+(,121/,1(

Citation: 69 Fed. Reg. 60328 2004 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Aug 4 16:06:20 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

of $10,125. Such fee is not required

when, in connection with the change

sought under this paragraph, a petition

is filed for the establishment of new

tolerances to take the place of those

sought to be revoked and a fee is paid

as required by paragraph (a) of this

section.

(1) * * * A fee of $2,025 shall

accompany every request for a waiver or

refund, as specified in paragraph (in) of

this section, except that the fee under

this paragraph shall not be imposed on

any person who has no financial interest

in any action requested by such person

under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this

section. * * *

33. Section 180.40 is amended by

revising the last sentence in paragraph

(f) to read as follows:

§ 180.40 Tolerances for crop groups.

(f) * * * Processing data will be

required prior to establishment of a

group tolerance, and tolerances will not

be granted on a group basis as to

processed foods prepared from crops

covered by the group tolerance.

34. Section 180.1229 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1229 Benzaldehyde; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of benzaldehyde when used as a bee

repellant in the harvesting of honey.

35. Section 180.1230 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1230 Ferrous sulfate; exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of ferrous sulfate.

36. Section 180.1231 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1231 Lime; exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of lime.

37. Section 180.1232 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1232 Lime-sulfur; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of lime-sulfur.

38. Section 180.1233 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1233 Potassium sorbate; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of potassium sorbate.

39. Section 180.1234 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1234 Sodium carbonate; exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of sodium carbonate.

40. Section 180.1235 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1235 Sodium hypochlorite;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of sodium hypochlorite.

41. Section 180.1236 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1236 Sulfur; exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of sulfur.

42. Section 180.1237 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§180.1237 Sodium metasilicate;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of sodium metasilicate when used as

plant desiccants, so long as the

metasilicate does not exceed 4% by

weight in aqueous solution.

43. Section 180.1238 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1238 Oil of lemon; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of oil of lemon when used as a

postharvest fungicide.

44. Section 180.1239 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1239 Oil of orange; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of oil of orange when used as a

postharvest fungicide.

[FR Doc. 04-22584 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ1 04-0069; FRL-7823-6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG) serious area carbon

monoxide (CO) state implementation

plan (SIP) for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area (the metropolitan

Phoenix area, Arizona) as meeting the

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for

serious CO nonattainment areas. We are

also proposing to approve the MAG CO

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area as meeting CAA

requirements for redesignation requests

and maintenance plans. In addition, we

are proposing to make a boundary

change under Section 107 of the CAA to

take the Gila River Indian Community

(GRIC) out of the Maricopa County

maintenance area. The portion of the

Gila River Indian Community which is

currently in the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area will be

"unclassifiable/attainment" for CO, and

will not be subject to the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan.

DATES: Written comments must be

received at the address below on or

before November 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Formal written comments

should be mailed or emailed to Wienke

Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901,

tax.wienke@epa.gov. Comments may

also be submitted through the Federal

Register Web site at http://

www.regulations.gov. We prefer

electronic comments.

You can inspect copies of EPA's

Federal Register document and

technical support documents (TSD) at

our Region 9 office during normal

business hours (see address above). Due

to increased security, we suggest that

you call at least 24 hours prior to

visiting the Regional Office so that we

can make arrangements to have

someone meet you. The Federal

Register document and TSD are also

available as electronic files on EPA's

60328

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60328 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

Region 9 Web Page at http://

www.epa.gov/region 09/air.

You may inspect and copy the

rulemaking docket for this notice at the

following location during business

hours.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region

9, Air Division, Air Planning Office (AIR-2),

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the address

listed below:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street,

First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007, Phone:

(602) 771-4335.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, (520) 622-1622, e-mail:

tax.wienke@epa.gov, or http://

www.epa.gov/region 09/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

"we," "us," and "our" mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

II. The Serious Area CO SIP for the Phoenix

Area

III. The CAA's Requirements for Serious CO

Nonattainment Area Plans

IV. The Revised 1999 CO Plan's Compliance

With the CAA's Requirements for

Serious CO Nonattainment Area Plans

A. Completeness of the SIP Submittals and

Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budget

B. Emissions Inventory

C. Adequate Monitoring Network

D. Implementation of Reasonably Available

Control Measures

E. Demonstration of Attainment

F. Reasonable Further Progress

G. VMT Tracking and Reporting

H. Transportation Control Measures To

Offset Growth in Emissions

I. Contingency Measures

J. Enhanced I/M Program

K. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline

Program

L. General SIP Requirements

V. The CAA's Requirements for Serious CO

Maintenance Plans and Redesignation

Requests

VI. The MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan's Compliance With

the CAA's Requirements for CO

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans

A. General SIP Requirements

B. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

C. Meeting Applicable Requirements of

Section 110 and Part D

D. Fully-Approved SIP Under Section

110(k) of the CAA (NSR)

E. Improvement in Air Quality Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Measures

F. Fully-Approved Maintenance Plan

Under Section 175A

VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation

Conformity Requirements in the MAG

CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

VIII. GRIC Boundary Change Under CAA

Section 107

A. Background

B. EPA Review of the Community's

Request

C. Redesignation of the Northern Portion of

the Reservation

IX. Proposed Action

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve the MAG

serious area SIP for attainment of the CO

air quality standard in the metropolitan

Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona

area. This action is based on our

determination that this SIP complies

with the CAA's requirements for

attaining the CO standard in serious CO

nonattainment areas such as the

metropolitan Phoenix area.

We are also proposing to approve the

MAG CO redesignation request and

maintenance plan for the Maricopa

County CO nonattainment area as

meeting CAA requirements for

redesignation requests and maintenance

plans.

We are also proposing to make a

boundary correction under Section 107

of the CAA for the Gila River Indian

Community.

II. The Serious Area CO SIP for the

Phoenix Area

We are proposing to approve the

Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Carbon

Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County

Nonattainment Area, March 2001. The

plan was developed by MAG, the lead

air quality planning agency in Maricopa

County. The Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ

submitted this plan as a revision to the

Arizona SIP on March 30, 2001 and EPA

received it on April 2, 2001. We refer to

this plan in this document as the

Revised CO Plan or the Revised 1999

CO plan, or variations of these.

As submitted, the Revised 1999 CO

plan consists of the main plan

document, three volumes of technical

appendices and three volumes of

commitments from various agencies to

implement CO controls. The plan

contains 1993 and 1996 emission

inventories, a reasonably available

control measures (RACM) analysis,

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tracking

procedures, annual VMT projections

through 2000, and contingency

measures. It uses the Urban Airshed

Model (UAM) and CAL3QHC

microscale model to model air quality in

1994 as a base year and in 2000 as the

attainment year and demonstrates both

reasonable further progress towards and

attainment of the CO standard by

December 31, 2000.

The MAG plan shows that the

principal sources contributing to CO

exceedances are gasoline on-road motor

vehicles, gasoline non-road engines, and

woodburning. MAG plan, p. ES-1.

In earlier actions, we have already

approved revisions to Arizona's Cleaner

Burning Gasoline (CBG) program and to

Arizona's Vehicle Emissions Inspection

(VEI) Program as well as the Maricopa

County Woodburning curtailment

program. 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 2004),

68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003), 64 FR

60678 (November 8, 1999) and 67 FR

48718 (July 25, 2002). The revisions to

these programs are the principal

controls relied on in the revised MAG

CO plan to demonstrate attainment. We

have also previously approved the

commitments by the Phoenix area cities

and towns to adopt and/or implement

CO control measures. We approved

these commitments as part of the

serious area PM-10 plan approval on

July 25, 2002 at 67 FR 48718. See 40

CFR 52.120(c)(100). Many of these

commitments by Phoenix area cites and

towns commit to measures which

address CO as well as PM-10 emissions

reductions.

For a complete history of the CO

planning efforts in the Phoenix area as

well as the history of the development

of the CO plan, please see Section 1 in

EPA's TSD.

III. The CAA's Requirements for

Serious CO Nonattainment Area Plans

The Phoenix area was reclassified

from moderate to serious for CO on July

29, 1996 (61 FR 39343) because the area

had not attained the CO standard by the

moderate area deadline of December 31,

1995. As a result of this reclassification,

Arizona was required to submit by

February 28, 1998, a revision to its SIP

for the Phoenix area that met the CAA

requirements for serious CO

nonattainment areas found in section

187(a) and section 172(c)(1). This SIP

revision needed to show attainment of

the CO standard by December 31, 2000.

In summary, these requirements are:

(a) Implementation of all reasonably

available control measures (RACM),

including reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for stationary

sources (CAA section 172(c)(1));

(b) Provisions for attainment, and a

demonstration that the plan will

provide for attainment by no later than

December 31, 2000 (CAA section

187(b)(7));

(c) Provisions for such specific annual

emission reductions as are necessary to

attain by December 31, 2000 (CAA

sections 172(c)(2) and 187(b)(7));

60329

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60329 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

(d) Forecasts of vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) in the nonattainment area for

each year before the year in which the

plan projects attainment (CAA section

187(a)(2)(A));

(e) An enhanced vehicle inspection

and maintenance program (CAA section

187(a)(6));

(f) An oxygenated gasoline program

(CAA sections 187(b)(3) and 211(m));

(g) Transportation control strategies

and measures to offset any growth in

emissions from vehicle miles traveled or

numbers of vehicle trips (CAA section

187(b)(2));

(h) Contingency measures that will be

implemented if the area fails to attain by

its applicable deadline, fails to make

reasonable further progress, or vehicle

mile traveled estimates exceed those

forecasted (CAA sections 172(c)(9) and

187(a)(3));

(i) A comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of CO (CAA sections 172(c)(3)

and 187(a)(5)); and

(j) A transportation conformity budget

(CAA section 176(c)).

Serious area CO SIPs must also meet

the general requirements applicable to

all SIPs including reasonable notice and

public hearing under section 110(a),

necessary assurances that the

implementing agencies have adequate

personnel, funding and authority under

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR

51.280; and the description of

enforcement methods as required by 40

CFR 51.111.1

We have issued a General Preamble 2

describing our preliminary views on

how the Agency intends to review SIPs

submitted to meet the Clean Air Act's

requirements for CO SIPs. We have also

issued other guidance documents

related to CO SIPs or provisions of those

SIPs, including the "Technical Support

Document to Aid States with the

Development of Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plans," Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS), U.S. EPA, EPA-452/R-92-

003 (July 1992).

On July 8, 1999, ADEQ submitted the

MAG 1999 Serious Area CO Plan ("1999

CO Plan") to EPA. We found the

submittal complete on September 9,

1999. The 1999 CO Plan was revised

because the Arizona legislature passed

'Serious area SIPs must also include new source

review (NSR) permitting rules that meet the

requirements of sections 172(c)(5) and 173. In

practice, NSR rules are submitted and reviewed

separately from the rest of the serious area CO plan.

