopted 

general conformity procedures, 

approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (65 

FR 19916).27 The State-adopted 

transportation conformity procedures, 

found at Arizona Revised Statutes 

(ARS), Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14, 

have not yet been approved by EPA. 

EPA, however, believes it is reasonable 

to interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for the 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) because state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. 28

C. The Area Must Show the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

Section 107(d)(E)(iii) precludes 

redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment unless EPA determines that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from the 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable regulations. Under this 

criterion, the State must be able to 

reasonably attribute the improvement in 

air quality to emissions reductions that 

are permanent and enforceable. 

Attainment resulting from temporary 

reductions in emission rates (e.g., 

reduced production or shutdown due to 

temporary adverse economic 

conditions) or unusually favorable 

meteorology would not qualify as an air 

quality improvement due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

In our proposed (70 FR 13425, March 

21, 2005) and final (70 FR 34362, June 

14, 2005) redesignation rules for the 

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, we described the 

numerous stationary source and mobile 

source control measures that were 

approved as part of the Arizona SIP and 

that, together with certain federal 

measures, had provided for attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard through 

permanent and enforceable emissions 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

29See memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, 

entitled ‘‘Meteorological Trend Analysis for 

Phoenix-Mesa Area,’’ dated November 22, 2013, 

included in the docket for this rulemaking. 

30 Id. 

reductions. See, e.g., the table of VOC 

RACT rules on page 13433 of our 

proposed 1-hour ozone redesignation 

rule at 13425. Significant mobile source 

control measures that contributed to 

attainment and provide for maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone standard included 

low volatility cleaner burning gasoline, 

the federal motor vehicle and nonroad 

control programs, and implementation 

of an enhanced vehicle emissions 

inspection (VEI) program. See 70 FR 

13425 at page 13430. 

The State of Arizona has relied on 

these same permanent and enforceable 

measures to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard but added an additional 

stationary source rule to the control 

strategy, Maricopa County rule 358 

(‘‘Polystyrene Foam Operations’’), 

which EPA approved at 70 FR 30370 

(May 26, 2005). In the approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG 

quantified the emissions reduction from 

certain specific State and local 

measures, including VEI enhancements, 

local transportation improvements, 

summer gasoline formulation, and a rule 

governing polystyrene foam operation, 

as totaling 6.0 mtpd of VOC in 2008 (a 

2.4 percent reduction compared to the 

2002 base case) and 13.4 mtpd of NOX

(a 4.6 percent reduction compared to the 

2002 base case). These reductions have 

contributed to the overall reduction in 

emissions that have provided for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area. 

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan relies on monitoring data (see 

figure 2–2 in the plan) showing a 

general downward trend in 8-hour 

ozone concentrations in the PhoenixMesa area from 2000 through 2008 

despite increases of more than 15 

percent in population, employment and 

vehicle travel, as evidence that the 

improvement in air quality can 

reasonably be attributed to the 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions from the measures described 

above. 

In addition, we reviewed temperature 

data for Phoenix over this time period 

to determine if unusual meteorological 

conditions could have played a 

significant role in attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard in the PhoenixMesa area. However, we did not observe 

any anomaly over this period relative to 

long-term averages.29 The period from 

2002 to 2008 did not show a trend in 

declining air temperatures that would 

suggest that the observed trend in ozone 

concentrations was a result of favorable 

meteorology. We do recognize that a 

significant economic slowdown 

occurred nationally starting in 2008, 

and that the Phoenix-Mesa area was 

affected, but we note that the downward 

trend in ozone concentrations had 

already been established well before 

that time.30

Based on the evidence discussed 

above, EPA finds that the improvement 

in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area is the result of 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions from implementation of a 

combination of control measures. As 

such, we propose to find that the 

criterion for redesignation set forth at 

CAA section 107(d)(e)(E)(iii) is satisfied. 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

CAA Section 175A 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. We 

interpret this section of the Act to 

require, in general, the following core 

elements: Attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and contingency plan. See 

Calcagni memo, pages 8 through 13. 

Under CAA section 175A, a 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after redesignation, the State 

must submit a revised maintenance plan 

that demonstrates continued attainment 

for the subsequent ten-year period 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency provisions that EPA deems 

necessary to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. Based on our 

review and evaluation of the plan, as 

detailed below, we are proposing to 

approve the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan because we believe 

that it meets the requirements of CAA 

section 175A. 

1. Attainment Inventories and Projected 

Future Inventories 

A maintenance plan for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard must include an 

inventory of emissions of ozone 

precursors (VOC and NOX) in the area 

in order to identify a level of emissions 

that are sufficient to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. This inventory 

must be consistent with EPA’s most 

recent guidance on emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas 

available at the time of plan submittal 

and should represent emissions during 

the time period associated with the 

monitoring data showing attainment. 

