+(,121/,1(

Citation: 79 Fed. Reg. 16734 2014 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Sep 1 16:55:43 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

implement transportation conformity

requirements provides evidence of the

State's ability to consult with other

governmental agencies on air quality

issues.

Based on the analysis above, we are

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as

meeting the requirements of CAA

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

NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the

February 14, 2012, submittal from the

State of Idaho to demonstrate that the

SIP meets the requirements of sections

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

NAAQS promulgated on October 15,

2008. Specifically, we are proposing to

find that the Idaho SIP meets the

following CAA section 110(a)(2)

infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is

required to approve a SIP submission

that complies with the provisions of the

Act and applicable Federal regulations.

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the

EPA's role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed

action merely approves the state's law

as meeting Federal requirements and

does not impose additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

the state's law. For that reason, this

proposed action:

* Is not a "significant regulatory

action" subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993);

* does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

* is certified as not having a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

* does not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

* does not have Federalism

implications as specified in Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999);

* is not an economically significant

regulatory action based on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order

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

* is not a significant regulatory action

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR

28355, May 22, 2001);

* is not subject to the requirements of

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

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

this action does not involve technical

standards; and

* does not provide the EPA with the

discretionary authority to address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human

health or environmental effects, using

practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have

tribal implications as specified by

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is

not approved to apply in Indian country

located in the State, and the EPA notes

that it will not impose substantial direct

costs on tribal governments or preempt

tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: March 13, 2014.

Dennis J. McLerran,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doe. 2014-06666 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686; FRL-9908-69-

Region-9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Arizona;

Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is proposing to approve, as a revision of

the Arizona State Implementation Plan,

the State's plan for maintaining the 1997

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for ozone averaged over eight hours (8-

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

beyond redesignation, and the related

motor vehicle emission budgets,

because they meet the applicable

requirements for such plans and

budgets. EPA is also proposing to

approve a request from the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality to

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area to attainment of the

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the

request meets the statutory requirements

for redesignation under the Clean Air

Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket ID number EPAR09-OAR-2013-0686, by one of the

following methods:

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

the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

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

3. Postal Mail or Delivery: Ginger

Vagenas (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901. Deliveries are only

accepted during the Regional Office's

normal hours of operation.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

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

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through

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

The online docket system at http://

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous

access system, and EPA will not know

your identity or contact information

unless you provide it in the body of

your comment. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

Docket: Generally, documents in the

docket for this action are available

electronically at http:ii

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy

at the EPA Region 9 office. While all

documents in the docket are listed at

http://www.regulations.gov, some

information may not be specifically

listed in the index to the docket or may

be publicly available only in hard copy

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

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports, or otherwise

voluminous materials), and some may

not be publicly available in electronic or

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

hard copy form (e.g., confidential

business information). To view the hard

copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact person listed in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

Hawthorne Street (AIR-2), San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Ginger

Vagenas can also be reached at (415)

972-3964, or via electronic mail at

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we", "us",

and "our" refer to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

II. Background

III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption

and Submittal of SIP Revisions

IV. Substantive Requirements for

Redesignation

V. Evaluation of the State's Redesignation

Request for the Phoenix-Mesa Ozone

Nonattainment Area

A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained the Applicable NAAQS

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable

for Purposes of Redesignation Under

Section 110 and Part D

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA

Section 110

2. Part D Requirements

a. Introduction

b. Permits for New and Modified Major

Sources

c. Conformity Requirements

C. The Area Must Show the Improvement

in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and

Enforceable Emission Reductions

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section

175A

1. Attainment Inventories and Projected

Future Inventories

2. Maintenance Demonstration

3. Monitoring Network

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

5. Contingency Provisions

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

7. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public

Comment

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to take several

related actions. First, under section

110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), EPA is proposing to approve, as

a revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan

developed by the Maricopa Association

of Governments (MAG),I entitled MAG

1 The MAG membership currently consists of the

27 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa

Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan for the

Maricopa Nonattainment Area, dated

February 2009 ("Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan"), and submitted by

the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA

on March 23, 2009.2

In connection with the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA is

proposing to find that the maintenance

demonstration shows that the PhoenixMesa area will continue to attain the

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or "standard") for 10 years beyond

redesignation and that the contingency

provisions, which include already

implemented measures as well as a

process for identifying new or more

stringent measures in the event of a

future monitored violation, meet all

applicable requirements for

maintenance plans and the related

contingency provisions of CAA section

175A. EPA is also proposing to approve

motor vehicle emission budgets in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

because we find they meet the

applicable transportation conformity

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

Second, under CAA section

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

approve ADEQ's request to redesignate

the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area to attainment for the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are

doing so based on our conclusion that

the area has met the five criteria for

redesignation under CAA section

107(d)(3)(E). This conclusion is based

on our proposed determination that:

The area has attained the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS; relevant portions of the

Arizona SIP are fully approved;

improvement in air quality in the area

is due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions; Arizona has

met all requirements applicable to the

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area with respect to

section 110 and part D of the CAA; and,

as part of this action, our proposed

County and the contiguous urbanized area, the Gila

River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima

Maricopa Indian Community, Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation, Maricopa and Pinal Counties.

Representatives of the Arizona Department of

Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens

Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) also

serve on the Regional Council for transportationrelated issues.

2 See letter from Patrick J. Cunningham, Acting

Director, Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional

Administrator, EPA Region IX, March 23, 2009.

This letter included three enclosures, one of which

is the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan,

including appendices A and B organized into

volumes 1, 2, and 3.

approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan.

II. Background

Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that

is formed from photochemical reactions

in the atmosphere between volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of

sunlight. These two pollutants, referred

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by

many types of pollution sources

including on-road motor vehicles (cars,

trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles

and engines, power plants and

industrial facilities, and smaller area

sources such as lawn and garden

equipment and paints.

In 1971, under section 109 of the Act,

as amended in 1970, EPA promulgated

the original NAAQS for pervasive air

pollutants, including photochemical

oxidants. 3 The NAAQS are

concentration levels that, the attainment

and maintenance of which, EPA has

determined to be requisite to protect

public health (i.e., the "primary"

NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the

"secondary" NAAQS). In 1979, EPA

revised the chemical designation of the

NAAQS from "photochemical oxidants"

to "ozone," and established a 1-hour

ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million

(ppm).4

In March of 1978, Maricopa County

was designated as a 1-hour oxidant

nonattainment area (43 FR 8962). In

1979, EPA revised Maricopa County's

designation to refer to ozone (rather

than oxidant) and reduced the

geographic extent of the nonattainment

area to reflect MAG's Urban Planning

Area ("Phoenix metropolitan area")

rather than the entire county. See 44 FR

16388 (March 19, 1979). Under the

CAA, states with nonattainment areas

are required to submit revisions to their

SIPs that include a control strategy

necessary to demonstrate how the area

will attain the NAAQS, and EPA took

action on a number of related SIP

revisions submitted by Arizona in the

late 1970s and 1980s for the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area. However, by 1990,

the area still had not attained the

standard, and under the CAA

Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix

metropolitan area was classified as a "moderate" nonattainment area with an

attainment deadline of November 15,

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

The area was later reclassified as a "serious" nonattainment area with a

deadline of November 15, 1999 (62 FR

60001, November 6, 1997).

3

See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).

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

16735
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for

ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged

over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to

herein as the "1997 8-hour ozone

standard") to replace the existing 1-hour

ozone standard of 0.12 ppm. 5 6 In 2004,

EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa area

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard and established June 15,

2005 as the date when the 1-hour ozone

standard would be revoked. The

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area covers a much larger

portion of Maricopa County than the

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone area

and also includes the Apache Junction

portion of Pinal County. 7 Just prior to

revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard,

EPA redesignated the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to attainment (70 FR

34362, June 14, 2005).8

On April 15, 2004, EPA designated

Phoenix-Mesa as Subpart 1

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard under CAA section 172

with an attainment deadline no later

than June 15, 2009. 9 The designation

became effective on June 15, 2004. The

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area is

located in the central portion of Arizona

and encompasses 4,880 square miles,

including the urban portions of

Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and areas

of Indian country of the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima

Maricopa Indian Community, and the

Tohono O'odham Nation. For a precise

description of the geographic

boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.303

and figure 1-1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan. MAG is the agency

with primary responsibility for

developing air quality plans related to

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.

Under part D, subpart 1 of the Act,

states must submit plans to come into

attainment within 3 years of the

5See 62 FR 33856 (July 18, 1997). 6 0n March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA lowered

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

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

designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard

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

a maintenance plan and redesignation request for

the 1997 8-hoar ozone standard, not the more

stringent 2008 8-hoar ozone standard.

7 The precise boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-

hoar ozone nonattainment area and the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment are found

in 40 CFR 81.303.

3 A more detailed description of the history of 1-

hoar ozone planning in the Phoenix metropolitan

area is presented in section II of EPA's proposed

redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 70

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

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

81.303.

effective date of the nonattainment

designation and must attain the

standard as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than 5 years after the

effective date of the designation. Later,

in the wake of a court decision partially

vacating EPA's regulations

implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard,10 EPA classified the PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area as "marginal" under subpart 2 of part D of

title I of the CAA."I

On June 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted a

SIP revision demonstrating attainment

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by

the attainment date of June 15, 2009

("Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan").