Maricopa County has submitted a complete NSR

rule.

2 "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air

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

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

House Bill (HB) 2104 during the 2000

regular session, which repealed the

remote sensing portion of the VEI

program. We indicated that the 1999 CO

Plan would need to be revised to reflect

the change in the VEI program. MAG

conducted new air quality modeling and

revised the 1999 CO Plan. On April 2,

2001, ADEQ submitted the Revised 1999

MAG Serious Area CO Plan ("Revised

1999 CO Plan") to EPA.

IV. The Revised 1999 CO Plan's

Compliance With the CAA's

Requirements for Serious CO

Nonattainment Area Plans

The following sections present a

summary of our evaluation of the

Revised 1999 CO Plan's compliance

with the applicable CAA requirements

for serious area SIPs for CO. Our

complete evaluation is found in the EPA

TSD for this action. 3 A copy of the EPA

TSD can be obtained by calling or

writing the contact person listed above.

A. Completeness of the SIP Submittals

and Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budget

The first step we take after receiving

a SIP submittal is to determine if it is

complete. CAA section 110(k)(1)(B)

requires that we review all SIPs and SIP

revisions for completeness within 60

days of receipt. The completeness

review allows us to quickly determine if

the submittal includes all the necessary

items and information we need to take

action on it. We make completeness

determinations using criteria we have

established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix

V.

We found ADEQ's March 30, 2001

submittal (received on April 2, 2001) of

the Revised 1999 CO Plan complete and

notified the State on October 9, 2001.

See Letter, Jack P. Broadbent, EPA, to

Jacqueline Schafer, ADEQ. Our

completeness determination is

documented in Section 2 of the EPA

TSD.

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

requires that federally funded or

approved transportation plans,

programs, and projects in nonattainment

areas "conform" to the area's air quality

SIPs. Conformity ensures that federal

transportation actions do not worsen an

area's air quality or interfere with its

meeting the air quality standards. We

have issued a conformity rule that

establishes the criteria and procedures

for determining whether or not

transportation plans, programs, and

3 See "Technical Support Document for the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Carbon

Monoxide Serious Area Planning Requirements for

the Maricopa County, Arizona Nonattainment

Area," June 2004, Air Division, USEPA Region 9.

projects conform. See 40 CFR part 93,

subpart A.

One of the primary tests for

conformity is to show that

transportation plans and improvement

programs will not cause motor vehicle

emissions to increase above levels

needed to make progress toward and to

meet the air quality standards. The

motor vehicle emissions levels needed

to make progress toward and to meet the

air quality standards are set forth in the

area's air quality SIPs as an "emissions

budget for motor vehicles." The

conformity rule's requirements and

EPA's policy on emissions budgets are

found in the preamble to the November

24, 1993 transportation conformity rule

(58 FR 62193-96), in the sections of the

rule referenced above, and in

subsequent revisions to the conformity

rule (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004).

Before an emissions budget in a

submitted SIP revision may be used in

a conformity determination, we must

first determine that it is adequate. The

criteria by which we determine

adequacy of submitted emission budgets

are outlined in conformity rules in 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4).

The Revised 1999 CO Plan, submitted

on March 30, 2001, established a revised

mobile source emissions budget of 412.2

metric tons per day (mtpd). Revised

1999 CO Plan, p. 9-11. We found this

budget adequate for transportation

conformity purposes on September 28,

2001. See letter, Jack Broadbent, EPA

Region 9 to Jacqueline Schafer, ADEQ,

and James Bourey, MAG. Our finding

was published in the Federal Register

on October 17, 2001 (66 FR 52761) and

became effective 15 days later on

November 1, 2001.

B. Emissions Inventory

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires all

serious area CO SIP submittals to

include a comprehensive, accurate, and

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources in the base year

inventory to forecast and backcast other

years. Maricopa County chose the year

1993 as the base year for its serious area

CO SIP since it was the most complete

emission inventory available at the time

MAG started its modeling for the 1999

CO Plan. MAG developed a 1994

modeling inventory based on the 1993

annual CO inventory. The base year and

forecasted 1996 emission inventories

described all the sources of CO for the

nonattainment area. In 1998, Maricopa

County completed the draft 1996 CO

emissions inventory. In response to

public comments on the Draft MAG

1998 CO Plan, a comparison of the 1993

and 1996 periodic inventories and an

evaluation of the 1994 base case

60330

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60330 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

modeling inventory were conducted.

MAG subsequently revised the nonroad

equipment modeling assumptions to be

more consistent with the 1996 CO

inventory. The comparison concluded

that the 1994 modeling inventory

contained the most recent and valid

assumptions.

The emission inventory is divided

into source categories and subcategories.

The main source categories are

stationary sources (both point and

aggregated), area sources, on-road

mobile sources, and off-road mobile

sources. Source categories provide a

convenient way to organize the

emission inventory and to determine the

significance of particular sources.

Seasonal inventories are provided to

account for the differences in emissions

occurring during the times of year when

Maricopa County used to exceed the 8-

hour CO standard. We are approving the

emission inventories of the Maricopa

County CO nonattainment area as

meeting the requirements of section

172(c)(3) of the CAA.

On September 18, 1996, we proposed

approval of the 1990 base year CO

emissions inventory for Maricopa

County (see 61 FR 49087). When we

finalize today's proposed action, we will

also finalize approval of the 1990 base

year emissions inventory proposed on

September 18, 1996.

C. Adequate Monitoring Network

The CAA requires states to establish

and operate air monitoring networks to

compile data on ambient air quality for

all criteria pollutants. Section

110(a)(2)(B)(i). Our regulations in 40

CFR part 58 establish specific regulatory

requirements for operating air quality

surveillance networks to measure

ambient concentrations of CO, including

measurement method requirements,

network design, quality assurance

procedures, and in the case of large

urban areas, the minimum number of

monitoring sites designated as National

Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS).

Ambient networks, however, do not

need to meet all our regulations to be

found adequate to support air quality

modeling. A good spatial distribution of

sites, correct siting, and quality-assured

and quality-controlled data are the most

important factors for air quality

modeling. Nonattainment area plans

developed under title I, part D of the

Clean Air Act are not generally required

to address how the area's air quality

network meets our monitoring

regulations. These plans are submitted

too infrequently to serve as the vehicle

for assuring that monitoring networks

remain current.

For this action, we are discussing the

adequacy of the Phoenix area

monitoring network solely to support

our finding that the Revised 1999 CO

Plan appropriately evaluates the CO

problem in the Phoenix area. Reliable

ambient data is necessary to validate the

base year air quality modeling which in

turn is necessary to assure a sound

attainment demonstration.

There are fourteen CO monitoring

sites in the metropolitan Phoenix area;

thirteen are operated by the Maricopa

County Environmental Services

Department and one by ADEQ. Figure

4-3 on page 4-7 in the Revised 1999 CO

Plan lists the names of the sites and

their locations in the Phoenix area.

These sites all use EPA reference

methods, are sited according to our

regulations, meet the applicable

monitoring objections in our

regulations, and are operated according

to our regulations. We therefore find

that the monitoring network operated by

the MCESD and ADEQ is adequate to

support the technical evaluation of CO

nonattainment problem in the Revised

1999 CO Plan. See also EPA TSD section

"Ambient Air Quality Surveillance".

D. Implementation of Reasonably

Available Control Measures

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that

nonattainment plans provide for the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures (RACM) as

expeditiously as practicable. We

interpret this requirement to require a

state to consider available measures for

controlling CO and to adopt and

implement those measures that are

reasonably available for implementation

in the area as components of the area's

attainment demonstration. In general,

we do not consider a measure to be

reasonably available if it is

economically or technologically

infeasible for the area, would not

advance attainment of the relevant

standard in the area, or is absurd,

unenforceable or impracticable. General

Preamble at 13560.

As described above, the principal

sources of CO in the metropolitan

Phoenix area are (in order of

importance) on-road motor vehicles,

non-road engines, and residential

woodburning, which collectively

account for 99 percent of the 1996

seasonal inventory. Revised 1999 CO

Plan, Figure ES-2. The Revised 1999 CO

Plan evaluates a broad range of controls

for each of these sources categories. See

Revised 1999 CO Plan, Chapter 6.

For on-road motor vehicles, adopted

controls include the State's enhanced

vehicle emission inspection program,

cleaner burning gasoline program

including a 3.5 percent oxygen content

and 9 psi volatility standard,

requirements and incentives for the use

of alternative fueled vehicles, and

numerous transportation control

measures (TCMs). See Revised 1999 CO

Plan, Chapter 8. We find that these

measures along with the federal motor

vehicle tailpipe standards provide a

comprehensive control strategy for

attaining the CO standard and provide

for the implementation of RACM in the

on-road motor vehicle category as

required by CAA section 172(c)(1). See

EPA TSD section "Implementation of

RACM for On-Road Motor Vehicle

Controls-Technology."

CAA section 187(b)(2) requires a State

with a serious CO nonattainment area to

consider the TCMs in section 108(f) and

choose to implement such measures as

necessary to demonstrate attainment.

The Phoenix area has a long history of

adopting TCMs, including those in

section 108(f), for controlling CO. The

Revised 1999 CO Plan implements the

section 108(f) TCMs and includes

additional measures in support of the

attainment demonstration. See Revised

1999 CO Plan, Table 7-2 and Chapter 8.

We therefore find that the Revised 1999

CO Plan complies with CAA section

187(b)(2) and 172(c)(1). See EPA TSD

section "Implementation of RACM for

On-Road Motor Vehicle ControlsTransportation Control Measures."

The nonroad (mobile) engine category

covers a diverse collection of engines,

equipment and vehicles fueled by

gasoline, diesel, and other fuels and

includes outdoor power equipment,

recreational equipment, farm

equipment, construction equipment,

lawn and garden equipment, aircraft,

locomotives, and marine vessels.

Although diesel engines dominate the

market for nonroad engines, ninety

percent of CO emissions from the

nonroad category come from gasolinepowered nonroad engines.

Starting in the mid-1990s, EPA

promulgated national emission

standards for a broad range of nonroad

engines. See EPA TSD section

"Implementation of RACM for Nonroad

Engines." Nonroad engines sold in

Arizona are required to comply with

these national standards which

constitutes a RACM-level program for

controlling emissions from nonroad

engines.

In addition, Arizona's CBG program

regulates gasoline used in nonroad

engines. The Revised 1999 CO Plan also

includes a number of other nonroad

engine measures. See EPA TSD section

"Implementation of RACM for Nonroad

Engines." With the national emission

standards and the additional State

60331

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60331 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

measures, we find that the Revised 1999

CO Plan provides for the

implementation of RACM for nonroad

engines.