The inventory must also be 

comprehensive, including emissions 

from stationary point sources, area 

sources, nonroad mobile sources, and 

on-road motor vehicle sources, and 

must be based on actual ‘‘ozone season 

data,’’ i.e., summertime emissions. 

MAG selected year 2005 as the year 

for the attainment inventory in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. As 

shown in table 2, the area attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard at the end 

of 2007 based on monitoring data 

collected over the course of the previous 

three-year period (2005–2007) during 

which the calculated design value was 

less than the standard. The attainment 

inventory will generally be the actual 

inventory during the time period the 

area attained the standard, and year 

2005 was one of the years from the 

three-year period for which the area first 

attained the standard. Thus, MAG’s 

selection of 2005 for the attainment 

inventory is acceptable. 

TABLE 2—EIGHT-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA NONATTAINMENT AREA

Site Agency 

Design value * (parts per million) 

2005–07 2006–08 2007–09 2008–10 2009–11 2010–12 

Apache Junction ...................................................... PCAQCD 0.076 0.080 0.075 0.073 0.072 0.074 

Blue Point ................................................................ MCAQD 0.067 0.064 0.067 0.070 0.072 0.075 

Buckeye ................................................................... MCAQD 0.065 0.066 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 

Cave Creek .............................................................. MCAQD 0.079 0.078 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.077 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16743 

TABLE 2—EIGHT-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued 

Site Agency 

Design value * (parts per million) 

2005–07 2006–08 2007–09 2008–10 2009–11 2010–12 

Central Phoenix ....................................................... MCAQD 0.075 0.074 0.070 0.071 0.071 0.074 

Dysart ....................................................................... MCAQD 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.071 

Falcon Field ............................................................. MCAQD 0.076 0.075 0.071 0.070 0.068 0.069 

Fountain Hills ........................................................... MCAQD 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.076 

Glendale ................................................................... MCAQD 0.075 0.074 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076 

High School ............................................................. SRPMIC ** 0.077 ** 0.076 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.074 

Humboldt Mountain .................................................. MCAQD 0.081 0.078 0.074 0.071 0.071 0.075 

JLG Supersite .......................................................... ADEQ ..... 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.076 

Lehi .......................................................................... SRPMIC ** 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 0.073 

North Phoenix .......................................................... MCAQD 0.082 0.081 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.081 

Pinnacle Peak .......................................................... MCAQD 0.078 0.074 0.072 0.073 0.074 0.077 

Red Mountain .......................................................... SRPMIC 0.083 0.080 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.077 

Rio Verde ................................................................. MCAQD 0.083 0.080 0.075 0.072 0.073 0.074 

Senior Center ........................................................... SRPMIC 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.074 

South Phoenix ......................................................... MCAQD 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076 

South Scottsdale ...................................................... MCAQD 0.078 0.077 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.077 

Tempe ...................................................................... MCAQD 0.077 0.077 0.073 0.071 0.068 0.070 

West Chandler ......................................................... MCAQD 0.076 0.076 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.074 

West Phoenix ........................................................... MCAQD 0.074 0.078 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.078 

* The design value is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. 

** Design values do not meet the completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. 

The attainment year emission 

inventory for 2005 in the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan is generally 

consistent with the 2005 Periodic 

Emission Inventory (PEI) emissions 

estimates for Maricopa County and the 

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. The 

PEI was calculated in terms of annual 

emissions and ozone season-day 

emissions. 

Emissions from point sources were 

estimated from each identified facility 

through permit system databases and 

annual emissions reports submitted to 

the facility’s permitting authority. 

Emissions from area sources were 

estimated by source category using 

information from permit databases and 

previous SIP inventories. MAG 

estimated nonroad mobile source 

emissions using EPA’s NONROAD2005 

model, and estimated on-road motor 

vehicle source emissions using EPA’s 

MOBILE6.2 model. On-road vehicle 

emissions estimates reflect estimates of 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using data 

from U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s 2005 Highway 

Performance and Monitoring System. 

Biogenic emissions of NOX and VOC 

were calculated using the Model of 

Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from 

Nature (MEGAN) with input including 

emissions rates developed from 

measurements made of the dominant 

plant species in Maricopa County, 

locations and biomass densities of the 

dominant plant species, and surface 

temperature data. See 2005 Periodic 

Emissions Inventory for ozone 

precursors in volume 1 of the 

appendices to the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

For the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, MAG adjusted and 

supplemented the 2005 PEI ozone 

precursor emissions estimates 

developed using the methods described 

above to develop emissions estimates 

for an area referred to as the inner 

modeling domain (‘‘modeling domain’’), 

a rectangular area encompassing all of 

the nonattainment area and largely 

defined by the boundaries of the 

irregularly-shaped nonattainment area. 

See figure II–1 of MAG’s technical 

support document (TSD) for the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan for an 

illustration of the modeling domain. 

The modeling domain defines the area 

for which MAG modeled ozone 

concentrations. 