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

March 23, 2009, ADEQ submitted the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as

a revision to the Arizona SIP.

In summary, the Phoenix

metropolitan area was originally

designated as nonattainment for the

photochemical oxidant, later 1-hour

ozone NAAQS, but was later

redesignated as attainment for the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS prior to the

revocation of that standard. With

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS, EPA designated a larger

geographic area, the Phoenix-Mesa area,

as nonattainment, later classified as "marginal," for the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS. ADEQ's request to redesignate

the Phoenix Mesa area as attainment for

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the

subject of today's proposed action.

Lastly, EPA has also designated the

Phoenix Mesa area as "marginal"

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone

NAAQS. Today's proposed action does

not affect the designation of the

Phoenix-Mesa area for the 2008 ozone

NAAQS.

III. Procedural Requirements for

Adoption and Submittal of SIP

Revisions

Section 110(1) of the Act requires

States to provide reasonable notice and

public hearing prior to adoption of SIP

revisions. Appendix B, Exhibit 1 of the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

documents the public review process

followed by MAG in adopting the plan

prior to transmittal to ADEQ for

subsequent submittal to EPA as a

revision to the Arizona SIP. The

10 See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.

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

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

is the effective date for the "marginal" classification

of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hoar ozone nonattainment

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

35285 (June 13, 2012).

documentation in Exhibit 1 also

provides evidence that reasonable

notice of a public hearing was provided

to the public and that a public hearing

was conducted prior to adoption.

Specifically, notice of the availability

of, and opening of a 30-day comment

period on, the public-draft Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan was published

on December 23, 2008, in a newspaper

of general circulation within the

Phoenix area. The public hearing was

held on January 22, 2009. One

individual commented on the draft

maintenance plan during the public

hearing. No written comments were

received during the public comment

period. MAG provided responses to

comments in Exhibit 1 of Appendix B.

On February 25, 2009, the MAG

Regional Council adopted the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan, as

certified in Appendix B, Exhibit 2 of the

plan. Following adoption, MAG

provided the maintenance plan to

ADEQ, and ADEQ adopted the plan and

submitted it to EPA for approval on

March 23, 2009.

Based on the documentation provided

in Appendix B, we find that the

submittal of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision

satisfies the procedural requirements of

section 110(1) of the Act.

IV. Substantive Requirements for

Redesignation

The CAA establishes the requirements

for redesignation of a nonattainment

area to attainment. Specifically, section

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

provided that the following criteria are

met: (1) EPA determines that the area

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)

EPA has fully approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

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

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions;

(4) EPA has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of CAA 175A;

and (5) the State containing such area

has met all requirements applicable to

the area under section 110 and part D

of the CAA. Section 110 identifies a

comprehensive list of elements that SIPs

must include, and part D establishes the

SIP requirements for nonattainment

areas. Part D is divided into six

subparts. The generally-applicable

nonattainment SIP requirements are

found in part D, subpart 1, and the

ozone-specific SIP requirements are

found in part D, subpart 2.

EPA provided guidance on

redesignations in a document entitled

"State Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of

16736
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990", published in the Federal

Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR

13498), and supplemented on April 28,

1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein

as the "General Preamble"). Additional

guidance was issued in a September 4,

1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, EPA Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, entitled

"Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment"

(referred to herein as the "Calcagni

memo"). Maintenance plan submittals

are SIP revisions, and as such, EPA is

obligated, under CAA section 110(k), to

approve them or disapprove them

depending upon whether they meet the

applicable CAA requirements for such

plans.

For reasons set forth below in section

V of this document, we propose to

approve ADEQ's request for

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa

ozone nonattainment area to attainment

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

based on our conclusion that all the

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

have been satisfied.

V. Evaluation of the State's

Redesignation Request for the PhoenixMesa Ozone Nonattainment Area

A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained the Applicable NAAQS

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

that we determine that the area has

attained the NAAQS. EPA generally

makes the determination of whether an

area's air quality meets the ozone

NAAQS based upon the most recent

three years of complete, quality-assured

data gathered at established State and

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)

in the nonattainment area and entered

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

database. Data from air monitors

operated by state or local agencies in

compliance with EPA monitoring

requirements must be submitted to

AQS. Heads of monitoring agencies

annually certify that these data are

accurate to the best of their knowledge.

Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on

data in AQS when determining the

attainment status of areas. 1 3 All data are

reviewed to determine the area's air

quality status in accordance with 40

CFR part 50, Appendix I.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part

50, the 1997 ozone standard is met at an

ambient air quality monitoring site

when the 3-year average of the annual

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour

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

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

C, D, and E.

average ozone concentration is less than

or equal to 0.08 ppm. 14 This 3-year

average is referred to as the design

value. When the design value is less

than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on

the rounding convention in 40 CFR part

50, Appendix I) at each monitoring site

within the area, the area is meeting the

NAAQS. The data completeness

requirement is met with the 3-year

average percent of days with valid

ambient monitoring data is at least 90

percent of the days during the

designated ozone monitoring season,

and no single year has less than 75

percent data completeness as

determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR

part 50.

Three state or local agencies are

responsible for monitoring ambient air

quality data in the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area: The Maricopa

County Air Quality Department

(MCAQD), the Pinal County Air Quality

Control District (PCAQCD), and ADEQ.

These agencies submit monitoring

network plan reports to EPA on an

annual basis. These reports discuss the

status of the air monitoring network, as

required under 40 CFR part 58.

Beginning in 2007, EPA has reviewed

these annual plans for compliance with

the applicable reporting requirements in

40 CFR 58.10. With respect to ozone, we

have found that MCAQD's, PCAQCD's,

and ADEQ's annual network plans meet

the applicable reporting requirements

under 40 CFR part 58.15

EPA conducts periodic technical

system audits of the state and local

ambient air monitoring networks, and

has done so for ADEQ, MCAQD, and

PCAQCD. For the purposes of this

action, EPA has reviewed the findings

in EPA's technical system audits of the

networks operated by the three relevant

agencies and notes that none of the

findings in these reports cast doubt on

the reliability of the ozone data

collected at the various monitoring sites

in these networks.16

During the relevant time period, the

ozone monitoring network in the

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area

comprised 20 ozone monitors: MCAQD

14 See 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix I.

15 See EPA letters to MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and

ADEQ concerning annual network plan reports,

which are included in the docket for this

rulemaking.

16 For the most recent technical system audits

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

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

report for ADEQ's network dated January 2013, and

EPA's final TSA report for PCAQCD's network

dated June 2013, which are included in the docket

for this rulemaking.

operated 18 monitors,' 7 ADEQ operated

one monitor, and PCAQCD operated one

monitor. Please see Figure 2-1 in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for

a map showing the locations of the

monitors constituting the State and local

agency regional ozone monitoring

network. Based on population and

ambient ozone, EPA regulations

required only three ozone monitoring

sites in the Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

during the 2010-2012 period. Thus, the

ozone monitoring network in the

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area

exceeds the requirements for the

minimum number of monitoring sites

designated as SLAMS for that pollutant.

MCAQD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ

annually certify that the data they

submit to AQS are complete and

quality-assured.18 All 20 sites

monitored ozone concentrations on a

continuous basis using Federal

Equivalent Method (FEM) analyzers.

The spatial scale and site type

(monitoring objective type) of most of

the ozone monitoring sites in the

nonattainment area are "neighborhood"

and "population exposure,"

respectively. The Blue Point, Cave

Creek, Pinnacle Peak, and Rio Verde

sites are classified as "urban" scale with

site types of "maximum ozone

concentrations," while the Humboldt

Mountain site is classified as "regional

scale" with a site type of "maximum

ozone concentrations." The Fountain

Hills and JLG Supersite sites are also

sited to measure "maximum ozone

concentrations" but are located at the

"neighborhood" scale. 19

In addition to the SLAMS ozone

network maintained by MCAQD,

PCAQCD, and ADEQ, there are five

tribal monitors located within the

nonattainment area. The Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Salt

River) operates four ozone monitors and

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Fort

McDowell) operates one monitor on

17 The Mesa ozone monitor, operated by MCAQD,

began operation on November 1, 2012 and therefore

only gathered data for two months during the 2010-

2012 design value period. As a result, this monitor

is not appropriate to consider in determining

whether the area has attained the 1997 ozone

standard. In the future, as complete data become

available, the monitor will be eligible for use in

determining continued attainment. 18 For the most recent data certification

submittals, see MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ

letters concerning data certification for 2010, 2011,

and 2012, which are included in the docket for this

rulemaking.

19 The sources of information for this paragraph

include ADEQ's "State of Arizona Air Monitoring

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

2013; MCAQD's "2012 Air Monitoring Network

Review," undated; and PCAQCD's "2013 Ambient

Monitoring Network Plan and 2012 Data

Summary," dated July 1, 2013.

16737
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

tribal lands located in the eastern monitoring objective of "NAAQS reviewed the ozone ambient air

portion of the nonattainment area. The comparison" and the data should be monitoring data as recorded in AQS for

ozone monitoring data from Fort considered "regulatory" and the monitoring period from 2010

McDowell is characterized as appropriate for use when determining if through 2012 collected at the

"informational" and therefore not the nonattainment area is attaining the monitoring sites discussed above and

suitable for comparison against the 1997 1997 ozone standard. found that the data meet our

ozone standard. Conversely, the Salt Consistent with the requirements completeness criteria (see table 1).