The residential wood combustion

(RWC) category includes emissions from

the burning of solid fuel in residential

fireplaces and woodstoves as well as

barbecues and fire pits. Measures to

control CO from residential

woodburning include a public

education program, woodburning

curtailment programs, retrofit

requirements and restrictions or bans on

the installation of woodburning stoves

and/or fireplaces.

The Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department's Rule 318,

Approval of Residential Woodburning

Devices, establishes standards for the

approval of residential woodburning

devices that can be used during

restricted-burn periods. Maricopa

County's Residential Woodburning

Restriction Ordinance provides that

restricted-burn periods are declared by

the Control Officer when the Control

Officer determines that air pollution

levels could exceed the CO standard

and/or the PM standard (150 gg/m3). We

approved Rule 318 and an earlier

version of the ordinance (revised April

21, 1999) as providing for the

implementation of RACM. See 64 FR

60678 (November 8, 1999).

The Revised 1999 CO Plan includes a

number of other woodburning measures.

We find that these measures along with

Maricopa County's woodburning rules

provide for the implementation of

RACM for residential wood combustion.

See EPA TSD section "Implementation

of RACM for Residential Wood

Combustion."

E. Demonstration of Attainment

CAA section 187(a)(7) requires serious

area plans to provide for attainment of

the CO NAAQS by December 31, 2000

and to contain a demonstration that the

plan will provide for attainment. Under

our guidance, an attainment

demonstration may be made using EPAapproved air quality models and must

include the control strategy. General

Preamble at 13533.

There are two parts to reviewing a

modeled attainment demonstration: (1)

Evaluating the technical adequacy of the

modeling itself, and (2) evaluating the

control measures that are relied on to

demonstrate attainment. We discuss

each part below.

1. Air Quality Modeling

MAG used the Urban Airshed Model

(UAM), the standard model for carbon

monoxide attainment demonstrations,

consistent with EPA guidance, to

predict the effect of control measures in

its attainment demonstration. UAM

requires meteorological inputs, such as

temperature and wind speeds, as well as

initial and boundary conditions for CO

concentrations, and CO emissions.

These must be allocated in time and

space; every hour of the simulation and

every one square mile grid cell requires

these inputs. Diagnostic testing is

performed to ensure the model is

performing well for a chosen CO

episode, which in this case was

December 17, 1994, which at 10.5 ppm

had the highest CO peak and most

widespread high CO readings observed

during 1994. Once the model predicts

observed CO concentrations for this

chosen CO episode adequately, postcontrol measure emissions are input to

the model to project future air quality.

Separate predictions are also made "hot

spots", intersections with high traffic

and congested conditions, using the

CAL3QHC model. This "microscale"

component is then combined with the

UAM results. The total prediction is

then compared to the level of the

NAAQS, 9.0 ppm, to demonstrate

attainment.

As detailed in the TSD, MAG

followed accepted procedures in

developing the model inputs,

performing diagnostic testing of the

results, and showing adequate model

performance. Model performance

statistics met EPA-recommended goals.

The observed spatial and temporal

patterns of CO were replicated fairly

well by the model. While there were

some discrepancies, these were

attributed to lack of observations at

some locations, and by slight shifts in

wind patterns. That is, if the wind field

input to the model had been slightly

different, some high CO locations in the

model predictions would have better

matched the monitor locations. But

since the magnitude, spatial extent, and

timing of elevated CO concentrations is

very similar between the model and

observations, EPA determines the model

performed adequately for attainment

demonstration purposes.

Overall, the modeling done by MAG

meets EPA guidelines and performs well

enough to be relied upon as the basis for

the CO attainment demonstration. EPA

therefore proposes to approve the CO

attainment demonstration.

2. Control Measures Relied on for

Attainment

For demonstrating attainment of the

CO standard, the Revised 1999 CO Plan

relies primarily on reductions from the

VEI and CBG programs as well as much

smaller reductions from three other

measures, traffic synchronization,

intelligent transportation systems, and

deferring emissions associated with

government activities. See Revised 1999

CO Plan, Figure 9-1. We have

previously approved all of these

measures. See 68 FR 2912, 69 FR 10161,

64 FR 60678, and 67 FR 48718.

As part of these approvals, we have

evaluated each of these measures to

ensure that they meet our SIP

enforceability criteria. These criteria

ensure that the measure's compliance

requirements-applicability,

performance standards, compliance

schedule, and monitoring methods-are

clear.

We have also evaluated the CO

emissions reductions credited to each

measure in the attainment

demonstration to ensure they are

reasonable. We found that the emission

reduction estimates for each source

category are consistent with research on

the applicable control methods and are

appropriately applied in the attainment

demonstrations. Finally, we have

determined that the measures relied on

for attainment are being expeditiously

implemented. See EPA TSD, section

"Attainment Demonstration".

F. Reasonable Further Progress

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires

nonattainment plans to provide for

reasonable further progress (RFP),

which is defined in section 171(1) as "such annual incremental reductions in

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as

are required by this part [part D of title

I] or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

national ambient air quality standard by

the applicable date." For serious CO

nonattainment areas, CAA section

187(a)(7) also requires the plans to

provide for such specific annual

emission reductions as are necessary to

attain the standard by the applicable

attainment date.

We find that the Revised 1999 CO

Plan provides for RFP and for such

specific annual emission reductions as

are necessary to attain the standard by

the December 31, 2000 as required by

the Act.4 The Revised 1999 CO Plan

includes an RFP demonstration for the

years 1994, 1999, and 2000. 1994 is the

base year, 1999 is the year before the

two largest measures in the Revised

1999 CO Plan (revisions to the VEI and

CBG programs) were implemented, and

2000 is the attainment year. Total design

day CO emissions drop from 687 mtpd

4 This finding is further supported by our finding

that the area attained the CO standard by December

31, 2000. (68 FR 55008, effective November 21,

2003).

60332

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60332 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

in 1994 to 686 mtpd in 1999 to 640

mtpd in 2000. Revised 1999 CO Plan,

Figure 9-4. Total CO emissions drop

very little from 1994 to 1999 primarily

because a large increase in emissions

from non-road engines offsets the

decreases in on-road emissions. See

MAG TSD, Table 11-4.

G. VMT Tracking and Reporting

CAA section 187(a)(2)(A) requires

each State with a serious CO

nonattainment area to forecast VMT in

the nonattainment area for each year

before the attainment year. These

forecasts must be developed following

guidance issued by EPA in consultation

with the U.S. Department of

Transportation. This section also

requires the plan to provide for annual

updates of the forecasts to be submitted

along with a report containing estimates

of actual VMT for the year. We provided

detailed guidance to States regarding the

VMT tracking and reporting

requirement in "Section 187 VMT

Forecasting and Tracking Guidance,"

USEPA, January 1992.

We find that the Revised 1999 CO

Plan fully complies with CAA section

187(a)(2)(A) and our guidance

implementing that section. Specifically,

the VMT forecasts in the Revised 1999

CO Plan were developed consistent with

applicable EPA guidance including (1)

forecasting VMT using a validated

network-based travel demand model; (2)

clearly identifying a VMT tracking area;

(3) estimating actual VMT on Highway

Performance Monitoring System

(HPMS) traffic counts adjusted in a

reasonable manner to cover the entire

VMT tracking area; and (4) committing

to submitting annual reports meeting

EPA requirements.

MAG has submitted VMT tracking

reports for the years 1999, 2000, and

2001. These reports follow EPA

guidance regarding content and

procedures for determining actual VMT.

All three reports show that VMT levels

in the metropolitan Phoenix CO

nonattainment area remain within the

levels projected in the Revised 1999 CO

Plan. See "1999 Vehicle Miles Travel

Forecasting and Tracking Report,"

MAG, September 22, 1999 (submitted

September 23, 1999); "2000 Vehicle

Miles Travel Forecasting and Tracking

Report," MAG, September 11, 2000

(submitted September 21, 2000); and

"2001 Vehicle Miles Travel Forecasting

and Tracking Report," MAG, October

23, 2001 (submitted November 14,

2001).

H. Transportation Control Measures To

Offset Growth in Emissions

CAA section 187(b)(2) requires

serious area CO plans to identify and

adopt "specific and enforceable

transportation control strategies and

TCMs to offset any growth in emissions

from growth in VMT and numbers of

trips" and to achieve reductions in

mobile source emissions as necessary in

conjunction with other measures to

comply with the applicable periodic

emission reduction and attainment

requirements.

We interpret this provision to require

that sufficient measures be adopted so

that projected motor vehicle CO

emissions will never be higher during

the CO season in one year than during

the CO season in the year before. Where

growth in VMT and trips would

otherwise cause a motor vehicle

emissions upturn, this upturn must be

prevented. General Preamble at 13521.

The Revised 1999 CO Plan provides

sufficient information for us to conclude

that on-road mobile source emissions

will decrease from the base year of 1994

until the attainment year of 2000 and

this decrease will occur even before we

take into account the additional controls

in the Revised 1999 CO Plan. Moreover,

the Revised 1999 CO Plan provides for

expeditious attainment of the CO

standard. Therefore, we propose to find

that the Revised 1999 CO Plan meets

CAA section 187(b)(2).

L Contingency Measures

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that

nonattainment area SIPs provide for the

implementation of specific measures to

be undertaken if the area fails to make

RFP or attain by its attainment deadline.

CAA section 187(a)(7) requires that

serious CO nonattainment area plans

also contain contingency measures that

would be implemented if the area

exceeds its vehicle mile traveled (VMT)

projections. Both sections require that

these contingency measures are to take

effect without further action by the State

or the Administrator. The Act does not

specify how many contingency

measures are necessary nor does it

specify the magnitude of the emission

reductions (or VMT reductions) they

must produce. In policy and in previous

rulemaking we have suggested that one

appropriate choice of contingency

measures would be to provide for the

implementation of sufficient VMT

reductions or emissions reductions to

counteract the effect of one year's

growth in VMT in order to ensure

continued progress while the plan was

being revised to correct any deficiencies

that resulted in a failure to attain, make

RFP, or keep within VMT forecasts.

General Preamble at 13532.

Under applicable Agency policy,

states may use already adopted and

implemented measures as contingency

measures, provided that those measures'

emission reductions are not needed to

demonstrate expeditious attainment

and/or RFP and are not included in

either the attainment or RFP

demonstrations. This approach

effectively allows for the early

implementation of contingency

measures. 5

The Revised 1999 CO Plan includes 9

contingency measures, all of which have

already been adopted and implemented.

See Table Con-1 in the EPA TSD.

Collectively these measures result in

approximately a 4.1 percent reduction

in total CO emissions in 2001 and

provide emission reductions from each

of the largest categories of CO emissions

in the Phoenix area: woodburning,

gasoline on-road vehicles, and gasoline

nonroad engines. See Revised 1999 CO

Plan, p. 9-12.