MAG developed modeling-domain 

emissions estimates for 2005 for the 

June, July, and August episodes that 

were modeled for the approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan. See table 

3 below for a summary of modeling 

domain emissions estimates by source 

category for year 2005 for the June 

modeling episode. The 2005 attainment 

year inventory includes credit for 

committed control measures that were 

in place during the summer of 2005. See 

table 3–5 of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—2005 AND PROJECTED 2019 AND 2025 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE PHOENIX-MESA MODELING

DOMAIN FOR JUNE OZONE EPISODE

[Metric tons per day] a

Source category 

NOX VOC 

2005 2019 2025 2005 2019 2025 

Point ......................................................... 10.9 58.6 59.1 11.1 16.7 18.7 

Area .......................................................... 19.6 27.7 31.1 79.2 111.4 124.8 

Nonroad Mobile ........................................ 77.7 43.9 37.9 40.3 48.7 31.8 

On-road Motor Vehicles ........................... 154.3 125.8 109.8 72.1 30.9 47.9 

Biogenics .................................................. 8.6 8.6 8.6 451.3 451.3 451.3 

Total .................................................. 271.1 264.4 246.4 653.9 659.0 674.4 

aEmissions reflect a specific day of the week (Thursday) during the June ozone episode. 

Sources: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan at tables 3–6 and 3–7; table 1 of the Maintenance Plan Supplement. 

As shown in table 3, in the 2005 

attainment year inventory for the 

modeling domain, biogenic sources 

contributed approximately 70 percent to 

total VOC emissions. In contrast, onroad motor vehicles dominated the total 

NOX emissions and accounted for 60 

percent of total NOX. 

In addition to 2005 values, table 3 

above also summarizes MAG’s VOC and 

NOX emissions estimates for an interim 

year (2019) and the maintenance plan’s 

horizon year (2025). The projected 

emission inventories for 2019 and 2025 

were based on the use of growth factors, 

on-going emissions control programs, 

and retirement rates for obsolete 

sources. The Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan includes MAG’s 2025 

emissions estimates and related 

documentation, while MAG’s 2019 

interim-year emissions estimates and 

documentation are found in a separate 

MAG document, entitled ‘‘Analysis of 

the Interim Year 2019 as a Supplement 

to the 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment 

Area,’’ dated June 17, 2013 

(‘‘Maintenance Plan Supplement’’). 

MAG used growth factors to project 

emissions in 2019 and 2025 for point 

and area sources based on population 

and employment projections approved 

by the MAG Regional Council in May 

2007. MAG included population and 

employment growth projections for 

2016 and 2021 in the Maintenance Plan 

Supplement and projected emissions for 

2019 from interpolation of the projected 

emissions for 2016 and 2021. MAG used 

a compound annual growth rate for 

population of 2.6 percent between 2005 

and 2016. The actual compound annual 

growth rate between 2005 and 2011, 

based on the 2005 Special Census for 

Maricopa County and the 2010 Census, 

was 0.8 percent. Because the population 

of Maricopa County grew more slowly 

than projected, MAG expects the 

emission inventories related to the 

socioeconomic projections for the 

interim and horizon years to be 

conservatively overestimated. 

MAG used different growth factors for 

different source types within each 

source category (e.g., specific stationary 

point sources excluding power plants, 

specific categories of area sources such 

as dry cleaners). For nonroad mobile 

sources, MAG derived growth factors 

from the EPA NONROAD2005 model 

defaults for Maricopa County. The 

growth factors are listed in Appendix 

IV–vii to Appendix A, Exhibit 2 of the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

and generally range from 1 to 1.8. For 

power plants, MAG estimated future 

emissions based on the facility’s 

potential to emit (PTE), i.e., the 

maximum levels allowed under existing 

permits. MAG estimated on-road motor 

vehicle emissions based on the same 

population and employment projections 

used to estimate point and area sources, 

but increased on-road source emissions 

of VOC and NOX by 10 percent to 

provide safety margins for the motor 

vehicle emission budgets for 

transportation conformity. 

For biogenic emissions, the 2005 

inventory was held constant for 2019 

and 2025. In the approved Eight-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG similarly 

held biogenic emissions constant, 

compared to the 2002 base year 

inventory, when demonstrating 

attainment with the standard by 2008 

(see tables 5–3 and 5–4 in the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan). In 

additional information provided to EPA 

during our review of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG explained 

that no projected land use or land cover 

data was available for the 2008 

attainment year, therefore biogenic 

emissions in the ozone modeling 

domain were held constant. As 

discussed in greater detail in our 

proposed rulemaking to approve the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, 

MAG expected that the trend of 

increasing urbanization in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area would be 

expected to decrease biogenic VOC 

emissions in Maricopa County. Because 

MAG did not have 2008 land use data 

available, it determined that 

maintaining constant biogenic 

emissions of the ozone precursors 

would be more conservative than 

attempting to estimate the anticipated 

decrease in biogenic VOC emissions. 