River ozone monitors have the basic contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has

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

201 0-2012

2010-2012

Site Site ID Agency Parameter Design value (DV)

and % complete

A p a c h e J u n ctio n ...........................................................................................

B lu e P o in t .....................................................................................................

B u c k e y e ........................................................................................................

C a v e C re e k ..................................................................................................

C e n tra l P h o e n ix ............................................................................................

D y s a rt ...........................................................................................................

F a lc o n F ie ld ..................................................................................................

F o u n ta in H ills ................................................................................................

G le n d a le .......................................................................................................

H ig h S c h o o l ..................................................................................................

H u m b o ld t M o u n ta in ......................................................................................

J L G S u p e rs ite ...............................................................................................

L e h i ...............................................................................................................

N o rth P h o e n ix ...............................................................................................

P in n a c le P e a k ..............................................................................................

R e d M o u n ta in ...............................................................................................

R io V e rd e .....................................................................................................

S e n io r C e n te r ...............................................................................................

S o u th P h o e n ix ..............................................................................................

S o u th S c o tts d a le ..........................................................................................

T e m p e ..........................................................................................................

W e s t C h a n d le r ..............................................................................................

W e s t P h o e n ix ...............................................................................................

04-013-3001

04-013-9702

04-013-4011

04-013-4008

04-013-3002

04-013-4010

04-013-1010

04-013-9704

04-013-2001

04-013-7024

04-013-9508

04-013-9997

04-013-7022

04-013-1004

04-013-2005

04-013-7021

04-013-9706

04-013-7020

04-013-4003

04-013-3003

04-013-4005

04-013-4004

04-013-0019

PCAQCD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

SRPMIC

MCAQD

ADEQ .....

SRPMIC

MCAQD

MCAQD

SRPMIC

MCAQD

SRPMIC

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........

% complete .....

DV (ppm) ........ % complete .....

0.074

98

0.075

99

0.066

100

0.077

100

0.074

100

0.071

100

0.069

99

0.076

99

0.076

100

0.074

99

0.075

100

0.076

98

0.073

98

0.081

100

0.077

2078

0.077

93

0.074

98

0.074

95

0.076

98

0.077

100

0.070

99

0.074

100

0.078

100

Table 1 summarizes the site-specific

3-year ozone design values for all

monitoring sites within the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for the period

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

design value for the 2010-2012 period

20 The Pinnacle Peak site was temporarily shut

down on Novemher 16. 2011 nd relocated to

was less than 0.084 ppm at all of the

monitors in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone

nonattainment area. Therefore, we are

proposing to determine, based on

complete quality-assured data for the

2010-2012 period, that the Phoenixnearby location on July 1, 2012. See Letter from Ben

Davis, Air Monitoring Manager, MCAQD, to

Mesa ozone nonattainment area has

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard. Preliminary data for 2013 are

also consistent with continued

Michael Flagg, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA

Region 9, dated January 31, 2012.

16738
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

attainment.2 1 Given the timing of this

proposed action after the end of 2013

but before the monitoring agencies must

enter data collected during the final

quarter of the 2013 into AQS, we will

be updating this determination based on

design values calculated for 2011-2013,

and preliminary review of available

2014 data, for the purposes of the final

action.

B. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements

Applicable for Purposes of

Redesignation Under Section 110 and

Part D

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

EPA to determine that the area has a

fully approved applicable SIP under

section 110(k) that meets all applicable

requirements under section 110 and part

D for the purposes of redesignation.

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA

Section 110

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

elements that a SIP must contain in

order to be fully approved. EPA has

analyzed the Arizona SIP and

determined that it is consistent with the

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

Phoenix-Mesa portion of the approved

Arizona SIP, which includes rules

pertaining to areas and sources under

the jurisdiction of ADEQ, MCAQD, and

PCAQCD, contains enforceable emission

limitations; requires monitoring,

compiling, and analyzing of ambient air

quality data; requires preconstruction

review of new or modified stationary

sources; provides adequate funding,

staff, and associated resources necessary

to implement its requirements; and

provides the necessary assurances that

the State of Arizona maintains

responsibility for ensuring adequate

implementation of the SIP where the

State is relying on local or regional

governments or agencies for

implementation of the SIP.22

21 See the AQS Preliminary Design Value Report

for 2013 dated March 6, 2014, included in the

docket for this rulemaking.

22 We note that SIPs must be fully approved only

with respect to the applicable requirements for

purposes of redesignation in accordance with

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

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

certain measures to prevent sources in a state from

significantly contributing to air quality problems in

another state (transport SIP). However, the section

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

with a particular nonattainment area's designation

and classification in that state. EPA believes that

the requirements linked with a particular

nonattainment area's designation and classification

are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing

a redesignation request. The transport SIP

requirements, where applicable, continue to apply

to a state regardless of the designation of any one

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

that these requirements should be construed to be

On numerous occasions, we have

approved Arizona submittals addressing

the basic CAA section 110 provisions.

There are no outstanding or

disapproved applicable SIP submittals

with respect to the Phoenix-Mesa

portion of the SIP that prevent

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard.23 Therefore, we

propose to find that Arizona has met all

SIP requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa

ozone area applicable for the purposes

of redesignation under section 110 of

the CAA (General SIP Requirements).

2. Part D Requirements

a. Introduction

The CAA contains two sets of

provisions, subparts 1 and 2, that

address planning and emission control

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. Both of these subparts are found

in title I, part D of the CAA; sections

171-179 and sections 181-185,

respectively. Subpart 1 contains general,

less prescriptive requirements for all

nonattainment areas of any pollutant,

including ozone, governed by a NAAQS.

Subpart 2 contains additional, more

specific requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas classified under

subpart 2.

The applicable subpart 1

requirements are contained in sections

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

applicable requirements for the purposes of

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the

other section 110 elements that are not connected

with nonattainment plan submissions and not

linked with an area's attainment status are not

applicable requirements for the purposes of

redesignation. The State will still be subject to these

requirements after the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment

area is redesignated.

This policy is consistent with EPA's existing

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

redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirements.

See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final

rulemakings (61 FR 53174 dated October 10, 1996

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

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

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

See also the discussion of this issue in the

Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879 at 37890

dated June 19, 2000), in the Pittsburgh

redesignation (66 FR 53094 dated October 19,

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

6986 dated February 14, 2007 and 72 FR 26718

dated May 11, 2007). 2 3

On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398) EPA

issued a partial approval and partial disapproval of

Arizona's "infrastructure" SIP for the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS. While this final rule was not a full

approval, it does not represent an obstacle to

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 ozone

nonattainment area because the infrastructure

elements effective in the Phoenix-Mesa area that

EPA disapproved (i.e., certain PSD program

elements, composition of air quality hearing boards)

are not related to the nonattainment SIP

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone

nonattainment area and thus are not relevant for the

purposes of redesignation.

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

the state of Arizona is required to

submit SIP revisions that provide for:

e Implementation of all reasonably

available control measures (RACM),

including, at a minimum, reasonable

available control technology for existing

sources and attainment of the standard

(section 172(c)(1));

* Reasonable further progress (RFP)

(section 172(c)(2));

* A comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of the relevant pollutant or

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

* Identification and quantification of

the emissions, if any, of any such

pollutant which will be allowed in

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

(i.e., new or modified stationary sources

located in established economic

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

* Permits for the construction of new

and modified major stationary sources

in the nonattainment area (section

172(c)(5))(herein, referred to as "nonattainment NSR" or "NSR");

* Enforceable emission limitations as

may be necessary or appropriate to

provide for attainment of such standard

in such area by the applicable

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

* Compliance with section 110(a)(2)

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

* Use of equivalent modeling

emission inventory, and planning

procedures if approved by EPA (section

172 (c) (8));

* Contingency measures (section

172(c)(9)); and

* Interagency consultation and

enforceability for the purposes of

transportation conformity (section

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

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

approved the Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area based on the

determination that it met all applicable

requirements for such plans under

subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Specifically, we approved the following

SIP elements:

* The RACM demonstration and

attainment demonstration as meeting

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

CFR 51.912(d), and 40 CFR 51.908;

* The RFP demonstration as meeting

the requirements of CAA section

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

* The 2002 base year emission

inventory as meeting the requirements

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

and

* The contingency measures for

failure to make RFP or to attain as

16739
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

meeting the requirements of section

172(c)(9).

In addition, we note that the approved

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan

relied on enforceable emission

limitations necessary to attain the 1997

8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date in compliance with

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

adopted and submitted in compliance

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

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

of Arizona did not rely on sections

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

quantification of certain emission

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

techniques) in connection with the

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. The

approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment

Plan did not address the following SIP

elements: (1) NSR permit requirements

in the nonattainment area (section

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

conformity provisions related to

interagency consultation and

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

CFR 51.390). We address these two

remaining part D SIP elements later in

this subsection.24

As noted above, the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area was initially

designated nonattainment under subpart

1 of the CAA, but was subsequently

classified as marginal nonattainment for

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under

subpart 2 of the CAA (77 FR 28424, May

14, 2012). The effective date of the

classification of the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area as marginal was

June 13, 2012, and under our subpart 2

classifications rule, states had one year

from the effective date of that final rule

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

revisions.