The annualized VMT growth in the

Phoenix area from 2000 to 2005 is

projected to be 2.6 percent. On-road

mobile source account for 67 percent of

the 2000 base case (e.g., prior to control)

CO inventory of 714.9 mtpd. Revised

1999 CO Plan, p. 8-12. Therefore, one

year's growth in VMT is equivalent to

0.67 x 2.6 percent or 1.7 percent (12.2

mptd) of the 2000 base case inventory.

One of the eight contingency

measures listed in the Revised 1999 CO

Plan is no longer applicable. Funding

for the lawn mower reduction program

ended in FY 2001. Prior to 2001, the

program resulted in the retirement of a

large number of gasoline-powered

commercial and residential lawn

mowers and other hand-held gasolinepowered equipment.6 However, because

these lawnmowers have been

presumably replaced with cleaner units

earlier then they would otherwise have

been replaced, the program will have

continuing effects for several years after

2000.

The use of an adopted and

implemented federal program, the

national LEV program, as a contingency

measure is acceptable. The purpose of

contingency measures is to assure

continued progress towards attainment

5 See memorandum, G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/

Carbon Monoxide Programs Brand, OAQPS to Air

Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, "Early Implementation

of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas," August 13,

1993 ("Helms memo").

6 In 1998/99, the program retired 1780 old,

polluting gas mowers and 563 other pieces of

garden equipment. See "Current Status of Carbon

Monoxide," Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department, (January 2000).

60333

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60333 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

in an area while its SIP is being revised

to correct for a failure to attain or to

make RFP or to deal with higher than

expected VMT growth. To the extent

that federal programs provide for this

continued progress and the State has not

otherwise relied on the program to

demonstrate attainment or RFP, the

State may rely on that measure. 7

We have approved the other seven

contingency measures into the Arizona

SIP in earlier rulemakings. See 67 FR

48718 (July 25, 2002) and 68 FR 2912

(January 22, 2003).

Because the contingency measures

collectively provide for emission

reductions consistent with EPA policy

and meet the statutory requirement that

they "take effect without further action

by the State or the Administrator," we

propose to find that the Revised 1999

CO Plan meets the CAA sections

172(c)(9) and 187(a)(7) requirement for

contingency measures. We also propose

to find that the emissions reductions

resulting from these contingency

measures are not already accounted for

in the Phoenix CO nonattainment area's

RFP or attainment demonstrations.

J. Enhanced I/M Program

CAA section 187(b)(6) requires that all

serious CO nonattainment areas

implement an enhanced I/M program

which complies with EPA guidance. We

issued our initial rule containing the

requirements for enhanced I/M

programs in 1992 and have amended

those rules several times since. For more

information on the requirements for

enhanced I/M programs, see 60 FR

22518 (May 8, 1995) (initial approval of

Arizona's enhanced and basic I/M

program) and 67 FR 52433 (August 12,

2002) (proposed approval of revisions to

Arizona's enhanced and basic I/M

program).

Arizona first submitted the legislation

and regulations for the Maricopa County

enhanced vehicle emission inspection

program in 1994 as part of its moderate

area plans for CO and ozone.

Subsequently, Arizona made a number

of modifications to its program

including revising the testing protocol,

requiring on-board diagnostic system

testing, expanding the exemption to the

latest five model years, changing the

waiver provisions, and removing the

remote sensing element of the program.

The State resubmitted the program for

approval in 2001. See 2001 I/M

submittal.

7 However, if the federal program is delayed or

does not generate the expected emission reductions,

the State would have to revise its contingency

measures to assure adequate emission reductions or

face a finding of SIP inadequacy.

In a separate action, we approved

Arizona's vehicle emission inspection

program for the Phoenix area as meeting

the enhanced I/M program requirements

of CAA section 187(b)(6) and our

regulations. See 68 FR 2912 (January 22,

2003).

K. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline

Program

CAA section 211(m) requires states

with CO nonattainment areas with

design values of 9.5 ppm or higher to

implement a wintertime oxygenated

gasoline program requiring that gasoline

contain not less than 2.7 percent oxygen

by weight. All serious CO

nonattainment areas, which by

definition have design values exceeding

the 211(m) thresholds, must include an

oxygenated gasoline program in their

SIPs. See also CAA § 187(b)(3). Under

both 211(m) and 187(b)(3), the program

is to apply to all gasoline sold, supplied,

offered for sale or supply, dispensed,

transported or introduced into

commerce in the consolidated

metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) or,

if no CMSA exists, the metropolitan

statistical area (MSA).

1. History of State Program

Arizona first adopted a wintertime

oxygenated gasoline program in 1988,

before sections 187(b) and 211(m) were

added to the Act as part of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments. The

original State wintertime oxygenated

gasoline program applied throughout

Maricopa County and established a

fairly complicated scheme of shifting

averages and exemptions. In general,

however, it required leaded gasoline to

contain between 2.4 and 3.7 percent

oxygen by weight and unleaded gasoline

to contain between 1.9 and 3.7 percent

oxygen by weight. The program applied

from September 30 through March 31 of

each year. EPA approved this program

into the SIP finding the fuel control

measure was not preempted under CAA

section 211(c)(4) and would, in any

event, provide necessary CO emission

reductions. See 53 FR 30224 (Aug. 10,

1988).

The August 10, 1988 SIP approval,

however, was vacated by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals in Delaneyv.

EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990). In

1991, in response to an order from the

court, EPA disapproved the Maricopa

CO SIP including the State's wintertime

oxygenated gasoline requirement. 56 FR

5458 (Feb. 11, 1991). In its place, EPA

adopted a FIP with an oxygenated

gasoline program. EPA modeled the FIP

program on the then newly adopted

requirements in 211(m). It required all

gasoline sold in the Maricopa

nonattainment area to contain a

minimum oxygen content of 2.7 percent

by weight from October 1 to March 31

of each year. In the FIP notice, we noted

that section 211(m) added by the 1990

Clean Air Amendments would require

Maricopa to adopt a similar state

requirement beginning in 1992. As a

result, we anticipated that the

oxygenated gasoline requirement in the

FIP would only be in effect for one year.

Arizona adopted new oxygenated

gasoline requirements on June 11, 1991

in Arizona House Bill 2181. On March

9, 1992, EPA approved Arizona's

revised wintertime oxygenated gasoline

program into the SIP. 57 FR 8268. The

revised program required that all

gasoline in the Maricopa nonattainment

area contain no less than 2.7 percent

oxygen by weight from September 30 to

March 31 of each year. In that approval,

EPA noted that the area covered by the

program did not include the entire MSA

as required under section 211(m).

Instead, the program applied only to the

Maricopa CO nonattainment area, which

was then defined as the MAG urban

planning area. As a result, we found the

State program could be approved into

the SIP as an equivalent substitution for

the FIP program but concluded that

Arizona would need to modify the

program further by November 1, 1992 in

order to meet all the requirements of

211(m). Id.

Since our March 1992 approval,

Arizona has made a number of changes

to the wintertime oxygenated gasoline

program. In 1998, EPA approved

changes to the wintertime program as

part of our approval of the State's new

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG)

program. 63 FR 6653 (Feb. 10, 1998).

The wintertime program approved at

that time continued to require that

gasoline supplied or sold in the

Maricopa CO nonattainment area 8

contain a minimum 2.7 percent oxygen

by weight, but changed the control

period to November 1 through March

31. In our approval, we did not address

compliance with 211(m), instead

finding the revisions necessary for

attainment of the ozone and PM-10

NAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, we approved into

the SIP further revisions to the State

CBG program, including changes to the

wintertime oxygenated gasoline

8 The revised rules established new defined

"areas" for specifying the applicability of their

requirements. The wintertime oxygenated gasoline

requirements apply to "Area A", which was

originally defined as the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area. As explained below, Arizona

has made a number of changes to the definition of

Area A to affect the applicability of the fuel

requirements.

60334

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60334 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

requirements. 69 FR 10161. The current

SIP-approved wintertime program

requires all gasoline sold in Maricopa

County and in parts of Pinal and

Yavapai Counties from November 1 to

March 31 to contain a minimum of 3.5

percent oxygen by weight. Although

Arizona's wintertime CBG program

adopted by the State on July 18, 1988

covered the MSA, as required by

211(m), subsequent changes to the

covered area that have been approved

into the SIP (i.e., the inclusion of

portions of Yavapai and Pinal Counties)

do not correspond to the entire MSA,

which itself has been subsequently

modified by the Census Bureau. 9

2. Compliance With 211(m)

The State's wintertime oxygenated

gasoline program approved in the SIP

has provided significant CO emissions

reductions in the Maricopa CO

nonattainment area and has helped the

area attain the CO NAAQS, as

evidenced by the Phoenix area's lack of

violations of the CO standard since

1997, when the program was initiated.

As a result, we are proposing to find

that further changes to the program to

meet the specific requirements of

211(m), including the requirement that

the program apply to the entire MSA,

are not required under the Act.

Section 211(m)(6) provides:

Nothing in this subsection shall be

interpreted as requiring an oxygenated

gasoline program in an area which is in

attainment for carbon monoxide, except that

in a carbon monoxide nonattainment area

which is redesignated as attainment for

carbon monoxide, the requirements of this

subsection shall remain in effect to the extent

such program is necessary to maintain such

standard thereafter in the area.

See also CAA section 187(b)(3)(B)

(providing that a wintertime oxygenated

program is not required for an area if the

State demonstrates that the revision is

not necessary for attainment and

maintenance of the CO NAAQS). We

have interpreted this language to mean

that once EPA determines that a CO

nonattainment area is actually attaining

the CO NAAQS and the area

demonstrates it does not need a program

meeting 211(m), section 211(m) no

longer requires submittal of a SIP

revision so long as the area continues to

maintain the standard. See, e.g., 60 FR

62741 (Dec. 7, 1995) (waiving 211(m)

requirements for portions of the

Camden, New Jersey area).

Today's finding that the State need

not submit a program complying with

section 211(m) does not mean the State

9 All of Pinal County was added to the definition

of the Phoenix-Mesa MSA by the 1990 census.

can abandon its wintertime oxygenated

gasoline program. The program remains

approved in the SIP. Any revision to

remove these requirements from the SP

would be subject to the requirements of

section 110(1).

L. General SIP Requirements

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires

SIPs to include a program to provide for

the enforcement of SIP measures.

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that SIPs

provide necessary assurances that the

State (or the general purpose local

government) will have adequate

personnel, funding and authority under

State law to implement the submitted

SIP. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

requires SIPs to include necessary

assurances that where a State has relied

on a local or regional government,

agency or instrumentality for the

implementation of any plan provision,

the State has responsibility for ensuring

adequate implementation of the plan

provision.

The principal control measures in the

Revised 1999 CO Plan are Arizona's VEI

program, the wintertime CBG program,

and Maricopa County's woodburning

restrictions program. We approved these

programs at 68 FR 2912 (January 12,

2003), 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 2004), 64

FR 60678, and 67 FR 48718 (July 25,

2002) respectively. As part of our

approval actions, we found that Arizona

had adequate personnel, funding and

authority to implement these programs

and had adequately provided for the

enforcement of these programs.