See 77 FR 21690 at 21694 (April 11, 

2012). This rationale similarly applies to 

the use of a constant biogenic emissions 

value for each ozone episode in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan builds upon the control strategy 

developed for attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard and the control strategy 

developed for attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. The plan 

specifically cites and quantifies the 

emissions reductions from seven control 

measures for maintenance 

demonstration purposes in the PhoenixMesa area through year 2025. These 

measures include one federal control 

measure, a measure referred to as 

‘‘Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission 

Standards,’’ and six State or local 

control measures. All of these measures 

have been approved into the Arizona 

SIP, or, in the case of the federal 

nonroad equipment emission standards, 

have been promulgated by EPA as 

regulations published in the CFR: 

• Summer fuel reformulation, 

approved as part of Arizona’s cleaner 

burning gasoline regulations at 69 FR 

10161 (March 4, 2004); 

• Phased-In emission test cutpoints 

and one-time waiver from vehicle 

emissions test, approved as part of the 

Arizona vehicle emissions inspection 

and maintenance program at 69 FR 2912 

(January 22, 2003); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16745 

31These provisions are now codified in ARS 49– 

550 (‘‘Violation; Classification; Civil Penalty’’). 

• Tougher enforcement of vehicle 

registration and emission test 

compliance, as set forth in ARS 49–552 

(‘‘Enforcement on city, town, county, 

school district or special district 

property’’), approved at 70 FR 11553 

(March 9, 2005); and 49–541.01 

(paragraphs D and E) 31 (‘‘Vehicle 

emissions inspection program; constant 

four wheel drive vehicles; requirements; 

location; violation; classification; 

penalties; new program termination’’), 

approved at 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 

2005); 

• Federal (tier 4) nonroad equipment 

emissions standards, promulgated in 40 

CFR part 1039 at 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 

2004); 

• Expansion of Area A boundaries, as 

set forth in ARS 49–541 (‘‘Definitions’’), 

approved at 78 FR 30209 (May 22, 

2013); and 

• Ban open burning during the ozone 

season, as set forth in ARS 49–501 

(‘‘Unlawful open burning; exceptions; 

fine; definition’’), approved in a final 

rule signed by the EPA Region IX 

Regional Administrator on December 

16, 2013 (not yet published in the 

Federal Register). 

Table 4 shows the projected emission 

reductions developed by MAG from the 

seven maintenance measures during the 

June ozone episode. Of the seven 

maintenance measures in the PhoenixMesa Maintenance Plan, the federal 

nonroad equipment emission standards 

represents the largest reduction in VOC 

and NOX emissions from an individual 

maintenance measure. 

TABLE 4—2025 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL MAINTENANCE MEASURES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA 8-HOUR

OZONE MODELING DOMAIN

Maintenance measure 

VOC NOX

Reduction 

(metric tons 

per day) 

Percent 

reduction in 

anthropogenic 

emissions 

Reduction 

(metric tons 

per day) 

Percent 

reduction in 

anthropogenic 

emissions 

Summer Fuel Reformulation 1.3 0.5 0.4 (increase) 0.1 (increase). 

Phased-In Emission Test Cutpoints < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1. 

One-Time Waiver from Vehicle Emissions Test 0.2 < 0.1 0.3 0.1. 

Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emission 

Test Compliance 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1. 

Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission Standards 19.3 7.9 47.2 16.5. 

Expansion of Area A Boundary 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1. 

Ban Open Burning During Ozone Season < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1. 

Source: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, table 3–2. 

As shown in table 3, NOX emissions 

from point sources is projected to 

increase dramatically between 2005 and 

the interim and horizon years of 2019 

and 2025, primarily due to MAG’s 

conservative assumption that power 

plants in the future would operate at 

their PTE. Emissions of NOX from area 

sources are also estimated to be higher 

in the interim and horizon years. MAG 

projected that emissions from nonroad 

sources would decrease due to the 

implementation of federal emission 

standards for nonroad equipment (see 

Table 4). Emissions of NOX from onroad motor vehicles are also projected to 

decrease notwithstanding the 10% 

increase added to the 2025 motor 

vehicle emissions estimates (to provide 

for a safety margin for transportation 

conformity purposes), due to the 

continuing benefit of the federal motor 

vehicle control program and the 

turnover of older model cars to newer 

models designed to meet more stringent 

EPA emissions standards. Overall, 

between 2005 and 2025, MAG projected 

total emissions of NOX to decrease by 

nearly 25 mtpd for the June ozone 

episode. 

As shown in table 3, MAG projected 

that VOC emissions from point and area 

sources will increase over the 2005 to 

2025 time frame. Emissions from VOC 

from nonroad and on-road mobile 

sources are projected to decrease 

between 2005 and 2025, 

notwithstanding the 10% safety margin 

added to 2025 motor vehicle emissions 

estimates for the same reasons given 

above for NOX. Emissions of biogenic 

VOC are projected to remain constant, 

as discussed above. Overall, MAG 

projected total emissions of VOC in 

2025 to increase by approximately 20 

mtpd for the June ozone episode as 

compared to 2005. 