ADEQ has not submitted any SIP

revisions for the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area in response to the

area's classification to marginal.2 5

24 The requirements for SIP revisions to

demonstrate RACM, RFP, attainment, and

contingencies (for failure to meet RFP or

attainment) in subpart 1 are not applicable for the

purposes of evaluating a redesignation request.

Such requirements are directed at ensuring

attainment by the applicable attainment date, and

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

showing attainment, the requirements have no

meaning at this point. See the General Preamble, 74

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

25 In any event, the State of Arizona is not

required to submit further SIP revisions to satisfy

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

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

ozone nonattainment area because we already

determined that the State had met the VOC RACT

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

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

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

14, 2005) redesignating the Phoenix metropolitan

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

also note that the State of Arizona previously

submitted, and EPA approved, an "enhanced"

However, EPA believes that this does

not preclude this redesignation from

being approved, based on (1) EPA's

longstanding policy of evaluating

requirements in accordance with the

requirements due at the time the

redesignation request is submitted; and

(2) consideration of the inequity of

retroactively applying any requirements

that might be applied in the future.

Under EPA's longstanding

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

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation,

states requesting redesignation to

attainment must meet only the relevant

SIP requirements that came due prior to

the submittal of a complete

redesignation request.26 At the time the

redesignation request was submitted

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

nonattainment area was not classified

under subpart 2, and thus, subpart 2

requirements were not yet due for this

area.

Moreover, it would be inequitable to

retroactively apply any new SIP

requirements that were not applicable at

the time the request was submitted. The

D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the

inequity in such retroactive

rulemakings. See Sierra Club v.

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

in which the court upheld a district

court's ruling refusing to make

retroactive an EPA determination of

nonattainment that was past the

statutory due date. Such a

determination would have resulted in

the imposition of additional

requirements on the area. The court

stated, "[a]lthough EPA failed to make

the nonattainment determination within

the statutory frame, Sierra Club's

proposed solution only makes the

situation worse. Retroactive relief would

likely impose large costs on the states,

which would face fines and suits for not

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program

that exceeds the requirements of section

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

area, if those requirements were applicable for the

purposes of redesignation. See 69 FR 2912 (January

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

submitted, and EPA approved Maricopa County's

emissions statement rule and thereby has complied

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

applicable for the purposes of redesignation for the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 7038

(February 10, 2005).

26 See the Calcagni memo; see also Memorandum

entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for

Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November

15, 1992," from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation dated

September 17, 1993; Redesignation of Detroit-Ann

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

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

upholding this interpretation; and Redesignation of

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

(May 12, 2003).

implementing air pollution prevention

plans in 1997, even though they were

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

Similarly here, it would be unfair to

penalize the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area by applying to it, for

purposes of redesignation, additional

SIP requirements under subpart 2 that

were not in effect or yet due at the time

it submitted its redesignation request, or

the time that the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area attained the 1997

ozone NAAQS.

In the following subsection, we

address the following SIP elements: (1)

NSR permit requirements in the

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

and (2) transportation conformity

provisions related to interagency

consultation and enforceability (section

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

b. Permits for New and Modified Major

Sources

To meet the requirements of CAA

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

revisions that meet the requirements

under 40 CFR 51.165 ("Permit

requirements"), and EPA regulations at

40 CFR 51.914, which extend the SIP

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 to areas

designated as nonattainment for the

1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Under 40 CFR 51.165, states are

required to submit SIP revisions that

establish certain requirements for new

or modified stationary sources in

nonattainment areas, including

provisions to ensure that major new

sources or major modifications of

existing sources of nonattainment

pollutants incorporate the highest level

of control, referred to as the lowest

achievable emission rate (LAER), and

that increases in emissions from such

stationary sources are offset so as to

provide for reasonable further progress

towards attainment.

The process for reviewing permit

applications and issuing permits for

new or modified stationary sources of

air pollution is referred to as new source

review. With respect to new major

sources or major modifications at

existing major sources of nonattainment

pollutants in nonattainment areas, this

process is referred to as nonattainment

NSR or simply NSR. With respect to

new major sources or major

modifications at existing major sources

of pollutants for which as area is

designated attainment or unclassifiable,

states are required to submit SIP

revisions that ensure that major new

stationary sources and major

modifications of existing stationary

sources meet the federal requirements

for prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD), including

16740
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

application of the best available control

technology (BACT) for each applicable

pollutant emitted in significant

amounts, among other requirements.

In the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment

area, EPA, MCAQD, PCAQCD, and

ADEQ share responsibility for issuing

permits. EPA has the responsibility for

permit application review and permit

issuance for new or modified stationary

sources in Indian country of the Fort

McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt

River-Pima Maricopa Indian

Community, and the Tohono O'odham

Nation. MCAQD and PCAQCD are

responsible for permitting for most

stationary sources located within their

respective counties and to portable

sources that operate solely within the

boundaries of the counties. ADEQ has

jurisdiction over refineries, copper

smelters, coal-fired power plants,

Portland cement plants throughout the

State and over sources that operate in

multiple counties or outside the

boundaries of Maricopa, Pima, and

Pinal counties.

EPA has promulgated nonattainment

NSR rules at 40 CFR 49.166 through

49.175 that establish the necessary

permitting requirements for new or

modified major stationary sources in the

areas of Indian country located within

the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.

With respect to PCAQCD, the existing

Arizona SIP does not include rules that

meet nonattainment NSR requirements

for Pinal County; however, because the

Pinal County portion of the

nonattainment area was newly

designated as nonattainment for ozone

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

part of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area, EPA's

regulations in appendix S to 40 CFR

part 51 apply until such time as

nonattainment NSR rules meeting the

applicable requirements are approved

by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP.

See 40 CFR 52.24(k).

EPA has not approved nonattainment

NSR rules for ADEQ and MCAQD since

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

all of the current SIP NSR requirements

under the CAA, as amended in 1990,

and under 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone

nonattainment areas. However, the

existing SIP-approved NSR rules for

both ADEQ and MCAQD meet the basic

requirements of a nonattainment NSR

program, including the definition of

"major stationary source" as any

stationary source in a nonattainment

area with a potential to emit 100 tons

per year or more, emissions limitations

that constitute LAER, and emissions

reductions to offset emissions increases

that would otherwise occur. See

Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)

section R9-3-101 ("Definitions") and

section R9-3-302 ("Installation permits

for sources in nonattainment areas");

and Maricopa County Rule 21.0

("Procedures for Obtaining an

Installation Permit"). Also, because the

SIP-approved NSR rules apply "in any

nonattainment area for the pollutant(s)

for which the source is classified as a

major source," AAC R9-3-302(A), the

requirements apply throughout the

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area, except for Indian

country and for sources subject to Pinal

County jurisdiction, as discussed above.

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

federally-enforceable constraint on the

growth of stationary source emissions,

and thus have supported the region's

efforts to lower ambient ozone

concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa

area. Those efforts have resulted in

attainment of the standard since 2007

(see table 2, below) and thus we find

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

continue to support continued

attainment of the standard during the

maintenance phase after redesignation.

Therefore, given that a portion of the

nonattainment area is subject to federal

rules implementing the nonattainment

NSR requirements (Indian country and

the Pinal County portion of the

nonattainment area) and given that the

fundamental nonattainment NSR

requirements are approved into the SIP

for the other portions of the

nonattainment area, we conclude that

the State has met the applicable NSR

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa

eight-hour ozone nonattainment area for

the purposes of redesignation of the area

for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.

c. Conformity Requirements

Under section 176(c) of the 1990 CAA

Amendments, States are required to

establish criteria and procedures to

ensure that federally-supported or

funded projects conform to the air

quality planning goals in the applicable

SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that

state conformity provisions must be

consistent with federal conformity

regulations that the CAA required EPA

to promulgate. EPA's conformity

regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part

93, subparts A (referred to herein as

transportation conformity) and B

(referred herein as general conformity).

Transportation conformity applies to

transportation plans, program, and

projects developed, funded, and

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

Federal Transit Act. General Conformity

applies to all other federally-supported

or funded projects. SIP revisions

intended to address conformity

requirements are referred to herein as

conformity SIPs.

The State of Arizona has adopted

general conformity procedures,

approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (65

FR 19916).27 The State-adopted

transportation conformity procedures,

found at Arizona Revised Statutes

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

have not yet been approved by EPA.

EPA, however, believes it is reasonable

to interpret the conformity SIP

requirements as not applying for the

purposes of a redesignation request

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

conformity rules are still required after

redesignation and federal conformity

rules apply where state rules have not

been approved. 28

C. The Area Must Show the

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Emission

Reductions

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

redesignation of a nonattainment area to

attainment unless EPA determines that

the improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from the

implementation of the applicable SIP,

applicable federal air pollution control

regulations, and other permanent and

enforceable regulations. Under this

criterion, the State must be able to

reasonably attribute the improvement in

air quality to emissions reductions that

are permanent and enforceable.

Attainment resulting from temporary

reductions in emission rates (e.g.,

reduced production or shutdown due to

temporary adverse economic

conditions) or unusually favorable

meteorology would not qualify as an air

quality improvement due to permanent

and enforceable emission reductions.

In our proposed (70 FR 13425, March

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

14, 2005) redesignation rules for the

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area, we described the

numerous stationary source and mobile

source control measures that were

approved as part of the Arizona SIP and

that, together with certain federal

measures, had provided for attainment

of the 1-hour ozone standard through

permanent and enforceable emissions

27 In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation

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

which eliminated the requirement for States to

adopt and submit conformity SIPs addressing

general conformity requirements. See 75 FR 17254

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

general conformity regulations.

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

2001) upholding this interpretation.

16741
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

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

RACT rules on page 13433 of our

proposed 1-hour ozone redesignation

rule at 13425. Significant mobile source

control measures that contributed to

attainment and provide for maintenance

of the 1-hour ozone standard included

low volatility cleaner burning gasoline,

the federal motor vehicle and nonroad

control programs, and implementation

of an enhanced vehicle emissions

inspection (VEI) program. See 70 FR

13425 at page 13430.

The State of Arizona has relied on

these same permanent and enforceable

measures to attain the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard but added an additional

stationary source rule to the control

strategy, Maricopa County rule 358

("Polystyrene Foam Operations"),

which EPA approved at 70 FR 30370

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

quantified the emissions reduction from

certain specific State and local

measures, including VEI enhancements,

local transportation improvements,

summer gasoline formulation, and a rule

governing polystyrene foam operation,

as totaling 6.0 mtpd of VOC in 2008 (a

2.4 percent reduction compared to the

2002 base case) and 13.4 mtpd of NON

(a 4.6 percent reduction compared to the

2002 base case). These reductions have

contributed to the overall reduction in

emissions that have provided for

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan relies on monitoring data (see

figure 2-2 in the plan) showing a

general downward trend in 8-hour

ozone concentrations in the PhoenixMesa area from 2000 through 2008

despite increases of more than 15

percent in population, employment and

vehicle travel, as evidence that the

improvement in air quality can

reasonably be attributed to the

permanent and enforceable emissions

reductions from the measures described

above.

In addition, we reviewed temperature

data for Phoenix over this time period

to determine if unusual meteorological

conditions could have played a

significant role in attaining the 1997 8-

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

any anomaly over this period relative to

long-term averages. 29 The period from

2002 to 2008 did not show a trend in

declining air temperatures that would

suggest that the observed trend in ozone

concentrations was a result of favorable

meteorology. We do recognize that a

significant economic slowdown

occurred nationally starting in 2008,

and that the Phoenix-Mesa area was

affected, but we note that the downward

trend in ozone concentrations had

already been established well before

that time.30

Based on the evidence discussed

above, EPA finds that the improvement

in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa

nonattainment area is the result of

permanent and enforceable emission

reductions from implementation of a

combination of control measures. As

such, we propose to find that the

criterion for redesignation set forth at

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

D. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan Under

CAA Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. We

interpret this section of the Act to

require, in general, the following core

elements: Attainment inventory,

maintenance demonstration, monitoring

network, verification of continued

attainment, and contingency plan. See

Calcagni memo, pages 8 through 13.

Under CAA section 175A, a

maintenance plan must demonstrate

continued attainment of the applicable

NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA

approves a redesignation to attainment.

Eight years after redesignation, the State

must submit a revised maintenance plan

that demonstrates continued attainment

for the subsequent ten-year period

following the initial ten-year

maintenance period. To address the

possibility of future NAAQS violations,

the maintenance plan must contain such

contingency provisions that EPA deems

necessary to promptly correct any

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after

redesignation of the area. Based on our

review and evaluation of the plan, as

detailed below, we are proposing to

approve the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan because we believe

that it meets the requirements of CAA

section 175A.

1. Attainment Inventories and Projected

Future Inventories

A maintenance plan for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard must include an

inventory of emissions of ozone

precursors (VOC and NOx) in the area

in order to identify a level of emissions

that are sufficient to attain the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS. This inventory

must be consistent with EPA's most

recent guidance on emissions

inventories for nonattainment areas

available at the time of plan submittal

and should represent emissions during

the time period associated with the

monitoring data showing attainment.

The inventory must also be

comprehensive, including emissions

from stationary point sources, area

sources, nonroad mobile sources, and

on-road motor vehicle sources, and

must be based on actual "ozone season

data," i.e., summertime emissions.

MAG selected year 2005 as the year

for the attainment inventory in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. As

shown in table 2, the area attained the

1997 8-hour ozone standard at the end

of 2007 based on monitoring data

collected over the course of the previous

three-year period (2005-2007) during

which the calculated design value was

less than the standard. The attainment

inventory will generally be the actual

inventory during the time period the

area attained the standard, and year

2005 was one of the years from the

three-year period for which the area first

attained the standard. Thus, MAG's

selection of 2005 for the attainment

inventory is acceptable.

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

Site

Apache Junction ......................................................

B lu e P o in t ................................................................

B u c k e y e ...................................................................

C a v e C re e k ..............................................................

Agency

PCAQCD

MCAQD

MCAQD

MCAQD

Design value* (parts per million)

2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10

0.076

0.067

0.065

0.079

0.080 0.075

0.064 0.067

0.066 0.064

0.078 0.075

29 See memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality Phoenix-Mesa Area," dated November 22, 2013,

Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, included in the docket for this rulemaking.

entitled "Meteorological Trend Analysis for

0.073

0.070

0.064

0.074

30 Id.

16742
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

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

Design value* (parts per million)

Site Agency

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

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

Dysart ....................................................................... M CAQ D 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.071

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

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

G lendale ................................................................... M CAQ D 0.075 0.074 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076

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

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

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

Lehi .......................................................................... SRPM IC **0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 0.073

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

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

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

Rio Verde ................................................................. M CAQ D 0.083 0.080 0.075 0.072 0.073 0.074

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

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

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

Tem pe ...................................................................... M CAQ D 0.077 0.077 0.073 0.071 0.068 0.070

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

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

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

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

The attainment year emission

inventory for 2005 in the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan is generally

consistent with the 2005 Periodic

Emission Inventory (PEI) emissions

estimates for Maricopa County and the

Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. The

PEI was calculated in terms of annual

emissions and ozone season-day

emissions.

Emissions from point sources were

estimated from each identified facility

through permit system databases and

annual emissions reports submitted to

the facility's permitting authority.

Emissions from area sources were

estimated by source category using

information from permit databases and

previous SIP inventories. MAG

estimated nonroad mobile source

emissions using EPA's NONROAD2005

model, and estimated on-road motor

vehicle source emissions using EPA's

MOBILE6.2 model. On-road vehicle

emissions estimates reflect estimates of

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using data

from U.S. Department of

Transportation's 2005 Highway

Performance and Monitoring System.

Biogenic emissions of NOx and VOC

were calculated using the Model of

Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from

Nature (MEGAN) with input including

emissions rates developed from

measurements made of the dominant

plant species in Maricopa County,

locations and biomass densities of the

dominant plant species, and surface

temperature data. See 2005 Periodic

Emissions Inventory for ozone

precursors in volume 1 of the

appendices to the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan.

For the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan, MAG adjusted and

supplemented the 2005 PEI ozone

precursor emissions estimates

developed using the methods described

above to develop emissions estimates

for an area referred to as the inner

modeling domain ("modeling domain"),

a rectangular area encompassing all of

the nonattainment area and largely

defined by the boundaries of the

irregularly-shaped nonattainment area.

See figure II-1 of MAG's technical

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

illustration of the modeling domain.

The modeling domain defines the area

for which MAG modeled ozone

concentrations.

MAG developed modeling-domain

emissions estimates for 2005 for the

June, July, and August episodes that

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

3 below for a summary of modeling

domain emissions estimates by source

category for year 2005 for the June

modeling episode. The 2005 attainment

year inventory includes credit for

committed control measures that were

in place during the summer of 2005. See

table 3-5 of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan.

16743
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

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

DOMAIN FOR JUNE OZONE EPISODE

[Metric tons per day] a

NOx VOC

Source category

2005 2019 2025 2005 2019 2025

Point ......................................................... 10 .9 58 .6 59 .1 11.1 16 .7 18 .7

A rea .......................................................... 19 .6 27 .7 31.1 79 .2 111.4 124 .8

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

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

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

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

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

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

As shown in table 3, in the 2005

attainment year inventory for the

modeling domain, biogenic sources

contributed approximately 70 percent to

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

NOx emissions and accounted for 60

percent of total NOx.

In addition to 2005 values, table 3

above also summarizes MAG's VOC and

NOx emissions estimates for an interim

year (2019) and the maintenance plan's

horizon year (2025). The projected

emission inventories for 2019 and 2025

were based on the use of growth factors,

on-going emissions control programs,

and retirement rates for obsolete

sources. The Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan includes MAG's 2025

emissions estimates and related

documentation, while MAG's 2019

interim-year emissions estimates and

documentation are found in a separate

MAG document, entitled "Analysis of

the Interim Year 2019 as a Supplement

to the 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment

Area," dated June 17, 2013

("Maintenance Plan Supplement").

MAG used growth factors to project

emissions in 2019 and 2025 for point

and area sources based on population

and employment projections approved

by the MAG Regional Council in May

2007. MAG included population and

employment growth projections for

2016 and 2021 in the Maintenance Plan

Supplement and projected emissions for

2019 from interpolation of the projected

emissions for 2016 and 2021. MAG used

a compound annual growth rate for

population of 2.6 percent between 2005

and 2016. The actual compound annual

growth rate between 2005 and 2011,

based on the 2005 Special Census for

Maricopa County and the 2010 Census,

was 0.8 percent. Because the population

of Maricopa County grew more slowly

than projected, MAG expects the

emission inventories related to the

socioeconomic projections for the

interim and horizon years to be

conservatively overestimated.

MAG used different growth factors for

different source types within each

source category (e.g., specific stationary

point sources excluding power plants,

specific categories of area sources such

as dry cleaners). For nonroad mobile

sources, MAG derived growth factors

from the EPA NONROAD2005 model

defaults for Maricopa County. The

growth factors are listed in Appendix

IV-vii to Appendix A, Exhibit 2 of the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

and generally range from 1 to 1.8. For

power plants, MAG estimated future

emissions based on the facility's

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

maximum levels allowed under existing

permits. MAG estimated on-road motor

vehicle emissions based on the same

population and employment projections

used to estimate point and area sources,

but increased on-road source emissions

of VOC and NOx by 10 percent to

provide safety margins for the motor

vehicle emission budgets for

transportation conformity.

For biogenic emissions, the 2005

inventory was held constant for 2019

and 2025. In the approved Eight-Hour

Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG similarly

held biogenic emissions constant,

compared to the 2002 base year

inventory, when demonstrating

attainment with the standard by 2008

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

additional information provided to EPA

during our review of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG explained

that no projected land use or land cover

data was available for the 2008

attainment year, therefore biogenic

emissions in the ozone modeling

domain were held constant. As

discussed in greater detail in our

proposed rulemaking to approve the

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan,

MAG expected that the trend of

increasing urbanization in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area would be

expected to decrease biogenic VOC

emissions in Maricopa County. Because

MAG did not have 2008 land use data

available, it determined that

maintaining constant biogenic

emissions of the ozone precursors

would be more conservative than

attempting to estimate the anticipated

decrease in biogenic VOC emissions.

See 77 FR 21690 at 21694 (April 11,

2012). This rationale similarly applies to

the use of a constant biogenic emissions

value for each ozone episode in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan builds upon the control strategy

developed for attainment and

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone

standard and the control strategy

developed for attainment of the 1997

8-hour ozone standard. The plan

specifically cites and quantifies the

emissions reductions from seven control

measures for maintenance

demonstration purposes in the PhoenixMesa area through year 2025. These

measures include one federal control

measure, a measure referred to as

"Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission

Standards," and six State or local

control measures. All of these measures

have been approved into the Arizona

SIP, or, in the case of the federal

nonroad equipment emission standards,

have been promulgated by EPA as

regulations published in the CFR:

* Summer fuel reformulation,

approved as part of Arizona's cleaner

burning gasoline regulations at 69 FR

10161 (March 4, 2004);

* Phased-In emission test cutpoints

and one-time waiver from vehicle

emissions test, approved as part of the

Arizona vehicle emissions inspection

and maintenance program at 69 FR 2912

(January 22, 2003);

16744
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

* Tougher enforcement of vehicle

registration and emission test

compliance, as set forth in ARS 49-552

("Enforcement on city, town, county,

school district or special district

property"), approved at 70 FR 11553

(March 9, 2005); and 49-541.01

(paragraphs D and E) 31 ("Vehicle

emissions inspection program; constant

four wheel drive vehicles; requirements;

location; violation; classification;

penalties; new program termination"),

approved at 70 FR 11553 (March 9,

2005);

* Federal (tier 4) nonroad equipment

emissions standards, promulgated in 40

CFR part 1039 at 69 FR 38958 (June 29,

2004);

* Expansion of Area A boundaries, as

set forth in ARS 49-541 ("Definitions"),

approved at 78 FR 30209 (May 22,

2013); and

* Ban open burning during the ozone

season, as set forth in ARS 49-501

("Unlawful open burning; exceptions;

fine; definition"), approved in a final

rule signed by the EPA Region IX

Regional Administrator on December

16, 2013 (not yet published in the

Federal Register).

Table 4 shows the projected emission

reductions developed by MAG from the

seven maintenance measures during the

June ozone episode. Of the seven

maintenance measures in the PhoenixMesa Maintenance Plan, the federal

nonroad equipment emission standards

represents the largest reduction in VOC

and NOx emissions from an individual

maintenance measure.

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

OZONE MODELING DOMAIN

VOC NOx

Maintenance measure Reduction Percent Reduction Percent

reduction in Reducton reduction in (metric tons anthropogenic (metric tons anthropogenic per day) emissions per day) emissions

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

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

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

Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emission

Test Compliance 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1.

Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission Standards 19.3 7.9 47.2 16.5.

Expansion of Area A Boundary 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1.

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

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

As shown in table 3, NOx emissions

from point sources is projected to

increase dramatically between 2005 and

the interim and horizon years of 2019

and 2025, primarily due to MAG's

conservative assumption that power

plants in the future would operate at

their PTE. Emissions of NOx from area

sources are also estimated to be higher

in the interim and horizon years. MAG

projected that emissions from nonroad

sources would decrease due to the

implementation of federal emission

standards for nonroad equipment (see

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

decrease notwithstanding the 10%

increase added to the 2025 motor

vehicle emissions estimates (to provide

for a safety margin for transportation

conformity purposes), due to the

continuing benefit of the federal motor

vehicle control program and the

turnover of older model cars to newer

models designed to meet more stringent

EPA emissions standards. Overall,

between 2005 and 2025, MAG projected

total emissions of NOx to decrease by

nearly 25 mtpd for the June ozone

episode.

31 These provisions are now codified in ARS 49-

550 ("Violation; Classification; Civil Penalty").

As shown in table 3, MAG projected

that VOC emissions from point and area

sources will increase over the 2005 to

2025 time frame. Emissions from VOC

from nonroad and on-road mobile

sources are projected to decrease

between 2005 and 2025,

notwithstanding the 10% safety margin

added to 2025 motor vehicle emissions

estimates for the same reasons given

above for NOx. Emissions of biogenic

VOC are projected to remain constant,

as discussed above. Overall, MAG

projected total emissions of VOC in

2025 to increase by approximately 20

mtpd for the June ozone episode as

compared to 2005.

Based on our review of the emission

inventories (and related documentation)

from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan, we find that the inventory for 2005

is comprehensive, that the methods and

assumptions used by MAG to develop

the 2005 emission inventory are

reasonable, and that the inventory

reasonably estimates actual ozone

season emissions in an attainment year.

Moreover, we find that the 2005

emission inventory reflects the latest

planning assumptions and emission

models available at the time the plan

was developed, and provide a

comprehensive and reasonably accurate

basis upon which to forecast ozone

precursor emissions for years 2019 and

2025.

2. Maintenance Demonstration

CAA section 175A(a) requires that the

maintenance plan "provide for the

maintenance of the national primary

ambient air quality standard for such air

pollutant in the area concerned for at

least 10 years after the redesignation."

Generally, a state may demonstrate

maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard

by either showing that future emissions

will not exceed the level of the

attainment year inventory or by

modeling to show that the future mix of

sources and emissions rates will not

cause a violation of the NAAQS. For

areas that are required under the Act to

submit modeled attainment

demonstrations, the maintenance

demonstration should generally use the

same type of modeling as used for the

attainment demonstration. See Calcagni

memo, page 9.

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

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

demonstrated attainment of the 1997 8-

16745
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

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

2009. Consistent with EPA's "Guidance

on the Use of Models and Other

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment

of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour

Ozone and PM 2.

5 NAAQS and Regional

Haze" ("EPA Modeling Guidance"), the

Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan

included the following components: A

conceptual description of the area's

nonattainment problem, a modeling

protocol, model selection and set-up,

selection and evaluation of ozone

episodes to model, meteorological and

emissions input data preparation, model

performance evaluations for the

photochemical and meteorological

models, the modeled attainment test,

and a weight of evidence evaluation.

See Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan,

chapter 3 and appendix A, exhibit 2.

EPA evaluated these components and

found that they provided an adequate

basis for the attainment demonstration.

See 77 FR 21690, at 21697-21699.

For the modeled 10-year maintenance

test, MAG selected the same

photochemical and meteorologicalinput models and set-up and the same

high-ozone episodes to model as

evaluated in the Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan. As such, we are not

reassessing the modeling protocol,

choice of ozone episodes, and model

performance. Here, the model was used

to predict the effect of changes in

emissions due to land use changes,

growth, and the effect of control

measures from a baseline emission year

of 2005 to maintenance years 2019 and

2025.32 The resulting concentrations

were used to evaluate the impact of

emission changes during the high-ozone

episode-specific meteorological

conditions. See Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan (chapter 3 and

appendix A, exhibit 2) and the

Maintenance Plan Supplement.

Under EPA Modeling Guidance, the

model is used to develop relative

response factors (RRFs) that give the

model's response to emission changes,

and the RRFs are applied to monitored

design value concentrations to arrive at

the predicted future concentrations. The

particulars of the calculation, and which

model grid cells and modeled days are

to be included, are specified in the EPA

Guidance. See EPA Modeling Guidance,

pages 15, 25, and 155. MAG assessed

the 2019 and 2025 effects and found the

maximum predicted ozone design value

to be 0.081 parts per million (ppm) in

2019 and 0.081 ppm in 2025. All values

32 We evaluate the emissions inventory for the

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

above.

equal to or less than 0.084 ppm meet the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus,

the modeling results predict continued

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for at

least ten years beyond redesignation

(assuming redesignation of the area

before 2016).

In addition to a modeled maintenance

demonstration, which focuses on

locations with an air quality monitor,

EPA generally requires an unmonitored

area analysis. This analysis is intended

to ensure that a control strategy leads to

maintenance of the NAAQS in other

locations that have no monitor but that

might have base year (and/or future

year) ambient ozone levels exceeding

the NAAQS. The unmonitored area

analysis uses a combination of model

output and ambient data to identify

areas that might exceed the NAAQS if

monitors were located there. In order to

examine unmonitored areas in all

portions of the modeling domain, EPA

recommends use of interpolated spatial

fields of ambient data combined with

gridded modeled outputs. See EPA

Modeling Guidance, page 29. MAG used

the EPA developed Modeled Attainment

Test Software (MATS) Version 2.0.1 to

conduct this analysis. The maximum

design values from this analysis were

0.083 ppm in 2019 and 0.083 ppm in

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

hour ozone NAAQS. See Maintenance

Plan Supplement.

Based on our prior approval of MAG's

photochemical modeling approach for

8-hour ozone attainment demonstration

purposes and because we find MAG's

application of the same basic approach

to the 8-hour ozone maintenance

demonstration to be reasonable, we

accept the results of MAG's modeling as

a sufficient demonstration that the plan

provides for maintenance of the 1997 8-

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

after redesignation to attainment.

Therefore, we propose to find that the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

meets the maintenance demonstration

requirements under CAA section

175A(a).

3. Monitoring Network

Continued ambient monitoring of an

area is generally required over the

maintenance period. As discussed in

section V.A. of this document, ozone is

currently monitored by ADEQ, MCAQD,

and PCAQCD at a total of 20 sites within

the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area. ADEQ and MCAQD

monitors represent 19 of the 20 sites.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan (see page 3-21 of the plan)

indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD will

continue to operate an appropriate air

quality monitoring network in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to

verify continued attainment of the 1997

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, if there

is significant change to parameters such

as population, vehicle miles of travel, or

significant sources, ADEQ and MCAQD

will undertake studies to determine if it

is appropriate to re-site monitors or add

additional monitors to the network.

Lastly, the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan takes note of the

annual review by EPA of State and local

ambient monitoring network plans

under 40 CFR part 58 as providing a

continuing means for ensuring the

adequacy of the ozone monitoring

network in the Phoenix-Mesa area.

We note that PCAQCD is not cited in

the subsection on an approved

monitoring network and verification of

continued attainment in the Eight-Hour

Maintenance Plan, but find the failure to

include PCAQCD in the plan's

discussion of continued monitoring and

verification of continued attainment to

be harmless error because the applicable

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part

58 will continue to apply to PCAQCD's

ozone monitor regardless of our

approval of the maintenance plan and

redesignation request and because the

overall ozone monitoring network

operated by ADEQ and MCAQD alone

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

stations) is sufficient to meet ozone

monitoring requirements in the

Phoenix-Mesa are. Therefore, for the

reasons given above, EPA finds that the

Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan

adequately provides for continued

ambient ozone monitoring in the

Phoenix-Mesa area.

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

Each State should ensure that it has

the legal authority to implement and

enforce all measures necessary to attain

and to maintain the NAAQS.

Previously, in taking action to approve

the various measures that the State is

relying on for attainment and

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS, such as the cleaner burning

gasoline regulations and the vehicle

emissions inspection (VEI) program, we

determined that the State has the

necessary legal authority to implement

and enforce the measures and find no

sunset clauses that would be triggered

for these control measures upon

redesignation to attainment. We are,

however, aware of Arizona Revised

Statutes (ARS) section 41-3017.01

which provides for the termination of

the VEI on January 1, 2017, but

recognize that the Arizona Legislature

has at various intervals in the past

16746
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

extended the termination date for the

VEI program and expect it to do so again

before 2017. We also find that the

applicable State, regional, and county

agencies, such as ADEQ, the Arizona

Department of Weights and Measures,

Arizona Department of Transportation

(DOT), MAG, Maricopa County, Pinal

County, and local cities and towns, have

the necessary authority to adopt,

implement, and enforce any emission

control contingency measures

determined to be necessary to correct

ozone NAAQS violations.

To verify continued attainment, in

addition to continuing to operate an

ozone monitoring network that meets

EPA ambient air quality surveillance

requirements, MCAQD will continue to

update the emissions inventory for

ozone precursors in the Phoenix-Mesa

area every three years with input and

assistance from ADEQ, Arizona DOT,

and MAG. These emissions inventory

updates will provide a means with

which to track emissions relative to

those projected in the maintenance

plan, and thereby verify the continued

attainment of the NAAQS.

Lastly, the transportation conformity

process, which requires a comparison of

on-road motor vehicle emissions that

would occur under new or amended

transportation plans and programs with

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan, represents another means by

which to verify continued attainment of

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the

Phoenix-Mesa area, given the

importance of motor vehicle emissions

to the overall emissions inventories of

ozone precursors. See pages 3-14 and

3-15 of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan. These methods are

sufficient for the purpose of verifying

continued attainment.

5. Contingency Provisions

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires

that maintenance plans include

contingency provisions, as EPA deems

necessary, to promptly correct any

violations of the NAAQS that occur after

redesignation of the area. Such

provisions must include a requirement

that the State will implement all

measures (with respect to the control of

the air pollutant concerned) that were

contained in the SIP for the area before

redesignation of the area as an

attainment area. Under section 175A(d), contingency

measures identified in the contingency

plan do not have to be fully adopted at

the time of redesignation. However, the

contingency plan is considered to be an

enforceable part of the SIP and should

ensure that the contingency measures

are adopted expeditiously once they are

triggered by a specified event. The

maintenance plan should clearly

identify the measures to be adopted, a

schedule and procedure for adoption

and implementation, and a specific

timeline for action by the State. As a

necessary part of the plan, the State

should also identify specific indicators

or triggers that will be used to determine

when the contingency measures need to

be implemented.

As required by section 175A of the

CAA, MAG adopted a contingency plan

to address possible future ozone air

quality problems. See page 3-21 of the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

The plan includes both specific

contingency measures that have already

been adopted and are being

implemented early 33 and a mechanism

to trigger the adoption of additional

measures as needed. The specific

contingency measures, which are

described in more detail in section IV7-2 of MAG's TSD for the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan (appendix A,

exhibit 2 of the plan), are:

* Gross Polluter Option for I/M

Program Waivers;

* Increased Waiver Repair Limit

Options;

* Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle

Emissions Standards;

* Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems;

* Develop Intelligent Transportation

Systems; and

* Liquid Leaker Test as Part of

Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.

Two of the measures, "coordinate traffic

signal systems" and "develop intelligent

transportation systems," are control

measures that the Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan had relied upon to

demonstrate attainment of the standard.

As noted above, CAA section 175A(d)

requires contingency plans to include a

requirement that the State will

implement all measures with respect to

the control of the air pollutant

concerned that were contained in the

SIP for the area before redesignation of

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

triggered under the terms of the

contingency plan. In the case of these

two specific contingency measures, we

do not believe that the contingency plan

must include a specific requirement to

resume their implementation, i.e., if

triggered, because the measures

themselves continue to be implemented

by the relevant agencies. The Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan simply does

not rely on emissions reductions from

3 3

MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA

guidance memorandum entitled "Early

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas."

them to demonstrate maintenance

through 2025. The emissions reductions

from the other contingency measures

listed above are also not included in the

projected emissions inventory, and no

emission reduction credit was taken for

these measures in the modeling for the

maintenance demonstration. As noted

in the maintenance plan,

implementation of these measures

should provide additional assurance

that the 1997 ozone standard will be

maintained through 2025.

In addition to the previously

implemented contingency measures

listed above, the plan includes a

commitment to examine ambient air

quality data to determine if additional

contingency measures are needed. If the

three-year average of the annual fourth

highest daily 8-hour ozone

concentration exceeds 84 parts per

billion at any ozone monitor, additional

control measures will be considered.

The plan requires that (1) the

monitoring data will be verified within

three months after the activation of the

trigger; (2) control measures will be

considered for adoption six months after

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

resultant committed measures will be

implemented within six to twelve

months, depending on the time needed

to put the measures in place.

Upon our review of the plan, as

summarized above, we find that the

contingency provisions of the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan identify

specific contingency measures, contain

tracking and triggering mechanisms to

determine when contingency measures

are needed, and contain specific

timelines for action. Accordingly, we

conclude that the contingency

provisions of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan are adequate to

ensure prompt correction of a violation

and therefore comply with section

175A(d) of the Act.

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan

Revisions

CAA section 175A(b) provides that

States shall submit a SIP revision eight

years after redesignation that provides

for maintaining the NAAQS for an

additional ten years. The Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan includes

MAG's commitment to prepare the

revised maintenance plan eight years

after redesignation to attainment. See

page 3-22 of the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan.

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Transportation conformity is required

by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our

transportation conformity rule (codified

in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires

16747
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

that transportation plans, programs, and

projects conform to SIPs, and

establishes the criteria and procedures

for determining whether or not they do

so. Conformity to the SIP means that

transportation activities will not

produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay

timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards or any

interim milestones.

Maintenance plan submittals must

specify the emissions of transportationrelated VOC and NOx emissions

allowed in the last year of the

maintenance period, i.e., the motor

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or

budgets). The MVEBs serve as a ceiling

on emissions that would result from an

area's planned transportation system.

The MVEB concept is further explained

in the preamble to the November 24,

1993, transportation conformity rule (58

FR 62188). The preamble describes how

to establish MVEBs in the SIP and how

to revise the MVEBs if needed.

The submittal must also demonstrate

that these emissions levels, when

considered with emissions from all

other sources, are consistent with

maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for

us to find these emissions levels or

"budgets" adequate and approvable, the

submittal must meet the conformity

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR

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

information on the transportation

conformity requirement and applicable

policies on MVEBs, please visit our

transportation conformity Web site at:

http://www.epa.gov/otaqstateresources/transconf/index.htm.

EPA's process for determining

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three

basic steps: (1) Providing public

notification of a SIP submission; (2)

providing the public the opportunity to

comment on the MVEB during a public

comment period; and (3) making a

finding of adequacy based on our initial

review of the submitted SIP. The

process for determining the adequacy of

a submitted MVEB is codified at 40 CFR

93.118.

The availability of the SIP submission

with MVEBs was announced for public

comment on EPA's Adequacy Web site

on April 27, 2009 at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

tansconf/currsips.htm, which provided

a 30-day public comment period. The

comment period for this notification

ended on May 28, 2009, and EPA

received no comments from the public.

Note, however, that a second

mechanism is also provided for EPA

review and public comment on MVEBs,

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

mechanism provides for EPA's review of

the adequacy of an implementation plan

MVEB simultaneously with its review

and approval or disapproval of the

submitted plan itself. In this instance,

EPA used the web notification

discussed above to solicit public

comments on the adequacy of the

Phoenix-Mesa MVEBs in the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan, but is taking

comment on the approvability of the

submitted MVEBs through this

proposed rule. Any and all comments

on the approvability of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEBs should

be submitted during the comment

period stated in the DATES section of this

document.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan contains new VOC and NOx

MVEBs for the Phoenix-Mesa area for

2025. 3 4 MAG developed the budgets for

the 2025 maintenance year by using

geographic information systems (GIS) to

separate the on-road motor vehicle

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa air

quality planning area from the larger

ozone modeling domain, resulting in

MVEBs of 43.8 metric tons per day

(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOx.

The MVEBs include a 10% safety

margin 35 and correspond to the peak

episode day (Thursday) in June 2025

that was used to model maintenance of

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the

Phoenix-Mesa area in the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan.

To estimate motor vehicle emissions

for the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan and related MVEBs, MAG used the

version of EPA's motor vehicle

emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2)

that was current at the time the

emissions estimates were prepared. The

calculated emission factors were

multiplied by the estimates of vehicle

miles of travel (VMT) to generate

emission estimates for on-road motor

vehicle sources. The projected

emissions inventory and related MVEBs

take into account expected growth in

VMT and reductions from the

maintenance measures, but do not

34 The derivation of the MVEBs is discussed in

MAG's emissions inventory, which was included in

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan submittal

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

Section IV-2 of MAG's TSD, which was included

in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

submittal as Appendix A, Exhibit 2. Additional

discussion of the on-road emissions budgets is

included in Section IV-9 of the TSD.

35MAG increased the 2025 VOC and NOx

emissions from on-road motor vehicle sources in

the eight-hour ozone modeling domain in order to

address the "inherent uncertainties associated with

the use of the latest planning assumptions in

conformity analyses." MAG distributed the increase

spatially "based on the proportion of onroad mobile

emissions assigned to each four kilometer grid

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

Maintenance Plan.

include reductions from

implementation of the contingency

measures.

The MVEBs are consistent with the

2025 on-road motor vehicle source VOC

and NOx emissions included in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan's

2025 emission inventory, as

summarized above in table 3, above.

The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.124(a))

allows for a safety margin, and even

with the 10 percent safety margin added

to the on-road emissions, the overall

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area are

consistent with continued maintenance

of the 1997 ozone standard.

EPA is proposing to approve the

MVEBs for 2025 as part of our approval

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance

Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area. We

have determined that the MVEB

emission targets are consistent with

emission control measures in the SIP

and that the Phoenix-Mesa area can

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

for ten years beyond redesignation. The

details of EPA's evaluation of the

MVEBs for compliance with the budget

adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e)

are provided in a separate memorandum

included in the docket of this

rulemaking.36

If we finalize this action as proposed,

we will make the adequacy finding for

the 2025 MVEBs in the final rule in

which we approve the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan. Pursuant to

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

finding will be effective upon

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register. Once found adequate,

MAG and the U.S. Department of

Transportation must use these new

budgets for 2025 in conformity analyses

with applicable horizon years after

2024. The 2008 MVEBs established in

MAG's Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment

Plan, which EPA previously approved

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

required analysis years up to and

including 2024 cannot exceed levels

established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for

Public Comment

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

the reasons set forth above, EPA is

proposing to approve ADEQ's submittal

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

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

Nonattainment Area (February 2009)

36 See EPA memorandum dated October 31, 2013

entitled "Adequacy Documentation for Motor

Vehicle Emission Budgets in the February 2009

Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan for

the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area."

16748
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 58/Wednesday, March 26, 2014/Proposed Rules

("Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan")

as a revision to the Arizona state

implementation plan (SIP). In

connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the

maintenance demonstration showing

how the area will continue to attain the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years

beyond redesignation and the

contingency provisions describing the

actions that the relevant State, regional,

and local agencies will take in the event

of a future monitored violation meet all

applicable requirements for

maintenance plans and related

contingency provisions in CAA section

175A. EPA is also proposing to approve

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan

because we find they meet the

applicable transportation conformity

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

The motor vehicle emissions budgets,

43.8 mtpd of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of

NOx, include a 10% safety margin and

correspond to the peak episode day

(Thursday) during the June 2025 ozone

episode that was used to model

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area in the

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

Second, under CAA section

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

approve ADEQ's request, which

accompanied the submitted of the

maintenance plan, to redesignate the

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area to attainment for the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are

doing so based on our conclusion that

the area has met the five criteria for

redesignation under CAA section

107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this

regard is in turn based on our proposed

determination that the area has attained

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that

relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are

fully approved, that the improvement in

air quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions,

that Arizona has met all requirements

applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area with respect

to section 110 and part D of the CAA,

and based on our proposed approval as

part of this action of the Eight-Hour

Ozone Maintenance Plan.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this document or

on other relevant matters. We will

accept comments from the public on

this proposal for the next 30 days. We

will consider these comments before

taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation of an

area to attainment and the

accompanying approval of a

maintenance plan under section

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

status of a geographical area and do not

impose any additional regulatory

requirements on sources beyond those

imposed by State law. Redesignation to

attainment does not in and of itself

create any new requirements, but rather

results in the applicability of

requirements contained in the CAA for

areas that have been redesignated to

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator

is required to approve a SIP submission

that complies with the provisions of the

Act and applicable Federal regulations.

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,

EPA's role is to approve State choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these

actions merely propose to approve a

State plan and redesignation request as

meeting Federal requirements and do

not impose additional requirements

beyond those by State law. For these

reasons, these proposed actions:

* Are not a "significant regulatory

action" subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993);

* Do not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

* Are certified as not having a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

* Do not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

* Do not have Federalism

implications as specified in Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999);

* Are not an economically significant

regulatory action based on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order

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

* Are not a significant regulatory

action subject to Executive Order 13211

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Are not subject to requirements of

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

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

application of those requirements would

be inconsistent with the CAA; and

* Do not provide EPA with the

discretionary authority to address

disproportionate human health or

environmental effects with practical,

appropriate, and legally permissible

methods under Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does

not have Tribal implications as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because

the SIP is not approved to apply in

Indian country located in the State, and

EPA notes that it will not impose

substantial direct costs on Tribal

governments or preempt Tribal law.

Nonetheless, EPA has discussed the

proposed action with the three Tribes,

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the

Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian

Community, and the Tohono O'odham

Nation located within the Phoenix-Mesa

8-hour ozone nonattainment area.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 14, 2014.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doe. 2014-06661 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0600; FRL-9906-74-

OAR]

RIN 2060-AR89

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Updates to HCFC Trade Language As

Applied to Article 5 Countries;

Ratification Status of Parties to the

Montreal Protocol; and Harmonized

Tariff Schedule Commodity Codes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to update:

regulations governing trade of HCFCs to

reflect that HCFC control measures have

now taken effect for Parties operating

under Article 5 of the Montreal

Protocol; references to Party ratification

status; tariff codes for ozone depleting

substances to address changes made in

2012 by the U.S. International Trade

16749