We have previously found that

Arizona law includes the necessary

assurances that where a State has relied

on a local or regional government

agency or instrumentality for the

implementation of any plan provision,

the State has responsibility for ensuring

adequate implementation of the plan

provision. 60 FR 18010, 18019 (April

10, 1995).

V. The CAA's Requirements for Serious

CO Maintenance Plans and

Redesignation Requests

Under the Clean Air Act, we can

change designations if acceptable data

are available and if certain other

requirements are met. See CAA Section

107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

CAA provides that the Administrator

may promulgate a redesignation of a

nonattainment area to attainment if the

following five criteria are met:

(i) The Administrator determines that

the area has attained the national

ambient air quality standard;

(ii) The Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

CAA section 110(k);

(iii) The Administrator determines

that the improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and the applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions;

(iv) The Administrator has fully

approved a maintenance plan for the

area as meeting the requirements of

CAA section 175A; and

(v) The State containing the area has

met all requirements applicable to the

area under section 110 and part D of the

CAA.

Before we can approve the

redesignation request, we must

determine that all applicable SIP

elements have been fully approved.

Approval of the applicable SIP elements

may occur simultaneously with the final

approval of the redesignation request.

VI. The MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan's

Compliance With the CAA's

Requirements for CO Redesignation

Requests and Maintenance Plans

We are proposing to approve the MAG

Carbon Monoxide Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan for the

Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,

May 2003 ("MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan"). The

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan was developed by the

Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG), the lead air quality planning

agency in Maricopa County. The

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) submitted this plan as

a revision to the Arizona SIP on June 16,

2003 and EPA received it on June 24,

2003. We refer to this plan in this

document as the MAG CO redesignation

request and maintenance plan, the MAG

maintenance plan, or variations of these.

As submitted, the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan consists of the main plan

document and one volume of technical

appendices. The MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan contains 1994 and 1999 emission

inventories and projected inventories

for 2006 and 2015, a modeling

demonstration showing maintenance of

the CO standard through 2015, a list of

committed control measures, mobile

source emissions budgets for 2006 and

2015, and contingency measures. It uses

UAM and the CAL3QHC microscale

model to model air quality in 1994 as

a base year and in 2006 as an interim

year and 2015 as the maintenance year

60335

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60335 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

and demonstrates maintenance of the

CO standard through 2015.

The MAG CO Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan shows that the

principal sources contributing to past

CO exceedances are gasoline on-road

motor vehicles, gasoline non-road

engines, and woodburning. MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, p. ES-5.

In earlier actions, we have already

approved revisions to Arizona's CBG

program and to Arizona's VEI program

as well as the Maricopa County

Woodburning curtailment program. 69

FR 10161 (March 4, 2004), 68 FR 2912

(January 22, 2003), 64 FR 60678

(November 8, 1999) and 67 FR 48718

(July 25, 2002). The revisions to these

programs are the principal controls

relied on in the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan to

demonstrate attainment. We have also

previously approved the commitments

by the Phoenix area cities and towns to

adopt and/or implement CO control

measures. We approved these

commitments as part of the serious area

PM-10 plan approval on July 25, 2002

at 67 FR 48718. See 40 CFR

52.120(c)(100).

We have reviewed the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan and believe that proposing to

approve the request is warranted,

consistent with the requirements of

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The following

sections of this notice describe how the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) are

addressed by the MAG submittal.

A. General SIP Requirements

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses

our actions on submissions of revisions

to a SIP. The CAA requires States to

observe certain procedural requirements

in developing SIP revisions for

submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA requires that each SIP revision be

adopted after reasonable notice and

public hearing. This must occur prior to

the revision being submitted by a State

to us.

MAG held a public hearing for the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan on May 5, 2003. The

MAG Regional Council adopted the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan on May 28, 2003.

These SIP revisions were adopted and

submitted by ADEQ to us on June 16,

2003. We received the submittal on June

24, 2003.

We have evaluated MAG's submittal

and have determined that the State met

the requirements for reasonable notice

and public hearing under section

110(a)(2) of the CAA. The MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan was deemed complete by operation

of law six months after the submittal

date.

B. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA

states that for an area to be redesignated

to attainment, the Administrator must

determine that the area has attained the

applicable NAAQS. As described in 40

CFR part 50.8, the national primary

ambient air quality standard for carbon

monoxide is 9 parts per million (10

milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-

hour average concentration not to be

exceeded more than once per year. 40

CFR part 50.8 continues by stating that

the levels of CO in the ambient air shall

be measured by a reference method

based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C

and designated in accordance with 40

CFR part 53. We consider an area to be

in attainment if each of the CO ambient

air quality monitors in the area does not

have more than one exceedance of the

CO standard over a one-year period. See

40 CFR part 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix C. If any monitor in the area's

CO monitoring network records more

than one exceedance of the CO standard

during a one-year calendar period, then

the area is in violation of the CO

NAAQS.

In addition, our interpretation of the

CAA and EPA national policy has been

that an area seeking redesignation to

attainment must show attainment of the

CO NAAQS for at least a continuous

two-year calendar period. In addition,

the area must also continue to show

attainment through the date that we

promulgate the redesignation in the

Federal Register.

December 31, 2000 was the

attainment date for the Maricopa County

serious CO nonattainment area. We

published a finding of attainment of the

CO standard for the Maricopa County

nonattainment area on September 22,

2003 (see 68 FR 55008). In our finding,

we noted that not only did Maricopa

County have the required clean data for

the two years preceding the attainment

date, but also that the Maricopa County

nonattainment area has been in

attainment for the national standards for

CO since 1997. Further information on

CO monitoring is presented in Chapter

3, page 3-15 of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, and in our finding of attainment

(see 68 FR 55008, September 22, 2003).

Therefore, we believe the Maricopa

County area has met the first component

for redesignation: demonstration of

attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note

too that MAG has indicated in the MAG

CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan that ADEQ and

MCESD will continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network of National Ambient

Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and State

and Local Air Monitoring Stations

(SLAMS) monitors in accordance with

40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued

attainment of the CO standard.

C. Meeting Applicable Requirements of

Section 110 and Part D

To be redesignated to attainment,

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an

area must meet all applicable

requirements under section 110 and part

D of the CAA. We interpret section

107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a

redesignation to be approved by us, the

State must meet all requirements that

applied to the subject area prior to or at

the time of submission of a complete

redesignation request.

1. CAA Section 110 Requirements

The Maricopa County nonattainment

area was initially classified as moderate

for CO. MAG submitted the 1993 Carbon

Monoxide Plan by November 15, 1993

in order to meet the moderate area

requirements. An addendum to this

plan was submitted in March 1994. On

July 29, 1996, the nonattainment area

was reclassified to serious effective

August 28, 1996 due to failure to attain

the CO standard by December 31, 1995.

The new attainment date was December

31, 2000.

On July 8, 1999, ADEQ submitted the

1999 CO Plan to EPA. This submittal

contained an attainment demonstration

for December 2000. The submittal was

found complete on September 9, 1999.

During the 2000 legislative session,

the Arizona Legislature passed House

Bill (HB) 2104, which repealed the

Random Onroad Testing Requirements

(Remote Sensing Program) from the

Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI)

program. EPA indicated that the 1999

CO Plan would have to be revised to

reflect this legislative change. MAG

conducted new air quality modeling and

documented the impact of the repeal of

the remote sensing program in the

Revised 1999 CO Plan, dated March

2001.

On March 30, 2001, ADEQ submitted

the Revised 1999 CO Plan to EPA. We

found the submittal complete on

October 9, 2001. We have analyzed the

SIP elements in the Revised 1999 CO

Plan that we are proposing for approval

as part our action today, and have

determined that they comply with the

relevant requirements of section

110(a)(2).

On June 16, 2003, ADEQ submitted

the MAG Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request and

60336

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60336 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

County Nonattainment Area, May 2003.

The submittal was deemed complete by

operation of law six months after receipt

by EPA.

2. Part D Requirements

Before the Maricopa County serious

CO nonattainment area may be

redesignated to attainment, the State

must have fulfilled the applicable

requirements of part D. Under part D, an

area's classification indicates the

requirements to which it was subject.

Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic

nonattainment requirements applicable

to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 3 of

part D contains specific provisions for

serious CO nonattainment areas.

The relevant subpart 1 requirements

are contained in sections 172(c) and

176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR

13529, 13533, April 16, 1992) provides

EPA's interpretation of the CAA

requirements for serious CO

nonattainment areas.

The General Preamble provides that

the applicable requirements of CAA

section 172 are 172(c)(3) [emissions

inventory], 172(c)(5) [the section

110(a)(2) air quality monitoring

requirements], and 172(c)(9)

[contingency measures]. It is also worth

noting that we interpret the

requirements of sections 172(c)(2)

[reasonable further progress-RFP] and

172(c)(6) [other measures] as being

irrelevant to a redesignation request

because they only have meaning for an

area that is not attaining the standard. 10

Finally, the State has not sought to

exercise the options that would trigger

sections 172(c)(4) [identification of

certain emissions increases] and

172(c)(8) [equivalent techniques]. Thus,

these provisions are also not relevant to

the redesignation request.

Regarding the requirements of

sections 172(c)(3) [emissions inventory]

and 172(c)(9) [contingency measures],

please refer to our discussion below of

sections 187(a)(1) and 187(a)(3), which

are provisions of subpart 3 of part D of

the CAA that address the same

requirements as sections 172(c)(3) and

172(c)(9).

For the section 172(c)(5) New Source

Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA

requires all nonattainment areas to meet

several requirements regarding NSR,

including provisions to ensure that

increased emissions will not result from

any new or modified major stationary

sources and a general offset rule. We

10 See EPA's September 4, 1992 John Calcagni

memorandum entitled "Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment", and

the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April

16, 1992.

have determined that areas being

redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment do not need to comply with

the requirement that an NSR program be

approved prior to redesignation

provided that the area demonstrates

maintenance of the standard without

part D nonattainment NSR in effect. The

rationale for this decision is described

in a memorandum from Mary Nichols

dated October 12, 1994 ("Part D New

Source Review (part D NSR)

Requirements for Areas Requesting

Redesignation to Attainment"). We have

determined that the maintenance

demonstration for Maricopa County

does not rely on nonattainment NSR.

Therefore, the State need not have a

fully-approved nonattainment NSR

program prior to approval of the

redesignation request.

Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) is the replacement

for NSR, and part of the obligation

under PSD is for a new source to review

increment consumption and

maintenance of the air quality

standards. The PSD program requires

stationary sources to undergo

preconstruction review before facilities

are constructed or modified, and to

apply Best Available Control

Technology (BACT). This program will

apply to any major source wishing to

locate in the Maricopa County area once

the area is redesignated to attainment.