Based on our review of the emission 

inventories (and related documentation) 

from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan, we find that the inventory for 2005 

is comprehensive, that the methods and 

assumptions used by MAG to develop 

the 2005 emission inventory are 

reasonable, and that the inventory 

reasonably estimates actual ozone 

season emissions in an attainment year. 

Moreover, we find that the 2005 

emission inventory reflects the latest 

planning assumptions and emission 

models available at the time the plan 

was developed, and provide a 

comprehensive and reasonably accurate 

basis upon which to forecast ozone 

precursor emissions for years 2019 and 

2025. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

CAA section 175A(a) requires that the 

maintenance plan ‘‘provide for the 

maintenance of the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 

least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ 

Generally, a state may demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard 

by either showing that future emissions 

will not exceed the level of the 

attainment year inventory or by 

modeling to show that the future mix of 

sources and emissions rates will not 

cause a violation of the NAAQS. For 

areas that are required under the Act to 

submit modeled attainment 

demonstrations, the maintenance 

demonstration should generally use the 

same type of modeling as used for the 

attainment demonstration. See Calcagni 

memo, page 9. 

On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35286), EPA 

published a final approval of the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan, which 

demonstrated attainment of the 1997 8- 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

32We evaluate the emissions inventory for the 

baseline and maintenance years in section V.D.1., 

above. 

hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area by June 15, 

2009. Consistent with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance 

on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment 

of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional 

Haze’’ (‘‘EPA Modeling Guidance’’), the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

included the following components: A 

conceptual description of the area’s 

nonattainment problem, a modeling 

protocol, model selection and set-up, 

selection and evaluation of ozone 

episodes to model, meteorological and 

emissions input data preparation, model 

performance evaluations for the 

photochemical and meteorological 

models, the modeled attainment test, 

and a weight of evidence evaluation. 

See Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, 

chapter 3 and appendix A, exhibit 2. 

EPA evaluated these components and 

found that they provided an adequate 

basis for the attainment demonstration. 

See 77 FR 21690, at 21697–21699. 

For the modeled 10-year maintenance 

test, MAG selected the same 

photochemical and meteorologicalinput models and set-up and the same 

high-ozone episodes to model as 

evaluated in the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan. As such, we are not 

reassessing the modeling protocol, 

choice of ozone episodes, and model 

performance. Here, the model was used 

to predict the effect of changes in 

emissions due to land use changes, 

growth, and the effect of control 

measures from a baseline emission year 

of 2005 to maintenance years 2019 and 

2025.32 The resulting concentrations 

were used to evaluate the impact of 

emission changes during the high-ozone 

episode-specific meteorological 

conditions. See Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan (chapter 3 and 

appendix A, exhibit 2) and the 

Maintenance Plan Supplement. 

Under EPA Modeling Guidance, the 

model is used to develop relative 

response factors (RRFs) that give the 

model’s response to emission changes, 

and the RRFs are applied to monitored 

design value concentrations to arrive at 

the predicted future concentrations. The 

particulars of the calculation, and which 

model grid cells and modeled days are 

to be included, are specified in the EPA 

Guidance. See EPA Modeling Guidance, 

pages 15, 25, and 155. MAG assessed 

the 2019 and 2025 effects and found the 

maximum predicted ozone design value 

to be 0.081 parts per million (ppm) in 

2019 and 0.081 ppm in 2025. All values 

equal to or less than 0.084 ppm meet the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, 

the modeling results predict continued 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for at 

least ten years beyond redesignation 

(assuming redesignation of the area 

before 2016). 

In addition to a modeled maintenance 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA generally requires an unmonitored 

area analysis. This analysis is intended 

to ensure that a control strategy leads to 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

locations that have no monitor but that 

might have base year (and/or future 

year) ambient ozone levels exceeding 

the NAAQS. The unmonitored area 

analysis uses a combination of model 

output and ambient data to identify 

areas that might exceed the NAAQS if 

monitors were located there. In order to 

examine unmonitored areas in all 

portions of the modeling domain, EPA 

recommends use of interpolated spatial 

fields of ambient data combined with 

gridded modeled outputs. See EPA 

Modeling Guidance, page 29. MAG used 

the EPA developed Modeled Attainment 

Test Software (MATS) Version 2.0.1 to 

conduct this analysis. The maximum 

design values from this analysis were 

0.083 ppm in 2019 and 0.083 ppm in 

2025, i.e., in attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See Maintenance 

Plan Supplement. 

Based on our prior approval of MAG’s 

photochemical modeling approach for 

8-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

purposes and because we find MAG’s 

application of the same basic approach 

to the 8-hour ozone maintenance 

demonstration to be reasonable, we 

accept the results of MAG’s modeling as 

a sufficient demonstration that the plan 

provides for maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area through the first ten years 

after redesignation to attainment. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

meets the maintenance demonstration 

requirements under CAA section 

175A(a). 