Effective November 22, 1993, we

delegated PSD authority to Maricopa

County via a PSD Delegation Agreement

(59 FR 1730, January 12, 1994).

For the CAA section 172(c)(7)

provisions [compliance with the CAA

section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring

requirements], our interpretations are

presented in the General Preamble (57

FR 13535). CO nonattainment areas are

to meet the applicable air quality

monitoring requirements of section

110(a)(2) of the CAA.

Information concerning CO

monitoring in the Maricopa County

nonattainment area is included in the

Monitoring Network Review (MNR)

prepared by MCESD and submitted to

EPA. In Chapter 3, page 3-15 of the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, MAG commits to the

continued operation of the existing

NAMS and SLAMS CO monitors run by

ADEQ and MCESD, according to all

applicable Federal regulations and

guidelines, even after the Maricopa

County area is redesignated to

attainment for CO. Annual review of the

NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance

system will be conducted in accordance

with 40 CFR 58.20(d) to determine

whether the system continues to meet

the monitoring objectives presented in

Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 58.

Section 176 of the CAA contains

requirements related to conformity.

Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR

51.396) require that states adopt

transportation conformity provisions in

their SIPs for areas designated

nonattainment or subject to an EPAapproved maintenance plan, we have

decided that a transportation conformity

SIP is not an applicable requirement for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request under section 107(d) of the

CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA's

1996 approval of the Boston carbon

monoxide redesignation (See 61 FR

2918, January 30, 1996).

The relevant subpart 3 provisions

were created when the CAA was

amended on November 15, 1990. The

new CAA requirements for serious CO

areas, such as Maricopa County,

required that the SIP be revised to

include a 1990 base year emissions

inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)),

vehicle miles traveled tracking (CAA

section 187(a)(2)(A)), contingency

provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)),

corrections to existing motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)),

periodic emissions inventories (CAA

section 187(a)(5)), enhanced motor

vehicle I/M program (CAA section

187(a)(6)), a modeled attainment

demonstration with specific annual

emissions reductions (CAA section

187(a)(7)) and the implementation of an

oxygenated fuels program (CAA section

211(m)). How the State met these

requirements and our approvals are

described earlier in this notice.

Regarding section 187(a)(1) of the

CAA (base year emissions inventory),

the State submitted a SIP revision for a

1990 base year inventory (annual and

average daily emissions) as well as

projected 1995 and 2005 inventories for

the entire Maricopa County

nonattainment area on November 15,

1993 as part of the MAG 1993 Carbon

Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa County

Area ("CO Plan"). On April 4, 1994,

ADEQ submitted updated and improved

inventories as part of MAG's 1993

Carbon Monoxide Plan for the Maricopa

County Area Addendum

("Addendum")." These revised

11On August 9, 1993, EPA had issued a SIP call

under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA that required

Arizona to submit a plan to EPA that demonstrated

attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix area

by December 31, 1995. As an area with a design

value less than 12.7 ppm, the State would not

otherwise have been required to submit an

attainment plan for the Phoenix area. See section

187(a). CAA section 187(a)(1) requires the submittal

of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

Continued

60337

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60337 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

inventories reflected adjustments to

growth factors and the impact of

measures in Arizona House Bill 2001.

Both submittals became complete by

operation of law under CAA section

110(k)(1)(B) on May 15, 1994 and

October 8, 1994, respectively.

We proposed approval of the 1990

base year inventory on September 18,

1996 (61 FR 49087), and did not receive

any comments on our proposed action.

We will finalize that proposed action in

our final rulemaking on today's

proposed rule.

Regarding section 187(a)(5) of the

CAA (periodic emissions inventories),

see Section IV.B. "Emission Inventory"

of this Federal Register notice for

information on the 1993 and 1996

emissions inventories for Maricopa

County for CO. We are proposing to

approve these inventories in our action

today.

D. Fully-Approved SIP Under Section

110(k) of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA

states that for an area to be redesignated

to attainment, it must be determined

that the Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

section 110(k).

As noted above, in today's action EPA

is approving the SIP revision

demonstrating attainment for the

Maricopa County serious CO

nonattainment area that was required by

the CAA. The bump-up of the Maricopa

County CO nonattainment area from

moderate to serious for CO superceded

the remaining moderate CO

nonattainment area requirements for the

area. Thus, with a final rule to approve

the Maricopa County attainment

demonstration, redesignation request,

and maintenance plan, we will have

fully approved the Maricopa County CO

element of the SIP under section 110(k)

of the CAA.

E. Improvement in Air Quality Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Measures

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA

provides that for an area to be

redesignated to attainment, the

Administrator must determine that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan, implementation

of applicable Federal air pollutant

control regulations, and other

permanent and enforceable reductions.

actual emissions for all CO nonattainment areas

whether or not they have a separate requirement to

submit an attainment demonstration.

As part of our action today, we are

approving the Revised 1999 CO Plan.

This plan is primarily based on

emissions reductions from the

wintertime oxygenated fuels program,

the VEI program, traffic

synchronization, and intelligent

transportation systems (ITS) measures.

These programs are further described in

Chapter Five of the Revised 1999 CO

Plan.

As described in Chapter Two, pages

2-11 to 2-15 of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, significant additional emissions

reductions were realized from Maricopa

County's basic inspection and

maintenance program (applicable to

vehicles 1966 and newer), and

beginning in 2000, the enhanced I/M

program (applicable to vehicles 1966

and newer, with an exemption for

vehicles of the five most recent model

years).

Oxygenated fuels are gasolines that

are blended with additives that increase

the level of oxygen in the fuel and

consequently reduce CO tailpipe

emissions. Arizona's Cleaner Burning

Gasoline (CBG) rule contains the

oxygenated fuels provisions for the

Maricopa CO nonattainment area. As

approved by EPA on March 4, 2004 (see

69 FR 10161), Arizona's CBG program

requires all Maricopa County-area gas

stations in Area A 1

2 to sell fuels

containing a 3.5 percent minimum

oxygen content (by weight) during the

wintertime season, which runs from

November 2 to March 31 of each year.

Maricopa County has also been

implementing the requirements of its

clean burning fireplace ordinances. The

Arizona legislature passed SB 1427 in

1998 which required cities, towns, and

counties in Area A to adopt, implement,

and enforce an ordinance that complies

with MAG's clean burning fireplace

standards by December 31, 1998. The

ordinance allows only the use of

permanently-installed gas or electric log

inserts, fireplaces, woodstoves, or other

appliances that are certified by EPA,

tested and listed by a nationally

recognized testing agency to meet

federal performance standards, or

determined by the Maricopa County

Control Officer to meet federal

performance standards.

We have evaluated the various State

and Federal control measures, the

original 1990 base year emission

inventory, and the 1993, and 1996

periodic emissions inventories, and

12 Area A includes the urbanized portion of

Maricopa County, a small portion of southern

Yavapai County, and the western portions of Pinal

County.

believe that the improvement in air

quality in the Maricopa County

nonattainment area has resulted from

emissions reductions that are permanent

and enforceable.

F. Fully-Approved Maintenance Plan

Under Section 175A

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA

provides that for an area to be

redesignated to attainment, the

Administrator must have fully approved

a maintenance plan for the area meeting

the requirements of section 175A of the

CAA.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The

maintenance plan must demonstrate

continued attainment of the applicable

NAAQS for at least ten years after the

Administrator approves a redesignation

to attainment. Eight years after the

promulgation of the redesignation, the

State must submit a revised

maintenance plan that demonstrates

continued attainment for the subsequent

ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the

possibility of future NAAQS violations,

the maintenance plan must contain

contingency measures, with a schedule

for adoption and implementation, that

are adequate to assure prompt

correction of a violation. In addition, we

issued further maintenance plan

interpretations in the "General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (57

FR 13498, April 16, 1992), "General

Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990: Supplemental" (57 FR 18070,

April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance

memorandum entitled "Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment" from John

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality

Management Division, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, to

Regional Air Division Directors, dated

September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to

as the "Calcagni memo"). In this

Federal Register action, EPA is

proposing approval of the maintenance

plan for the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area because we believe,

as detailed below, that MAG's CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan submittal meets the requirements

of section 175A and is consistent with

the documents referenced above. Our

analysis of the pertinent maintenance

plan requirements, with reference to

MAG's CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, is provided below.

60338

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60338 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

1. Emissions Inventories-Attainment

Year and Projections

EPA's interpretation of the CAA

section 175A maintenance plan

requirements are generally provided in

the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498,

April 16, 1992) and the Calcagni memo

referenced above. Under our

interpretations, areas seeking to

redesignate to attainment for CO may

demonstrate future maintenance of the

CO NAAQS either by showing that

future CO emissions will be equal to or

less than the attainment year emissions

or by providing a modeling

demonstration. However, under the

CAA, many areas (such as Maricopa

County) were required to submit a

modeled attainment demonstration to

show that reductions in emissions

would be sufficient to attain the

applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the

maintenance demonstration is to be

based on the same level of modeling

(see the "Calcagni memo"). For the

Maricopa County area, this involved the

use of EPA's Urban Airshed Model

(UAM) in conjunction with intersection

hotspot modeling using the CAL3QHC

model.

The MAG CO Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan submitted by

ADEQ on June 16, 2003 included

comprehensive emissions inventories of

CO emissions for the Maricopa County

area. These inventories include

emissions from stationary point sources,

area sources, non-road mobile sources,

and on-road mobile sources. MAG used

the 1994 base year inventory, from the

Revised 1999 CO Plan received by EPA

on April 2, 2001, and included an

interim-year projection for 2006 along

with the final maintenance year of 2015.

More detailed descriptions of the 1994

base year inventory from the Revised

1999 CO Plan, the 2006 projected

inventory, and the 2015 projected

inventory are documented in the MAG

redesignation request and maintenance

plan on page 3-8, and in the State's TSD

in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The State's

submittal contains detailed emission

inventory information that was prepared

in accordance with EPA guidance.

Summary emissions figures from the

1994 base year, the 2015 maintenance

year and the interim projected year 2006

are provided in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

[For a Friday in December]

1994 2006 2015

P o in t s o u rc e s ........................................................................................................................................... 2 .5 2 1 .9 3 2 .2

A re a s o u rc e s ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1 .0 2 9 .7 3 6 .2

Non-road m obile sources ........................................................................................................................ 155.1 161.0 169.9

On-road m obile sources .......................................................................................................................... 869.6 699.7 662.9

T o ta l * ................................................................................................................................................ 1 0 4 8 .2 9 1 2 .3 9 0 1 .2

*Total may not equal 100% due to rounding.