3. Monitoring Network 

Continued ambient monitoring of an 

area is generally required over the 

maintenance period. As discussed in 

section V.A. of this document, ozone is 

currently monitored by ADEQ, MCAQD, 

and PCAQCD at a total of 20 sites within 

the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. ADEQ and MCAQD 

monitors represent 19 of the 20 sites. 

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan (see page 3–21 of the plan) 

indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD will 

continue to operate an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to 

verify continued attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, if there 

is significant change to parameters such 

as population, vehicle miles of travel, or 

significant sources, ADEQ and MCAQD 

will undertake studies to determine if it 

is appropriate to re-site monitors or add 

additional monitors to the network. 

Lastly, the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan takes note of the 

annual review by EPA of State and local 

ambient monitoring network plans 

under 40 CFR part 58 as providing a 

continuing means for ensuring the 

adequacy of the ozone monitoring 

network in the Phoenix-Mesa area. 

We note that PCAQCD is not cited in 

the subsection on an approved 

monitoring network and verification of 

continued attainment in the Eight-Hour 

Maintenance Plan, but find the failure to 

include PCAQCD in the plan’s 

discussion of continued monitoring and 

verification of continued attainment to 

be harmless error because the applicable 

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 

58 will continue to apply to PCAQCD’s 

ozone monitor regardless of our 

approval of the maintenance plan and 

redesignation request and because the 

overall ozone monitoring network 

operated by ADEQ and MCAQD alone 

(i.e., 19 of 20 NAMS and SLAMS 

stations) is sufficient to meet ozone 

monitoring requirements in the 

Phoenix-Mesa are. Therefore, for the 

reasons given above, EPA finds that the 

Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan 

adequately provides for continued 

ambient ozone monitoring in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Each State should ensure that it has 

the legal authority to implement and 

enforce all measures necessary to attain 

and to maintain the NAAQS. 

Previously, in taking action to approve 

the various measures that the State is 

relying on for attainment and 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, such as the cleaner burning 

gasoline regulations and the vehicle 

emissions inspection (VEI) program, we 

determined that the State has the 

necessary legal authority to implement 

and enforce the measures and find no 

sunset clauses that would be triggered 

for these control measures upon 

redesignation to attainment. We are, 

however, aware of Arizona Revised 

Statutes (ARS) section 41–3017.01 

which provides for the termination of 

the VEI on January 1, 2017, but 

recognize that the Arizona Legislature 

has at various intervals in the past 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16747 

33MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA 

guidance memorandum entitled ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.’’ 

extended the termination date for the 

VEI program and expect it to do so again 

before 2017. We also find that the 

applicable State, regional, and county 

agencies, such as ADEQ, the Arizona 

Department of Weights and Measures, 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

(DOT), MAG, Maricopa County, Pinal 

County, and local cities and towns, have 

the necessary authority to adopt, 

implement, and enforce any emission 

control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

ozone NAAQS violations. 

To verify continued attainment, in 

addition to continuing to operate an 

ozone monitoring network that meets 

EPA ambient air quality surveillance 

requirements, MCAQD will continue to 

update the emissions inventory for 

ozone precursors in the Phoenix-Mesa 

area every three years with input and 

assistance from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, 

and MAG. These emissions inventory 

updates will provide a means with 

which to track emissions relative to 

those projected in the maintenance 

plan, and thereby verify the continued 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

Lastly, the transportation conformity 

process, which requires a comparison of 

on-road motor vehicle emissions that 

would occur under new or amended 

transportation plans and programs with 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan, represents another means by 

which to verify continued attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area, given the 

importance of motor vehicle emissions 

to the overall emissions inventories of 

ozone precursors. See pages 3–14 and 

3–15 of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. These methods are 

sufficient for the purpose of verifying 

continued attainment. 

5. Contingency Provisions 

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires 

that maintenance plans include 

contingency provisions, as EPA deems 

necessary, to promptly correct any 

violations of the NAAQS that occur after 

redesignation of the area. Such 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures (with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned) that were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. 

Under section 175A(d), contingency 

measures identified in the contingency 

plan do not have to be fully adopted at 

the time of redesignation. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered by a specified event. The 

maintenance plan should clearly 

identify the measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific 

timeline for action by the State. As a 

necessary part of the plan, the State 

should also identify specific indicators 

or triggers that will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, MAG adopted a contingency plan 

to address possible future ozone air 

quality problems. See page 3–21 of the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

The plan includes both specific 

contingency measures that have already 

been adopted and are being 

implemented early 33 and a mechanism 

to trigger the adoption of additional 

measures as needed. The specific 

contingency measures, which are 

described in more detail in section IV– 

7–2 of MAG’s TSD for the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan (appendix A, 

exhibit 2 of the plan), are: 

• Gross Polluter Option for I/M 

Program Waivers; 

• Increased Waiver Repair Limit 

Options; 

• Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle 

Emissions Standards; 

• Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems; 

• Develop Intelligent Transportation 

Systems; and 

• Liquid Leaker Test as Part of 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program. 

Two of the measures, ‘‘coordinate traffic 

signal systems’’ and ‘‘develop intelligent 

transportation systems,’’ are control 

measures that the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan had relied upon to 

demonstrate attainment of the standard. 

As noted above, CAA section 175A(d) 

requires contingency plans to include a 

requirement that the State will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the air pollutant 

concerned that were contained in the 

SIP for the area before redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area, i.e., if 

triggered under the terms of the 

contingency plan. In the case of these 

two specific contingency measures, we 

do not believe that the contingency plan 

must include a specific requirement to 

resume their implementation, i.e., if 

triggered, because the measures 

themselves continue to be implemented 

by the relevant agencies. The Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan simply does 

not rely on emissions reductions from 

them to demonstrate maintenance 

through 2025. The emissions reductions 

from the other contingency measures 

listed above are also not included in the 

projected emissions inventory, and no 

emission reduction credit was taken for 

these measures in the modeling for the 

maintenance demonstration. As noted 

in the maintenance plan, 

implementation of these measures 

should provide additional assurance 

that the 1997 ozone standard will be 

maintained through 2025. 

In addition to the previously 

implemented contingency measures 

listed above, the plan includes a 

commitment to examine ambient air 

quality data to determine if additional 

contingency measures are needed. If the 

three-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily 8-hour ozone 

concentration exceeds 84 parts per 

billion at any ozone monitor, additional 

control measures will be considered. 

The plan requires that (1) the 

monitoring data will be verified within 

three months after the activation of the 

trigger; (2) control measures will be 

considered for adoption six months after 

the date established in (1); and (3) the 

resultant committed measures will be 

implemented within six to twelve 

months, depending on the time needed 

to put the measures in place. 

Upon our review of the plan, as 

summarized above, we find that the 

contingency provisions of the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan identify 

specific contingency measures, contain 

tracking and triggering mechanisms to 

determine when contingency measures 

are needed, and contain specific 

timelines for action. Accordingly, we 

conclude that the contingency 

provisions of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan are adequate to 

ensure prompt correction of a violation 

and therefore comply with section 

175A(d) of the Act. 

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

CAA section 175A(b) provides that 

States shall submit a SIP revision eight 

years after redesignation that provides 

for maintaining the NAAQS for an 

additional ten years. The Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan includes 

MAG’s commitment to prepare the 

revised maintenance plan eight years 

after redesignation to attainment. See 

page 3–22 of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our 

transportation conformity rule (codified 

in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16748 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34The derivation of the MVEBs is discussed in 

MAG’s emissions inventory, which was included in 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan submittal 

as Appendix A, Exhibit 1 (pages 99–110), and in 

Section IV–2 of MAG’s TSD, which was included 

in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

submittal as Appendix A, Exhibit 2. Additional 

discussion of the on-road emissions budgets is 

included in Section IV–9 of the TSD. 

35MAG increased the 2025 VOC and NOX

emissions from on-road motor vehicle sources in 

the eight-hour ozone modeling domain in order to 

address the ‘‘inherent uncertainties associated with 

the use of the latest planning assumptions in 

conformity analyses.’’ MAG distributed the increase 

spatially ‘‘based on the proportion of onroad mobile 

emissions assigned to each four kilometer grid 

cell.’’ See page 3–20 of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

36See EPA memorandum dated October 31, 2013 

entitled ‘‘Adequacy Documentation for Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets in the February 2009 

Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan for 

the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area.’’ 

that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to SIPs, and 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether or not they do 

so. Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards or any 

interim milestones. 

Maintenance plan submittals must 

specify the emissions of transportationrelated VOC and NOX emissions 

allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period, i.e., the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or 

budgets). The MVEBs serve as a ceiling 

on emissions that would result from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

The MVEB concept is further explained 

in the preamble to the November 24, 

1993, transportation conformity rule (58 

FR 62188). The preamble describes how 

to establish MVEBs in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEBs if needed. 

The submittal must also demonstrate 

that these emissions levels, when 

considered with emissions from all 

other sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for 

us to find these emissions levels or 

‘‘budgets’’ adequate and approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity 

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). For more 

information on the transportation 

conformity requirement and applicable 

policies on MVEBs, please visit our 

transportation conformity Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/index.htm. 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification 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 based on our initial 

review of the submitted SIP. The 

process for determining the adequacy of 

a submitted MVEB is codified at 40 CFR 

93.118. 

The availability of the SIP submission 

with MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

on April 27, 2009 at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

tansconf/currsips.htm, which provided 

a 30-day public comment period. The 

comment period for this notification 

ended on May 28, 2009, and EPA 

received no comments from the public. 