We note that based on the information

in Table 2, minor increases are projected

in years 2006 and 2015 for point sources

and area sources. The most significant

reductions in the emissions inventory

come from the on-road mobile sources

category. Since two of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan's most significant measures reduce

on-road vehicle emissions, namely the

cleaner burning gasoline and vehicle

emissions inspection programs, these

projected emissions reductions are

reasonable. MAG's approach follows

EPA guidance on projected emissions,

and we believe it is acceptable. Further

information on these projected

inventories may also be found on page

3-9 of the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan and in

Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Section III-1 of

the TSD.

2. Demonstration of Maintenance

The Calcagni memo states that where

modeling was relied on to demonstrate

maintenance, the plan is to contain a

summary of the air quality

concentrations expected to result from

the application of the control strategies.

Also, the plan is to identify and describe

the dispersion model or other air quality

model used to project ambient

concentrations.

For the MAG CO maintenance

demonstration, MAG used UAM, the

standard model for 1-hour CO

attainment demonstrations, consistent

with EPA guidance in Guideline for

Regulatory Application of the Urban

Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon

Monoxide (EPA-450/4-92-011 a and b,

June 1992; hereafter "Guideline"). Most

of the inputs for the modeling in the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan were identical to

those in the Revised 1999 CO Plan. The

main differences were in mixing height

and in the emissions inputs.

In the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan, the

UAM model's maximum model height

was increased slightly to accommodate

plume rise from growth in peaking

power plants. This adjustment has a

relatively small effect on ground-level

CO concentrations. Diagnostic and

sensitivity testing showed reasonable

agreement with observations after

adjustment of the DIFFBREAK

parameter, which in UAM is similar to

mixing height, the height above ground

through which substantial mixing

occurs. Adjustment of minimum mixing

heights is not ideal, but may be

unavoidable in the absence of specific

measured data on mixing heights, and

has been accepted in other CO plans.

Since CO is chemically inert, it is not

unreasonable to adjust the air volume

available for CO dilution, and thereby

adjust CO concentration. This assumes

diagnostic testing for other model inputs

has been done, as is the case here.

MAG's emission input development

process used EPA's MOBILE6 model to

estimate on-road mobile source

emission factors instead of MOBILE5,

per EPA guidance, and newer traffic

data were used. Total estimated CO

emissions are substantially larger due to

the changes in MOBILE model and

various traffic and other inputs. On-road

emissions for the 1994 episode

increased 73%; total emissions from all

sources increased 52%. However,

modeled peak CO concentrations

increased only slightly. Several factors

account for the apparent discrepancy

between input emissions and output

model peak.

First, per EPA guidance, MOBILE6

was used to estimate on-road emissions

instead of the older MOBILE5a. One

effect mitigating the higher MAG CO

maintenance plan emissions is that

while the base case (1994) on-road

emissions are higher, they decline faster

than in the Revised 1999 CO Plan

because of the enhanced effects of

vehicle fleet turnover incorporated in

MOBILE6. So higher initial emissions in

60339

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60339 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

the MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan are still consistent

with maintenance of the CO NAAQS

later.

Second, the higher emissions in the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan do not translate into

increased peak CO concentrations.

Mainly, the higher emissions in the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan are shifted in time,

and spread over a large area and

volume; these mitigate the peakincreasing effect of the increased

emissions. Revised traffic counts show

that more of the emissions occur during

the morning commute than during the

evening. As a result, the increased

emissions occur earlier in the day,

farther from the peak in the 8-hour

average, which occurs at 3 a.m. The

assumed spatial distribution of cold

start emissions was also different than

in the Revised 1999 CO Plan. In the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, cold start emissions

were distributed to local and arterial

roads, but not to freeways; in the

Revised 1999 CO Plan, the emissions

were distributed to all three facility

types. The method used in the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan is more realistic because cold start

emissions occur relatively close to the

beginning of trips, when commuting

cars are more likely to be on local roads

than on freeways. Another effect of this

different spatial allocation of emissions

is that they are more dispersed. Because

of this and because of changes in

various other model inputs, CO

emissions are more widely distributed

in the MAG CO Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan.

Finally, as mentioned above, mixing

height was increased to improve model

performance. This provided a greater

volume for dilution of CO emissions,

and thus a lower ambient concentration.

A third factor in reconciling higher

emissions with a relatively unchanged

peak concentration is that, the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan base case had less error and less

negative bias than the Revised 1999 CO

Plan's, i.e., it underpredicted by a

smaller amount. The highest CO at any

monitor in the MAG CO Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan was

about 2% above the peak observation,

whereas in the Revised 1999 CO Plan,

it was 10% or more below. In summary,

the increased emissions in the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan did in fact show up in the

modeling results, but the effect was not

to increase the highest peak, but rather

to increase concentrations more

generally, distributed in time and space.

For microscale modeling with

CAL3QHC, the same intersections as in

the Revised 1999 CO Plan were used,

27th Ave./Grand/Thomas Rd. and 35th

Ave./Grand/Indian School Road. For the

attainment demonstration, the results of

the CAL3QHC modeling were combined

with that from UAM for the cell

containing the intersection, per EPA

guidance. CAL3QHC contributions to

peak concentrations was generally lower

than was modeled for the Revised 1999

CO Plan. As discussed below, the

decrease is partly due to updated traffic

data. A shift in peak traffic to the

morning occurred, which is further from

the late-night CO peak. But the main

reason for decreased CAL3QHC

predictions was the exclusion of cold

start emissions from idling emissions at

intersections, in accordance with EPA

guidance. Most cold start emissions

occur within a few minutes of trip

starts, so they have little affect on

intersection emissions. Despite

generally higher UAM predictions in the

MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, at the hotspot

intersection locations, overall hotspot

predictions are slightly lower. Table 3

lists the maximum combined dispersion

modeling (UAM) and intersection

modeling (CAL3QHC) results for the

maintenance demonstration modeling at

the West Indian School Road and Grand

Avenue intersections (from MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, page 3-13).

TABLE 3.-MAXIMUM DISPERSION MODELING AND INTERSECTION MODELING RESULTS

[In parts per million]

2006 2015

Intersection

UAM CAL3QHC Total UAM CAL3QHC Total

W IS R 1 .............................. . .... .... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... .. 7 .17 1.08 8 .25 6 .23 1.8 1 8 .04

G rand Ave ........................................................................ 7.74 0.50 8.24 7.16 0.65 7.81

1 West Indian School Road monitor.

The target CO concentration for the

maintenance demonstration modeling is

9.0 ppm. MAG therefore needed to show

that combined UAM and CAL3QHC

concentrations remain below 9 ppm in

2006 and 2015, despite the metropolitan

area's growth. The MAG modeling

shows a maximum CO concentration of

8.92 ppm in 2006, and 8.06 ppm in

2015; these meet the maintenance goal

of 9.0 ppm.

For episode selection, modeling

domain, wind fields, initial and

boundary conditions, sensitivity testing

was essentially identical between the

two episodes (see the EPA TSD for the

Revised 1999 CO Plan). The tests done

showed that the model was responding

reasonably. MAG's modeling also meets

EPA's performance goals on peak level,

peak timing, and absolute error. Model

predictions in the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan are closer to observations than in

the Revised 1999 CO Plan modeling.

Since the peak values and general

spatial patterns match well and EPA's

model performance goals were met,

overall the model appears to be

replicating the episode fairly well, and

forms an acceptable basis for a

demonstration of maintenance. Overall,

the modeling done by MAG for the CO

maintenance demonstration performed

adequately and meets EPA guidelines.

EPA proposes to find the maintenance

demonstration approvable.

3. Monitoring Network and Verification

of Continued Attainment

Continued attainment of the CO

NAAQS in the Maricopa County area

depends, in part, on the State's efforts

to track indicators throughout the

maintenance period. This requirement

is met in two sections of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan. On page 3-15 of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, MAG commits to continue the

operation of the CO monitors in the

Maricopa County area and to annually

review this monitoring network and

make changes as appropriate.

Also, on page 3-15 of the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan, MAG commits to track mobile

sources CO emissions (which are the

60340

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60340 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

largest component of the inventories)

through the ongoing submittal of

periodic emissions inventories every

three years in accordance with section

187(a)(5) of the CAA. MCESD will

coordinate and compile the inventory

with input and assistance from ADEQ,

the Arizona Department of

Transportation, and MAG, as described

in the 1992 Air Quality Memorandum of

Agreement. Changes in the inventory

will be reviewed and evaluated through

the regional air quality planning process

to determine if additional measures

should be considered.

Based on the information above, we

are proposing approval of these

commitments as satisfying the relevant

requirements of the CAA for

maintenance plans. We note that a final

rulemaking approval will render the

State's commitments federally

enforceable.

4. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires

that a maintenance plan include

contingency provisions. To meet this

requirement, the State has identified

appropriate contingency measures along

with a schedule for the development

and implementation of such measures.

As stated on page 3-15 of the MAG

CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, implementation of

the contingency measures for the

Maricopa County area will be triggered

by two verified readings exceeding 9.0

ppm at one monitor during a single CO

season (i.e., October 1 through March

31st). Since a violation of the NAAQS

for 8-hour CO occurs when the second

highest reading at the same monitor

over two consecutive years is greater

than or equal to 9.5 ppm, this trigger is

more stringent than the standard, and

will serve to prevent the occurrence of

future violations.

When the contingency measure trigger

is activated, MAG will consider

additional measures on the following

schedule: (a) Verification of the

monitoring data to be completed three

months after activation of the trigger; (b)

applicable measure to be considered for

adoption six months after the date

established in (a) above; and (c) the

resultant measure to be implemented

within six to twelve months, depending

on the time needed to put the measure

in place.

5. Commitment To Submit Subsequent

Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of

the CAA, as the designated regional air

quality planning agency for the

Maricopa County area, MAG has

committed to submit a revised

maintenance plan eight years after

redesignation. This provision for

revising the maintenance plan is

contained in Chapter 3, pages 3-16 to 3-

17 of the Maricopa County CO

maintenance plan.

VII. EPA's Evaluation of the

Transportation Conformity

Requirements in the MAG CO

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

One of the primary tests for

conformity is to show that

transportation plans and transportation

improvement programs will not cause

motor vehicle emissions to increase

above levels needed to make progress

towards and to meet air quality

standards. The motor vehicle emissions

levels needed to make progress toward

and to meet the air quality standards are

set in the area's air quality plans as "emissions budgets for motor vehicles".

More details about conformity tests are

described in section IV.A of this notice.

EPA has been using a process and

specific criteria for determining the

adequacy of emissions budgets in

control strategy SIPs since a 1999 court

ruling. This process is now codified in

a recent revision to the conformity rule

(see 69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004).

The MAG CO Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan defines the CO

motor vehicle emissions budgets in the

Maricopa County area as 699.7 tons per

day for 2006 and 662.9 tons per day for

2015 and beyond. The budget for 2015

is equal to the maintenance year (2015)

mobile source emissions inventory for

CO for the attainment/maintenance area.

The MAG CO Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan and supporting

documentation indicate that the 662.9

budget for 2015 is consistent with

maintenance of the CO NAAQS

throughout the maintenance period.

Therefore, we are proposing to approve

the 699.7 tons per day CO emissions

budget for 2006 and the 662.9 tons per

day CO emissions budget for 2015 for

the Maricopa County nonattainment

area.

EPA's adequacy determination on the

MAG CO budgets for 2006 and 2015 was

made in a letter to ADEQ and MAG on

September 9, 2003 and was announced

in the Federal Register on September

29, 2003 (68 FR 55950). As a result of

this adequacy finding, the 699.7 ton per

day budget for 2006 and the 662.9

budget for 2015 took effect for the

conformity determinations in the

Maricopa County nonattainment area on

October 14, 2003. However, we are not

bound by that determination in acting

on the maintenance plan.

VIII. GRIC Boundary Change Under

CAA Section 107

EPA is proposing to change the

boundary of the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment/maintenance area to

exclude the Gila River Indian

Reservation ("Reservation").

A. Background

1. Current Area Boundary, Designation,

and Classification

Areas of the country were originally

designated as attainment, nonattainment

or unclassifiable following enactment of

the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. See

43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). These

designations were generally based on

monitored air quality values compared

to the applicable NAAQS. The Maricopa

County nonattainment area was

designated a nonattainment area for CO

in April 1977. The boundary for the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area was first established following the

CAA Amendments of 1977. See 43 FR

8962 (March 3, 1978)

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, the Maricopa County CO

nonattainment area was again classified

as a nonattainment area for CO. The

nonattainment area boundary remained

the same. 56 FR 6335 (November 6,

1991). On August 28, 1996, the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area was reclassified to serious due to a

failure to attain the 8-hour CO standard

by December 31, 1995. 61 FR 39345

(July 29, 1996)

Area boundaries and area

classifications have been amended over

the years under the applicable CAA

provisions, either by request of a state,

by operation of law, or by EPA

initiative. For the State of Arizona, the

current area designations and

classifications are codified at 40 CFR

81.303.

2. GRIC's Request for a Boundary

Change

On July 14, 2004, the Gila River

Indian Community ("Community"), a

federally-recognized tribal

government, 15 submitted a formal

request to EPA to revise the boundary of

the Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area to exclude the Reservation. 16 The

Community's analysis of air quality data

existing at the time of and subsequent

to the designation in 1978 as well as the

nature of the CO sources on the

Reservation demonstrated that the

Reservation has not had a monitored or

1567 FR 46329 (July 12, 2002).

16 The Maricopa County CO nonattainment area

includes the portion of the Reservation that lies

within Maricopa County, approximately the

northern 25O% of the Reservation.

60341

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60341 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

predicted violation of the CO NAAQS

since, and that no significant sources of

CO exist on the Reservation.

B. EPA Review of the Community's

Request

1. EPA's Authority to Change

Boundaries

Under section 107(d)(3)(A), EPA has

the authority to revise the boundary of

a nonattainment area on the basis of air

quality data, planning and control

considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator

deems appropriate.

2. The Gila River Indian Reservation

Airshed

The Gila River Indian Reservation

consists of approximately 374,000 acres

in south central Arizona, south of the

Phoenix metropolitan area. Currently,

the Maricopa County (Phoenix area) CO

nonattainment area includes the

northern 92,000 acres of the

Reservation. The Reservation is

physically separated from the Phoenix

metropolitan area by the Sierra Estrella

and South Mountain Ranges. The Sierra

Estrella Mountain Range runs north and

south along the western edge of the

Reservation. The South Mountain Range

runs diagonally in a northeasterly

direction, between one and five miles

beyond the northern Reservation

boundary. The mountain ranges act as a

physical barrier between the two

airsheds.

A segment of the northern border of

the Reservation adjacent to Chandler

does not have a topographical barrier to

air pollution transport. However, the

prevailing winds flow to the northeast,

sending CO emissions from Chandler

away from the Reservation. Along the

northeastern border of the Reservation,

the Santan Mountain Range separates

the Reservation from Gilbert and

Apache Junction.

The Reservation has a population of

approximately 11,250 people, with a

population density of approximately 20

people per square mile. There are no

major population centers within the

Reservation. By comparison, Maricopa

County (including vast rural areas west

of the urban area which are not part of

the nonattainment area) has a

population of 2,122,101, with a

population density of over 230 people

per square mile.

3. CO and the Reservation

In general, ambient CO concentrations

are caused by onroad and nonroad

mobile emissions sources. The level of

mobile source emissions can be directly

correlated to population density and

land use patterns. The Community

population density of 20 people per

square mile is minor compared to all of

Maricopa County, which has a density

of over 230 people per square mile.

Commuting patterns on the Reservation

are virtually nonexistent.

Approximately 2200 cars, trucks and

vans commute to work within the

Reservation, compared to 1,250,000 in

Maricopa County. There is little

economic integration with commercial

development in metropolitan Phoenix,

and the Reservation remains largely

rural and agricultural. The Community

plans to expand its agricultural base by

investing millions of dollars in

agricultural infrastructure.

Total annual emissions of CO on the

Reservation are less than one percent of

those in the MAG serious CO

nonattainment area. High CO

concentrations in the MAG

nonattainment area are associated

almost exclusively with areas of high

traffic congestion, which do not exist on

the Reservation. Therefore, there is

substantial basis for concluding that the

Reservation is an insignificant generator

of CO emissions.

4. CO Planning Issues

Attainment of the CO NAAQS in the

Phoenix metropolitan area was achieved

by Arizona through the SIP planning

process. It is important to note that,

under the Clean Air Act, the state and

local air pollution control authorities

are not administering EPA-approved air

regulatory programs over the

Reservation; consequently, the SIP rules

that were applied to the metropolitan

area and resulted in attainment of the

NAAQS did not apply to the

Reservation. Furthermore, due to the

Reservation's lack of CO sources, it was

never considered necessary to apply CO

limits to sources in the Reservation. 1 7

Just as it was clear that it was not

necessary for an attainment plan to be

applicable to the Reservation for the

Phoenix area to attain the CO NAAQS,

it is clear to EPA that it will not be

necessary for a maintenance plan to be

applicable to the Reservation for the

Phoenix area to maintain attainment of

the NAAQS.

C. Redesignation of the Northern

Portion of the Reservation

In view of the above considerations,

and because no CO air quality data

exists for the Reservation, EPA believes

"nonclassifiable/attainment" is the

17 EPA could have applied CO limits to sources

on the Reservation, as it has authority under CAA

301(d) to promulgate regulations for Indian country

as necessary or appropriate "to achieve the

appropriate purpose" of the Act.

appropriate designation for the entire

Reservation, including that portion

heretofore included in the

nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA

proposes to redesignate to

"nonclassifiable/attainment" the

portion of the Reservation that is now

within the nonattainment area, and

make it part of the surrounding

nonclassifiable/attainment area.

IX. Proposed Action

We are soliciting public comment on

all aspects of this proposed SIP

rulemaking action. We will consider

your comments in deciding our final

action if your comments are received by

November 8, 2004.

We propose to approve the following

elements of the Revised 1999 CO Plan

for the metropolitan Phoenix area and

the MAG CO Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan:

1. 1990 base year and 1993 and 1996

periodic emission inventories as

required by sections 172(c)(3) and

187(a)(5).

2. Demonstration that the plan

provides for the implementation of

reasonably available control measures

including transportation control

measures under sections 172(c)(1) and

187(b)(2);

3. Demonstration of attainment by

December 31, 2000 under section

187(a)(7);

4. Demonstration of reasonable further

progress under sections 172(c)(2) and

187(a)(7);

5. Contingency measures under

sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3);

6. Forecasts of vehicle miles traveled

and provisions for annual tracking and

reporting under section 187(a)(2)(A);

7. Transportation control measures as

necessary to offset growth in emissions

under section 187(b)(2);

8. Attainment year and projected

emissions inventories under section

175A;

9. Air quality monitoring

requirements under section 110(a)(2)

and section 172(c)(7);

10. CO motor vehicle emissions

budgets for transportation conformity

under section 176(c) for the attainment

demonstration and the maintenance

plan for the years 2000, 2006 and 2015

under the transportation conformity

rule, 40 CFR Part 93, subpart A;

11. Demonstration of maintenance

under section 175A(a) and a fullyapproved maintenance plan under

section 175A;

12. Maintenance plan contingency

measures under section 175A(d);

13. Commitment for subsequent

maintenance plan revisions under

section 175A(b);

60342

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60342 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 195/Friday, October 8, 2004/Proposed Rules

14. Redesignation of that portion of

the Gila River Indian Reservation that is

now within the nonattainment area to

"nonclassifiable/attainment'; and

15. A determination that the

improvement in air quality in the

Maricopa County nonattainment area is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

the implementation of the applicable

implementation plan, implementation

of applicable Federal air pollution

control regulations, and other

permanent and enforceable reductions.

We have previously approved all

control measures relied on for

attainment and contingency measures in

the Revised 1999 CO Plan, including the

area's enhanced inspection and

maintenance program (required by

section 187(a)(6)), oxygenated gasoline

program (required by sections 187(b)(3)

and 211(m)), and woodburning

curtailment regulations. See 68 FR 2912,

69 FR 10161, 64 FR 60678 and 67 FR

52416.

As stated above, we are proposing

approval of MAG's June 16, 2003

request to redesignate the Maricopa

County CO nonattainment area to

attainment and proposing approval of

the maintenance plan for the Maricopa

County CO nonattainment area.

We are also proposing to change the

designation of the portion of the Gila

River Indian Community which is in the

Maricopa County CO nonattainment

area to "unclassifiable/attainment" for

CO.

X. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a "significant regulatory

action" and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. For this reason, this action is

also not subject to Executive Order

13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This proposed action merely

proposes to approve state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under state law and does

not impose any additional enforceable

duty beyond that required by state law,

it does not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." "Policies that have tribal

implications" is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes."

Under section 5(b) of Executive Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

tribal officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications and that

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency

consults with tribal officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

EPA has concluded that this proposed

rule may have tribal implications. EPA's

action will remove the Gila River Indian

Community from the Phoenix CO

maintenance area. However, it will

neither impose substantial direct

compliance costs on tribal governments,

nor preempt State law. Thus, the

requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA

nonetheless consulted with

representatives of tribal governments

early in the process of developing this

regulation to permit them to have

meaningful and timely input into its

development. Representatives of tribal

governments approached EPA two years

ago and requested that EPA make this

boundary change. We agree with the

technical and policy rationale the tribe

provided, and believe that all tribal

concerns have been met.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and tribal governments, EPA

specifically solicits additional comment

on this proposed rule from tribal

officials.

This action also does not have

Federalism implications because it does

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a Federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This proposed

rule does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Carbon monoxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: September 21, 2004.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 04-22485 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

60343

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 60343 2004