Note, however, that a second 

mechanism is also provided for EPA 

review and public comment on MVEBs, 

as described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). This 

mechanism provides for EPA’s review of 

the adequacy of an implementation plan 

MVEB simultaneously with its review 

and approval or disapproval of the 

submitted plan itself. In this instance, 

EPA used the web notification 

discussed above to solicit public 

comments on the adequacy of the 

Phoenix-Mesa MVEBs in the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, but is taking 

comment on the approvability of the 

submitted MVEBs through this 

proposed rule. Any and all comments 

on the approvability of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEBs should 

be submitted during the comment 

period stated in the DATES section of this 

document. 

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan contains new VOC and NOX

MVEBs for the Phoenix-Mesa area for 

2025.34 MAG developed the budgets for 

the 2025 maintenance year by using 

geographic information systems (GIS) to 

separate the on-road motor vehicle 

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa air 

quality planning area from the larger 

ozone modeling domain, resulting in 

MVEBs of 43.8 metric tons per day 

(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOX. 

The MVEBs include a 10% safety 

margin 35 and correspond to the peak 

episode day (Thursday) in June 2025 

that was used to model maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area in the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

To estimate motor vehicle emissions 

for the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan and related MVEBs, MAG used the 

version of EPA’s motor vehicle 

emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2) 

that was current at the time the 

emissions estimates were prepared. The 

calculated emission factors were 

multiplied by the estimates of vehicle 

miles of travel (VMT) to generate 

emission estimates for on-road motor 

vehicle sources. The projected 

emissions inventory and related MVEBs 

take into account expected growth in 

VMT and reductions from the 

maintenance measures, but do not 

include reductions from 

implementation of the contingency 

measures. 

The MVEBs are consistent with the 

2025 on-road motor vehicle source VOC 

and NOX emissions included in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan’s 

2025 emission inventory, as 

summarized above in table 3, above. 

The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.124(a)) 

allows for a safety margin, and even 

with the 10 percent safety margin added 

to the on-road emissions, the overall 

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area are 

consistent with continued maintenance 

of the 1997 ozone standard. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MVEBs for 2025 as part of our approval 

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area. We 

have determined that the MVEB 

emission targets are consistent with 

emission control measures in the SIP 

and that the Phoenix-Mesa area can 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for ten years beyond redesignation. The 

details of EPA’s evaluation of the 

MVEBs for compliance with the budget 

adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) 

are provided in a separate memorandum 

included in the docket of this 

rulemaking.36

If we finalize this action as proposed, 

we will make the adequacy finding for 

the 2025 MVEBs in the final rule in 

which we approve the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), our adequacy 

finding will be effective upon 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Once found adequate, 

MAG and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation must use these new 

budgets for 2025 in conformity analyses 

with applicable horizon years after 

2024. The 2008 MVEBs established in 

MAG’s Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Plan, which EPA previously approved 

(77 FR 35285), also remain in effect. Onroad motor vehicle emissions in any 

required analysis years up to and 

including 2024 cannot exceed levels 

established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs. 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for 

the reasons set forth above, EPA is 

proposing to approve ADEQ’s submittal 

dated March 23, 2009 of the MAG EightHour Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

Nonattainment Area (February 2009) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16749 

(‘‘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 finds that the 

maintenance demonstration showing 

how the area will continue to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years 

beyond redesignation and the 

contingency provisions describing the 

actions that the relevant State, regional, 

and local agencies will take in the event 

of a future monitored violation meet all 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A. EPA is also proposing to approve 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

because we find they meet the 

applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

The motor vehicle emissions budgets, 

43.8 mtpd of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of 

NOX, include a 10% safety margin and 

correspond to the peak episode day 

(Thursday) during the June 2025 ozone 

episode that was used to model 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

Second, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s request, which 

accompanied the submitted of the 

maintenance plan, to redesignate the 

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 is in turn based on our proposed 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that 

relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are 

fully approved, that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions, 

that Arizona has met all requirements 

applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area with respect 

to section 110 and part D of the CAA, 

and based on our proposed approval as 

part of this action of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. Redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely propose to approve a 

State plan and redesignation request as 

meeting Federal requirements and do 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those by State law. For these 

reasons, these proposed actions: 

• Are 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); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• 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 et seq.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are 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 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 proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

Nonetheless, EPA has discussed the 

proposed action with the three Tribes, 

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the 

Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian 

Community, and the Tohono O’odham 

Nation located within the Phoenix-Mesa 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: March 14, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06661 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0600; FRL–9906–74– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR89 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Updates to HCFC Trade Language As 

Applied to Article 5 Countries; 

Ratification Status of Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol; and Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule Commodity Codes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to update: 

regulations governing trade of HCFCs to 

reflect that HCFC control measures have 

now taken effect for Parties operating 

under Article 5 of the Montreal 

Protocol; references to Party ratification 

status; tariff codes for ozone depleting 

substances to address changes made in 

2012 by the U.S. International Trade 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS