# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofthe 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 therequirements ofCAA 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 ofIdaho to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements ofsections 110(a)(1) and (2)ofthe CAA for the Pb NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 2008. Specifically, we are proposing to find thatthe 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 andExecutive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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

asmeeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposedby the state's law.For that reason,this proposed action:

* Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewby the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

* does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

* 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 etseq.);

* does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (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 actionbased onhealth or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); * is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* is not subject to therequirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (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 nothave 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, andthe EPA notes that itwill not impose substantial direct
costs ontribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart52

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, RegionalAdministrator, Region 10.

[FRDoe. 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 ofAreas for AirQuality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Redesignation ofthe Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area toAttainment 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 arevision 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 forten years beyond redesignation, and the related
motor vehicle emission budgets, because they meetthe applicable requirements for such plans and budgets. EPA is also proposing to approve a request from the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area to attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments mustbe received on

orbefore April 25, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPAR09-OAR-2013-0686, by one ofthe following methods: 1.http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

2. Email:vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 3. PostalMailorDelivery: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 ofoperation.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and maybe made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

orother information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected shouldbe clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.govor email. The online docket system athttp:// www.regulations.gov is an anonymous
access system, and EPA willnot know your identity or contact information unless you provide itin thebody of your comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment.

Docket:Generally, documents in the docketfor this action are available electronically at http:ii www.regulations.govandin hard copy atthe EPA Region 9 office. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,some information may notbe specifically listed in the index to the docket or may be publicly available only in hard copy atthe 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 

### 16734Federal 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 normalbusiness 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 alsobe 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 ofContents

I. Summary ofToday's Proposed Action II.Background III. Procedural Requirements forAdoption and Submittal ofSIPRevisions IV. Substantive Requirements for Redesignation V.Evaluation oftheState's Redesignation Request for the Phoenix-Mesa Ozone
Nonattainment Area A. Determination That the Area Has

Attained theApplicable NAAQS B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 andPart D 1.Basic SIPRequirements 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 ofContinued Attainment 5. Contingency Provisions 6. Subsequent Maintenance PlanRevisions 7. Motor VehicleEmission Budgets VI. Proposed Action and Request forPublic Comment VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today'sProposed Action

EPA isproposing to take several related actions. First, under section 110(k)(3) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), EPA is proposing to approve, as

arevision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan developed by the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG),I entitled MAG

1 The MAG membership currently consists ofthe 27 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa Eight-Hour OzoneRedesignation Request andMaintenance Plan forthe Maricopa Nonattainment Area,dated February 2009 ("Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan"), and submittedby 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 findthat 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 thatthe contingency provisions, which include already implemented measures as well as a process for identifying new ormore stringent measures in the event ofa future monitored violation, meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and the related contingency provisions ofCAA section 175A. EPA is also proposing to approve motor vehicle emission budgets inthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan because we findthey meetthe applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA isproposing 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 isbased

on our proposed determination that: The area has attained the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS; relevant portions ofthe Arizona SIP are fully approved; improvement in air quality in the area is due topermanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; Arizona has met all requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area withrespect to section 110 and part D ofthe CAA; and,

as part ofthis 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 ofthe Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) also

serve on the Regional Council for transportationrelated issues.

2 See letterfrom PatrickJ. Cunningham, Acting Director, Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality, to Laura Yoshii,Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, March 23, 2009. This letterincluded three enclosures, one ofwhich is theEight-Hour OzoneMaintenance Plan, including appendices A and B organized into volumes 1, 2, and 3. approval oftheEight-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 ofpollution sources including on-road motor vehicles (cars, trucks, andbuses), nonroadvehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area
sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints.

In 1971, under section 109 ofthe Act,

as amended in 1970, EPA promulgated the original NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, including photochemical oxidants. 3The NAAQS are concentration levels that, the attainment and maintenance ofwhich, EPAhas 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 ofthe NAAQS from "photochemical oxidants"
to "ozone," and established a 1-hour

ozone NAAQS of0.12 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 ofthe nonattainment

area to reflect MAG's Urban Planning Area ("Phoenix metropolitan area") rather than the entire county. See 44FR 16388 (March 19, 1979). Under the CAA, states with nonattainment areas

are required to submit revisions to their SIPs thatinclude a control strategy necessary to demonstrate howthe area will attain the NAAQS, and EPA took action on a number ofrelated 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 attainedthe standard, and under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix metropolitan area was classified as a "moderate" nonattainment area with an attainment deadline ofNovember 15, 1996 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The area was later reclassified as a "serious" nonattainment area with a deadline ofNovember 15, 1999 (62 FR 60001, November 6, 1997).

3 See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
4 See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

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

In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for
ozone, setting itat 0.08 ppm averaged

over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to herein as the "1997 8-hour ozone standard") toreplace the existing 1-hour

ozone standard of0.12 ppm. 5 6In 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 wouldbe revoked.The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area covers a much larger portion ofMaricopa County than the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone area and also includes the Apache Junction portion ofPinal County. 7Just prior to revocation ofthe 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, 2009.9The designation became effective on June 15, 2004. The Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area is located in the central portion ofArizona and encompasses 4,880 square miles, including theurban portions of Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and areas ofIndian country ofthe Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and the Tohono O'odham Nation. For a precise description ofthe geographic boundaries ofthe Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.303 and figure 1-1 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. MAG is the agency with primary responsibility for developing airquality plansrelated to the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.

Under part D, subpart 1ofthe Act,
states must submit plans to come into attainment within 3years ofthe

5See 62 FR 33856 (July 18, 1997). 6 0nMarch 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA lowered
the 8-hoar ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the2008 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 actionrelates to

a maintenance plan and redesignation request for the 1997 8-hoar ozone standard, notthe 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.

3A more detailed description ofthe historyof 1- hoar ozone planning in the Phoenix metropolitan

area is presented in section II ofEPA'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 ofthe nonattainment designation and must attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5years afterthe effective date ofthe designation. Later, in the wake ofa 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 2ofpart D of title I ofthe CAA."I OnJune 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision demonstrating attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by the attainment date ofJune 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 ofthat 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 oftoday'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 ofthe Phoenix-Mesa area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

III.Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittalof SIP Revisions
Section 110(1) ofthe Act requires States to provide reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption ofSIP revisions. Appendix B, Exhibit 1ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan documents the public review process followed by MAG in adopting the plan prior to transmittal to ADEQfor subsequent submittal to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The

10See South Coast Air Quality ManagementDist.

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 ofthe 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 1also provides evidence that reasonable notice ofa public hearing was provided to thepublic and that a public hearing

was conducted prior to adoption.

Specifically, notice ofthe availability of, and opening ofa 30-day comment period on, the public-draft Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan was published

onDecember 23, 2008, in a newspaper ofgeneral 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 thepublic comment period. MAG provided responses to comments in Exhibit 1ofAppendix B.

On February 25, 2009, theMAG Regional Council adopted theEightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan, as certified in Appendix B, Exhibit 2ofthe plan. Following adoption, MAG provided the maintenance plan to ADEQ, andADEQ adopted the plan and submitted it to EPA for approval on March 23, 2009.

Based on the documentation provided in Appendix B, we findthatthe submittal ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision satisfies theprocedural requirements of section 110(1) ofthe Act.

IV. Substantive Requirements for Redesignation

The CAA establishes therequirements for redesignation ofa 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 thatthe improvement in air quality is dueto permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting therequirements ofCAA 175A; and (5)the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 andpart D ofthe CAA. Section 110 identifies a comprehensive listof 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 

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

Title I ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of1990", published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein

asthe "General Preamble"). Additional guidance was issuedin 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" (referredto 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 meetthe applicable CAA requirements for such plans.

For reasons set forthbelow in section V ofthis document, we propose to approve ADEQ's request for redesignation ofthe Phoenix-Mesa

ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based onour conclusion that all the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied.

V. Evaluation ofthe State's Redesignation Request forthePhoenixMesa Ozone NonattainmentArea

A. DeterminationThat theAreaHas AttainedtheApplicableNAAQS

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that we determine thatthe area has attained the NAAQS. EPA generally makes the determination ofwhether an area's air quality meets the ozone NAAQS based upon the mostrecent three years ofcomplete, 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 bystate or local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Heads ofmonitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best oftheir knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on datain AQS when determining the attainment status ofareas. 1 3All 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 ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour

13

See 40CFR 50.10; 40 CFRpart 50,Appendix I;40 CFR part 53; 40 CFRpart 58,Appendices A, C, D, and E. average ozone concentration is less than

or equal to 0.08 ppm. 14This 3-year average isreferred 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 ofdays with valid ambient monitoring data is at least 90 percent ofthe days during the designated ozone monitoring season, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of40 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 ofthe air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. Beginning in 2007, EPAhas 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 networkplans meet the applicable reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 58.15

EPA conducts periodic technical system audits ofthe state and local ambient air monitoring networks, and has done so for ADEQ, MCAQD, and PCAQCD. For the purposes of this action, EPAhas reviewed the findings in EPA's technical system audits ofthe networks operated by the three relevant agencies and notes that none ofthe findings in these reports cast doubt on the reliability ofthe 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 40CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part50, Appendix I.

15 SeeEPA letters to MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQconcerning annual network plan reports, which are included inthe docket for this rulemaking.

16For the most recent technical system audits (TSAs), see EPA's report on the Agency's September 2008 auditof MCAQCD's network, EPA's finalTSA report forADEQ's network dated January 2013, and EPA's final TSA report forPCAQCD's network dated June 2013, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking. operated 18 monitors,' 7ADEQ 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 ofthe monitors constituting the State and local agency regional ozone monitoring network. Based on population and ambient ozone, EPAregulations 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 ofmonitoring sites designated as SLAMS forthat pollutant.

MCAQD, PCAQCD, andADEQ 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) ofmost 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 andJLG Supersite sites are also sited tomeasure "maximum ozone concentrations" but are located at the "neighborhood" scale. 19

In addition to the SLAMS ozone network maintained by MCAQD, PCAQCD, andADEQ, 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 FortMcDowell Yavapai Nation (Fort McDowell) operates one monitor on

17The Mesa ozone monitor, operated by MCAQD, began operation on November 1, 2012 and therefore only gathered data for two months during the 2010- 2012 design value period. As a result, this monitor is not appropriate to consider in determining whether the area has attained the 1997 ozone standard. In the future, as complete data become available, the monitor willbe eligible for use in determining continued attainment.

18Forthe most recent data certification submittals, see MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ letters concerning data certification for 2010, 2011, and 2012, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking.

19The sources ofinformation for this paragraph include ADEQ's "State ofArizona 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. 

### 16737Federal 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 ofthe nonattainment area. The comparison" and the data shouldbe monitoring data as recorded inAQS for

ozone monitoring data fromFort 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 therequirements completeness criteria (see table 1). River ozone monitors have the basic contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPAhas

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

Apach e Jun ction ...........................................................................................

Blue Point

.....................................................................................................

Bu

ck

e ye ........................................................................................................
Cave Creek

..................................................................................................
Cen tral Ph oenix

............................................................................................

D

ysart

...........................................................................................................
F alcon F ield

..................................................................................................

F oun tain H ills

................................................................................................
Glen dale

.......................................................................................................

High Sch ool

..................................................................................................
Hu

mbold t M oun tain

......................................................................................
JLG Supersite

...............................................................................................

L

ehi

...............................................................................................................

N

orth Phoenix

...............................................................................................
Pinn acle Peak

..............................................................................................

Red Moun tain

...............................................................................................
Rio Verde
.....................................................................................................
Senior Cen ter
...............................................................................................
Sou th Ph oenix

..............................................................................................
Sou th Scottsdale

..........................................................................................

Tempe ..........................................................................................................

Wes t Chan dler
..............................................................................................
Wes t Ph oenix

............................................................................................... 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 withinthe PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for the period
of2010-2012. As shown in table 1, the design value for the 2010-2012 period

20The Pinnacle Peak site was temporarily shut

down on Novemher 16. 2011 nd relocated to was less than 0.084 ppm at all ofthe monitors in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area. Therefore, we are proposing to determine, based on complete quality-assured datafor 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. 

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

attainment.2 1Given the timing ofthis proposed action after the end of2013 but before the monitoring agencies must enter data collected during the final quarter ofthe 2013 intoAQS, we will be updating this determination based on designvalues calculated for 2011-2013, andpreliminary review of available 2014 data, for the purposes ofthe final action.

B. TheAreaMust HaveaFully ApprovedSIPMeetingtheRequirements Applicable forPurposesof Redesignation UnderSection 110and PartD

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)require EPA to determine thatthe area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) thatmeets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes ofredesignation.
1.Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110

Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the general elements that a SIP must contain in order tobe fully approved. EPA has analyzed the Arizona SIP and determined that itis consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2). The Phoenix-Mesa portion ofthe approved Arizona SIP, which includes rules pertaining to areas and sources under the jurisdiction ofADEQ, MCAQD, and PCAQCD, contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ofambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review ofnew or modified stationary
sources; provides adequate funding, staff,and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and provides the necessary assurances that the State ofArizona maintains responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation ofthe SIP where the State is relying on local or regional governments or agencies for implementation ofthe SIP.22

21See the AQS Preliminary Design ValueReport
for 2013 dated March 6, 2014, included inthe docket forthis rulemaking.

22We note that SIPs must befully approved only
with respect to the applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation inaccordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, forexample, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPscontain certain measures to prevent sources ina statefrom significantly contributing to airquality problems in another state (transport SIP). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements fora stateare not linked with aparticular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with aparticular nonattainment area's designation and classification

are the relevant measures to evaluate inreviewing

aredesignation request. The transport SIP requirements, where applicable, continue to apply
to a stateregardless ofthe designation ofany one particular area inthe state. Thus, we donot believe that theserequirements shouldbe construed to be Onnumerous 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 thatprevent redesignation ofthe Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour

ozone standard.23 Therefore, we propose to find thatArizona has met all SIP requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa

ozone area applicable for the purposes ofredesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements).

2.Part D Requirements

a. Introduction

The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subparts 1and 2,that address planning and emission control requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. Both ofthese subparts are found in title I,part D ofthe CAA; sections 171-179 and sections 181-185, respectively. Subpart 1contains general, less prescriptive requirements for all nonattainment areas ofany pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2contains 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 ofthe CAA. Under

applicable requirements for the purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements that are notconnected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked withan 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 withEPA's existing policy on applicability ofconformity (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); andTampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748 datedDecember 7, 1995). See also the discussion ofthis issue inthe Cincinnati redesignation (65FR 37879 at 37890 dated June 19, 2000), inthe Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094 dated October 19, 2001), and in the South Coastredesignation (72 FR
6986 dated February 14, 2007 and 72 FR 26718 dated May 11, 2007).

2 3On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398) EPA issued apartial approval and partial disapproval of Arizona's "infrastructure" SIPfor the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS. While this final rule was not a full approval, it does notrepresent an obstacle to redesignation ofthe 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 ofair quality hearing boards)

are notrelated to the nonattainment SIP requirements forthe Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area and thus are notrelevant for the
purposes ofredesignation. subpart 1, withrespect to the PhoenixMesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the state ofArizona is required to submitSIP revisions thatprovide for:

e Implementation ofallreasonably available control measures (RACM), including, at a minimum, reasonable available control technology for existing

sources and attainment ofthe standard (section 172(c)(1));

* Reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2));

* A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources ofthe relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area (section 172(c)(3));

* Identification and quantification of the emissions, ifany, ofany 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 ofnew andmodified 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 ofsuch standard in such area by the applicable attainment date (section 172(c)(6));

* Compliance with section 110(a)(2) ofthe Act (section 172(c)(7));

* Use ofequivalent modeling emission inventory, and planning procedures ifapproved by EPA (section 172(c)(8));

* Contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)); and

* Interagency consultation and enforceability for thepurposes of transportation conformity (section 176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390).

On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35285), EPA approved theEight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area based on the determination that itmet all applicable requirements for such plans under subpart 1ofpart D, title 1 ofthe CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we approved the following SIP elements:

* The RACM demonstration and attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements ofsection 172(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.912(d), and 40 CFR 51.908;

* The RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.910;

* The 2002 base year emission inventory as meeting the requirements ofsection 172(c)(3) and40 CFR 51.915; and

* The contingency measures for failure tomake RFP or to attain as

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

meeting therequirements 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-hourozone 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 ofArizona did not rely on sections 172(c)(4) (i.e., identification and quantification ofcertain 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 laterin this subsection.24

As noted above, the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area was initially designated nonattainment under subpart 1ofthe CAA,but was subsequently classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-hourozone standard under subpart 2ofthe CAA (77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012). The effective date ofthe classification ofthe 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 ofthat finalrule (i.e., until June 13, 2013) to submit SIP revisions.

ADEQ has not submitted any SIP revisions for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area in response to the area's classification to marginal.25

24The requirements for SIP revisions to demonstrate RACM, RFP, attainment, and contingencies (for failure to meet RFP or attainment) in subpart 1 arenot applicable for the purposes ofevaluating aredesignation request. Suchrequirements are directed at ensuring attainment bythe applicable attainment date, and since, as discussed insection V.A., the area is showing attainment, the requirements have no meaning at thispoint. See the General Preamble, 74 FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992).

25In any event, the State ofArizona is not required to submit further SIPrevisions to satisfy additional requirements undersection 182(a)(2)(A)
to correct RACT rules for the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area because we already determined thatthe Statehad 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 ofArizona previously submitted, and EPA approved, an "enhanced" However, EPAbelieves thatthis does
not preclude this redesignation from being approved, based on (1)EPA's longstanding policy ofevaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the timethe redesignation request is submitted; and (2)consideration ofthe inequity of retroactively applying any requirements that mightbe applied in the future.

Under EPA's longstanding interpretation ofsection 170(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify forredesignation,
states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only therelevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal ofa complete redesignation request.26 Atthe 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, itwould 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 hasrecognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemakings. See SierraClubv. 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 ofadditional 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 reliefwould 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 ofsection 182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment
area, ifthose requirements were applicable for the purposes ofredesignation. See 69 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). Lastly, the State ofArizona previously submitted, and EPA approved Maricopa County's emissions statement rule and thereby has complied with section 182(a)(3)(B), ifthat requirement were applicable for the purposes ofredesignation 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 forAreas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe 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 ofDetroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan, 60 FR 12459 (March 7, 1995); Sierra Clubv. 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 airpollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time." Id. at 68. Similarlyhere, it wouldbe unfair to penalize the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by applying to it,for
purposes ofredesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2that

were not in effect or yet due at the time it submitted itsredesignation request, or the time thatthe 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 meetthe requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(5), states must submit SIP revisions that meetthe requirements under 40 CFR 51.165 ("Permit requirements"), and EPAregulations at 40 CFR 51.914, which extend the SIP requirements of40 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

ormodified stationary sources in nonattainment areas, including provisions to ensure thatmajor new

sources or major modifications of existing sources ofnonattainment pollutants incorporate the highest level ofcontrol, 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 ormodified stationary sources of air pollution isreferred to as new source review. With respect to newmajor

sources or major modifications at existing major sources ofnonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas, this
process isreferred to as nonattainment NSR or simplyNSR. With respectto

new major sources or major modifications at existing major sources ofpollutants for which as area is designated attainment or unclassifiable,
states are required to submit SIP revisions that ensure thatmajor new stationary sources and major modifications ofexisting stationary

sources meetthe federal requirements for prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD), including 

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

application ofthebest 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. EPAhas theresponsibility for permit application review and permit issuance for new or modified stationary

sources in Indian country ofthe 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 ofthe counties. ADEQhas 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 ofMaricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties.

EPA haspromulgated 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 ofIndian 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 ofthe nonattainment area was newly designated as nonattainment for ozone in 2004, i.e., had notpreviously been part ofthe 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 allofthe current SIP NSR requirements under the CAA, as amended in 1990, andunder 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone nonattainment areas. However, the existing SIP-approved NSR rules for both ADEQ and MCAQD meet the basic requirements ofa 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 toPinal County jurisdiction, as discussed above.

Moreover, ADEQ's and MCAQD's SIPapproved NSR rules have served as a federally-enforceable constraint on the growth ofstationary 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 ofthe standard since 2007 (see table 2,below) and thus we find that ADEQ's and MCAQD's SIPapproved NSR rules are likelyto continue to support continued attainment ofthe standard during the maintenance phase after redesignation.

Therefore, given that a portion ofthe nonattainment area is subject to federal rules implementing the nonattainment NSR requirements (Indiancountry and the Pinal Countyportion ofthe nonattainment area) and given thatthe fundamental nonattainment NSR requirements are approved intothe SIP for the other portions ofthe 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 ofredesignation ofthe area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.

c. Conformity Requirements

Under section 176(c) ofthe 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 mustbe consistent with federal conformity regulations thatthe CAA required EPA
to promulgate. EPA's conformity regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part 93, subparts A (referredto herein as transportation conformity) and B (referredherein as general conformity). Transportation conformity applies to transportation plans, program, and projects developed, funded, and approved under title 23 U.S.C. orthe Federal Transit Act. General Conformity applies to all other federally-supported orfunded projects. SIP revisions intended to address conformity requirements are referred to herein as conformity SIPs.

The State ofArizona has adopted general conformity procedures, approvedby 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 itisreasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for the purposes ofa 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 havenot been approved. 28
C. TheAreaMustShow the ImprovementinAirQuality Is Due to PermanentandEnforceableEmission Reductions

Section 107(d)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation ofa nonattainment area to attainment unless EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resultingfrom the implementation ofthe 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 thatwere approved as part ofthe Arizona SIP and that, together with certain federal
measures, had provided for attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard through permanent and enforceable emissions

27In 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 andsubmit conformity SIPs addressing general conformity requirements. See 75 FR 17254 (April5, 2010)for conforming changes to EPA's general conformity regulations.

28See Wall v.EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this interpretation. 

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

reductions. See, e.g., the table ofVOC RACT rules on page 13433 ofour proposed 1-hour ozone redesignation rule at 13425. Significant mobile source control measures that contributed to attainment and provide for maintenance ofthe 1-hour ozone standard included low volatility cleaner burning gasoline, the federal motorvehicle and nonroad control programs, and implementation ofan enhanced vehicle emissions inspection (VEI) program. See 70 FR 13425 at page 13430.

The State ofArizona hasrelied 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 Countyrule 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 andlocal
measures, including VEI enhancements, local transportation improvements,

summer gasoline formulation, and a rule governing polystyrene foam operation,

astotaling 6.0 mtpd ofVOC in 2008 (a 2.4 percent reduction compared tothe 2002base case) and 13.4 mtpd ofNON (a4.6 percent reduction compared to the 2002base case). These reductions have contributed to the overall reduction in emissions thathave provided for attainment ofthe 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 ofmore 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 ifunusualmeteorological 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. 29The period from 2002 to 2008 did not show a trend in declining air temperatures thatwould suggest thatthe observed trend in ozone concentrations was a result offavorable 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 thatthe 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 isthe result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions from implementation ofa combination ofcontrol measures. As such, we propose to find thatthe criterion for redesignation set forth at CAA section 107(d)(e)(E)(iii) is satisfied.

D. TheAreaMustHaveaFully ApprovedMaintenancePlan Under CAA Section 175A

Section 175A ofthe CAA setsforth the elements ofamaintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. We interpret this section ofthe Act to require, in general, the following core elements: Attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification ofcontinued attainment, and contingency plan. See Calcagni memo, pages 8 through 13.

Under CAA section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS for at least tenyears after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the State
must submita revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-yearperiod following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary topromptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs after redesignation ofthe area. Based on our review and evaluation ofthe plan, as detailed below, we are proposing to approve the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan because we believe that itmeets the requirements ofCAA section 175A.

1.Attainment Inventories and Projected Future Inventories

A maintenance plan for the 1997 8- hour ozone standard must include an inventory ofemissions ofozone precursors (VOCand NOx) in the area in order toidentify a level ofemissions that are sufficient to attainthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS. This inventory
must be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at thetime ofplan 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 motorvehicle 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 of2007 based on monitoring data collected over the course ofthe 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 thetime period the

area attained the standard, and year 2005 was one ofthe years fromthe three-year period for which the area first attained the standard. Thus,MAG's selection of2005 for the attainment inventory is acceptable.

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

Site

Apache Junction

...................................................... Blue Point

................................................................ Bu

ck

e ye ................................................................... Cave Creek

.............................................................. 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

29See memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality Phoenix-Mesa Area," datedNovember 22, 2013, Analysis Office, Air Division,EPA Region IX, included inthe docket for thisrulemaking. entitled "Meteorological Trend Analysis for 0.073 0.070 0.064 0.074

3 0 Id. 

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

TABLE 2-EIGHT-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES INTHE 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

....................................................................... MCAQD 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.071 Falcon Field

............................................................. MCAQD 0.076 0.075 0.071 0.070 0.068 0.069 Fountain Hills

........................................................... MCAQD 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.076 Glendale

................................................................... MCAQD 0.075 0.074 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076 High School

............................................................. SRPMIC **0.077 **0.076 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.074 Humboldt Mountain

.................................................. MCAQD 0.081 0.078 0.074 0.071 0.071 0.075 JLG Supersite

.......................................................... ADEQ

..... 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.076 Lehi

.......................................................................... SRPMIC **0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 0.073 North Phoenix

.......................................................... MCAQD 0.082 0.081 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.081 Pinnacle Peak

.......................................................... MCAQD 0.078 0.074 0.072 0.073 0.074 0.077 Red Mountain

.......................................................... SRPMIC 0.083 0.080 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.077 Rio Verde

................................................................. MCAQD 0.083 0.080 0.075 0.072 0.073 0.074 Senior Center

........................................................... SRPMIC 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.074 South Phoenix

......................................................... MCAQD 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076 South Scottsdale

...................................................... MCAQD 0.078 0.077 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.077
Tempe

...................................................................... MCAQD 0.077 0.077 0.073 0.071 0.068 0.070 West Chandler

......................................................... MCAQD 0.076 0.076 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.074 West Phoenix

........................................................... MCAQD 0.074 0.078 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.078 *The design value is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. **Design values do not meet the completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

The attainment year emission inventory for 2005 in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan is generally consistent with the 2005 Periodic Emission Inventory (PEI)emissions estimates for Maricopa County and the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. The PEI was calculated in terms ofannual 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 estimatedby 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 usingEPA'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 ofNOx and VOC

were calculated using the Model of Emissions ofGases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) with input including emissions rates developed from
measurements made ofthe dominant plant species in Maricopa County, locations and biomass densities ofthe dominant plant species, and surface temperature data. See 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory for ozone precursors in volume 1ofthe appendices tothe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

For the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, MAG adjusted and supplemented the 2005 PEIozone precursor emissions estimates developed using the methods described above to develop emissions estimates for an area referred to asthe inner modeling domain ("modeling domain"),

a rectangular area encompassing all of the nonattainment area and largely defined by the boundaries ofthe irregularly-shaped nonattainment area. See figure II-1 ofMAG's technical support document (TSD) for the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Planfor an illustration ofthe 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 3belowfor a summary ofmodeling 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 of2005. See table 3-5 oftheEight-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 Area

.......................................................... 19.6 27.7 31.1 79.2 111.4 124.8 Nonroad Mobile

........................................ 77.7 43.9 37.9 40.3 48.7 31.8 On-road Motor Vehicles

........................... 154.3 125.8 109.8 72.1 30.9 47.9 Biogenics

.................................................. 8.6 8.6 8.6 451.3 451.3 451.3

Total

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

aEmissions reflect a specific day of the week (Thursday) during the June ozone episode. Sources: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan at tables 3-6 and 3-7; table 1of the Maintenance Plan Supplement.

As shown in table 3,in the 2005 attainment year inventory forthe 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 oftotal NOx.

In addition to 2005values, 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 theuse ofgrowth factors, on-going emissions control programs, andretirement 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 MAGEight-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 theMAG 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 ofthe projected emissions for 2016 and 2021. MAGused

a compound annual growth rate for population of2.6 percent between 2005 and 2016. The actual compound annual growth ratebetween 2005 and 2011, based onthe 2005 Special Census for Maricopa County andthe 2010 Census,

was 0.8 percent. Because the population ofMaricopa County grew more slowly than projected, MAG expects the emission inventories related tothe 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). Fornonroad 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 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and generally range from 1to 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 ofVOC and NOx by 10 percent to provide safety margins for the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

Forbiogenic 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 tothe 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 toEPA during our review ofthe 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 wouldbe 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 ofthe 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 ofa 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 ofthe 1-hour ozone standard and the control strategy developed for attainment ofthe 1997 8-hourozone 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 ofthese measures have been approved into the Arizona SIP, or, in the case ofthe federal nonroad equipment emission standards, have been promulgated byEPA as regulations published in the CFR:

* Summer fuel reformulation, approved as part ofArizona'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 ofthe Arizona vehicle emissions inspection andmaintenance program at 69 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003); 

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

* Tougher enforcement ofvehicle registration and emission test compliance, as set forth inARS 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 (tier4) nonroad equipment emissions standards, promulgated in 40 CFR part 1039 at 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004);

* Expansion ofArea Aboundaries, 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 openburning; exceptions; fine; definition"), approved in a final rule signed by the EPA Region IX Regional Administrator on December 16, 2013 (notyet published in the Federal Register).

Table 4 shows the projected emission reductions developed by MAG from the

sevenmaintenance measures during the June ozone episode. Ofthe seven maintenance measures in the PhoenixMesa Maintenance Plan, the federal nonroad equipment emission standards represents the largestreduction inVOC andNOx 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 projectedto increase dramatically between 2005 and the interim and horizon years of2019 and 2025, primarily due to MAG's conservative assumption thatpower plants in the future would operate at their PTE. Emissions ofNOx from area

sources are also estimated tobe higher in the interim and horizon years. MAG projected that emissions from nonroad

sources would decrease due to the implementation offederal emission standards for nonroad equipment (see Table 4). Emissions ofNOx from onroad motor vehicles are alsoprojected to decrease notwithstanding the 10% increase added to the 2025 motor vehicle emissions estimates (to provide for asafety margin for transportation conformity purposes), due to the continuingbenefit ofthe federal motor vehicle control program and the
turnover ofolder model cars to newer models designed to meetmore stringent EPA emissions standards. Overall, between 2005 and 2025, MAGprojected total emissions ofNOx to decrease by nearly 25 mtpd for theJune ozone episode.

31Theseprovisions are now codified in ARS 49- 550 ("Violation; Classification; Civil Penalty"). As shown in table 3,MAGprojected that VOC emissions from point and area

sources will increase over the 2005 to 2025 time frame. Emissions fromVOC 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 ofbiogenic VOC are projected to remain constant,

as discussed above. Overall, MAG projected total emissions ofVOC in 2025 to increase by approximately 20 mtpd for the June ozone episode as compared to 2005.

Based on our review ofthe emission inventories (andrelated documentation) from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, we find thatthe inventory for 2005 is comprehensive, thatthe methods and assumptions usedby 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 thatthe 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 thatthe maintenance plan "provide for the maintenance ofthe 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 ofthe 1997 ozone standard by either showing thatfuture emissions will not exceed the level ofthe attainment year inventory orby modeling to show thatthe future mix of

sources and emissions rates will not

cause a violation ofthe NAAQS. For

areas that are required under the Act to submitmodeled attainment demonstrations, the maintenance demonstration should generally use the

same type ofmodeling as used for the attainment demonstration. See Calcagni
memo, page 9.

On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35286), EPA published afinal approval ofthe EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan, which demonstrated attainment ofthe 1997 8- 

### 16745Federal 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

onthe Use ofModels and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment ofAir Quality Goals forthe 8-Hour Ozone and PM2. 5NAAQS andRegional Haze" ("EPA Modeling Guidance"), the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan included the following components: A conceptual description ofthe area's nonattainment problem, a modeling protocol, model selection and set-up, selection and evaluation ofozone 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 ofevidence evaluation. See Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, chapter 3and appendix A, exhibit 2. EPA evaluated these components and found that theyprovided 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 ofozone episodes, and model performance. Here, the model was used
to predict the effect of changes in emissions due toland use changes, growth, and the effect ofcontrol

measures from a baseline emission year of2005 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 3and appendix A, exhibit 2)and the Maintenance Plan Supplement.

Under EPA Modeling Guidance, the model isused to develop relative
response factors (RRFs)thatgive 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 ofthe calculation, and which model grid cells and modeled days are tobe included, are specified in the EPA Guidance. See EPA Modeling Guidance, pages 15, 25, and 155. MAG assessed the 2019 and 2025 effects andfound the maximum predicted ozone design value
tobe 0.081 parts per million (ppm)in 2019 and 0.081 ppm in 2025. All values

32We evaluate the emissions inventory forthe baseline and maintenance years in section V.D.I., above. equal to or less than 0.084ppm meetthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, the modeling results predict continued maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for at least tenyears beyond redesignation (assuming redesignation ofthe 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 thata control strategy leads to maintenance ofthe NAAQS in other locations that have no monitor but that might havebase year (and/orfuture year) ambient ozone levels exceeding the NAAQS. The unmonitored area analysis uses a combination ofmodel output and ambient data to identify

areas thatmight exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there.In order to examine unmonitored areas in all portions ofthe modeling domain, EPA recommends use of interpolated spatial fields ofambient 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 ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS. See Maintenance Plan Supplement.

Based on our prior approval ofMAG's photochemical modeling approach for 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration purposes and because we findMAG's application ofthe same basic approach to the 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration tobe reasonable, we accept the results ofMAG's modeling as
a sufficient demonstration that the plan provides for maintenance ofthe 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area through the first ten years after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, we propose to findthat the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
meets the maintenance demonstration requirements under CAA section 175A(a).
3.Monitoring Network

Continued ambient monitoring ofan

area isgenerally required over the maintenance period. As discussed in section V.A. ofthis document, ozone is currently monitored by ADEQ, MCAQD, and PCAQCD at a total of20 sites within the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. ADEQ and MCAQD monitors represent 19 ofthe 20 sites.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (see page 3-21 ofthe plan) indicates that ADEQand 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-hourozone NAAQS. Further, ifthere is significant change to parameters such

aspopulation, vehicle miles oftravel, or significant sources, ADEQ and MCAQD will undertake studies to determine ifit is appropriate to re-site monitors or add additional monitors tothe network. Lastly, the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan takes note ofthe annual reviewby EPA ofState and local ambient monitoring networkplans under 40 CFR part 58 as providing a continuing means for ensuring the adequacy ofthe ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix-Mesa area.

We note thatPCAQCD isnot cited in the subsection on an approved monitoring network and verification of continued attainment in the Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan, but findthe failure to include PCAQCD in theplan's discussion ofcontinued monitoring and verification ofcontinued attainment to be harmless error because the applicable monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58 will continue to apply toPCAQCD's

ozone monitor regardless ofour approval ofthe maintenance plan and redesignation request and because the overall ozone monitoring network operated byADEQ and MCAQD alone (i.e., 19 of20 NAMS and SLAMS stations) is sufficient to meet ozone monitoring requirements in the Phoenix-Mesa are. Therefore, for the

reasons given above, EPA finds thatthe Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan adequately provides for continued ambient ozone monitoring in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
4. Verification ofContinued Attainment

Each State should ensure thatithas the legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain andto maintain the NAAQS. Previously, in taking action to approve the various measures thatthe State is relying on for attainment and maintenance ofthe 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 thatwould be triggered for these control measures upon redesignation to attainment. We are, however, aware ofArizona 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 

### 16746Federal 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 thatthe applicable State, regional, and county agencies, such as ADEQ, the Arizona Department ofWeights and Measures, Arizona Department ofTransportation (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, andMAG. These emissions inventory updates will provide a means with which totrack emissions relative to those projected in the maintenance plan, and thereby verify the continued attainment ofthe NAAQS.

Lastly, the transportation conformity process, which requires a comparison of on-road motorvehicle emissions that would occur under new or amended transportation plans and programs with the motorvehicle emissions budgets in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, represents another meansby which toverify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area, given the importance ofmotor vehicle emissions
to the overall emissions inventories of

ozone precursors. See pages 3-14 and 3-15 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. These methods are sufficient for thepurpose ofverifying continued attainment.

5.Contingency Provisions

Section 175A(d) ofthe Act requires that maintenance plans include contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any violations ofthe NAAQS that occur after redesignation ofthe area. Such provisions must include a requirement that the State will implement all

measures (withrespect tothe control of the air pollutant concerned) thatwere contained in the SIP forthe area before redesignation ofthe 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 ofredesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part ofthe 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 ofthe plan, the State should also identify specific indicators

or triggers that willbe usedto determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.

As required by section 175A ofthe CAA, MAG adopted a contingency plan to address possible future ozone air quality problems. See page 3-21 ofthe 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 ofadditional

measures as needed. The specific contingency measures, which are described in more detail in section IV7-2 ofMAG's TSD for the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (appendixA, exhibit 2ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe standard. As noted above, CAA section 175A(d) requires contingency plans to include a requirement that the State will implement all measures withrespect to the control ofthe air pollutant concerned thatwere contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area, i.e., if triggered under the terms ofthe contingency plan. In the case ofthese
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 tobe implemented by the relevant agencies. The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan simply does not rely on emissions reductions from

3 3MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA guidance memorandum entitled "Early Implementation ofContingency 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, andno emission reduction credit was taken for these measures in the modeling for the maintenance demonstration. As noted in the maintenance plan, implementation ofthese measures shouldprovide additional assurance that the 1997 ozone standard will be maintained through 2025.

In addition to the previously implemented contingency measures listed above, theplan includes a commitment to examine ambient air quality data to determine ifadditional contingency measures are needed. Ifthe three-year average ofthe 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 willbe verified within three months after the activation ofthe 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 putthe measures inplace.

Upon ourreview ofthe plan, as summarized above, we find thatthe contingency provisions of theEightHour Ozone Maintenance Planidentify specific contingency measures, contain tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures

are needed, and contain specific timelines for action. Accordingly, we conclude thatthe contingency provisions ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan are adequate to

ensure prompt correction ofa violation andtherefore comply with section 175A(d) ofthe Act.

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

CAA section 175A(b) provides that States shall submit a SIP revision eight years after redesignation thatprovides for maintaining theNAAQS for an additional ten years. The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan includes MAG's commitment to prepare the revised maintenance plan eight years afterredesignation to attainment. See page 3-22 oftheEight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

7.Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) ofthe CAA. Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A)requires 

### 16747Federal 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 notthey do

so. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards or any interim milestones.

Maintenance plan submittals must specifythe emissions oftransportationrelated VOC and NOx emissions allowed in the last year ofthe maintenance period, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or budgets). The MVEBs serve as a ceiling

on emissions thatwould result from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble tothe November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble describes how
to establish MVEBs inthe SIP andhow
to revise theMVEBs ifneeded.

The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when considered with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with maintenance ofthe NAAQS. In order for

us to findthese emissions levels or "budgets" adequate and approvable, the submittal must meetthe conformity adequacy provisions of40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Formore 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 ofa MVEB consists ofthree basic steps: (1)Providing public notification ofa SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during apublic
comment period; and (3)making a finding ofadequacy based on our initial review ofthe submitted SIP. The process for determining the adequacy of

a submitted MVEB is codified at 40 CFR 93.118.

The availability ofthe SIP submission with MVEBs was announced forpublic
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 fromthe 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'sreview of the adequacy ofan implementation plan MVEB simultaneously with itsreview and approval or disapproval ofthe 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 istaking comment onthe approvability ofthe submitted MVEBs through this proposed rule. Any and all comments

on the approvability ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEBs should be submitted during the comment period stated in the DATES section ofthis document.

The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan contains new VOC and NOx MVEBs for the Phoenix-Mesa area for 2025. 34 MAG developed the budgets for the 2025 maintenance yearby using geographic information systems (GIS)to separate the on-road motorvehicle emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa air quality planning area from the larger

ozone modeling domain, resulting in MVEBs of43.8 metric tons per day (mtpd)ofVOC and 101.8 mtpd ofNOx. 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 motorvehicle emissions for the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and related MVEBs, MAG used the version ofEPA's motorvehicle emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2) that was current at the time the emissions estimates were prepared. The calculated emission factorswere multiplied bythe estimates ofvehicle miles oftravel (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

34The derivation ofthe 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-roademissions budgets is included in Section IV-9 ofthe 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 ofthe latest planning assumptions in conformity analyses." MAG distributed the increase spatially "based on the proportion ofonroad mobile emissions assigned to eachfour kilometer grid cell." See page 3-20 ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. include reductions from implementation ofthe contingency

measures.

The MVEBs are consistent with the 2025 on-road motor vehicle source VOC andNOx 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 ofthe 1997 ozone standard.

EPA isproposing to approve the MVEBs for 2025 as part ofour approval ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area. We have determined that the MVEB emission targets are consistent with emission control measures inthe SIP and that the Phoenix-Mesa area can maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for ten yearsbeyond redesignation. The details ofEPA's evaluation ofthe MVEBs for compliance with the budget adequacy criteria of40 CFR 93.118(e)

are provided in a separate memorandum included in the docket ofthis rulemaking.36

Ifwe finalize this action as proposed,

we will make the adequacy finding for the 2025 MVEBs in the finalrule in which we approve the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), our adequacy finding willbe effective upon publication ofthe final rule in the Federal Register. Once found adequate, MAG and theU.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 andRequest 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 oftheMAG EightHourOzoneRedesignationRequestand MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009)

36SeeEPA memorandum dated October 31, 2013 entitled "Adequacy Documentation forMotor Vehicle Emission Budgets inthe February 2009
Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area." 

### 16748Federal 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 withthe 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, andlocal agencies will take in the event ofa 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 motorvehicle emissions budgets in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan because we findthey meetthe applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). The motorvehicle emissions budgets, 43.8 mtpd ofVOC 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 thatwas usedto model maintenance ofthe 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 ofthe maintenance plan, to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are doing sobased on our conclusion that the area has metthe five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this regard isin turn based on ourproposed determination that the area has attained the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS, that relevant portions ofthe 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 withrespect to section 110 and part D ofthe CAA, and based on our proposed approval as part ofthis action ofthe Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or
on otherrelevant matters. Wewill accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

VII. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation ofan

area to attainment and the accompanying approval ofa maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status ofa 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 ofitself create any new requirements, butrather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for

areas thathave been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies withthe provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role isto approve State choices, provided that theymeet the criteria 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 toreview by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

* Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

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

* Do not contain any unfunded mandate 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 actionbased 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) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

* Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, andlegally 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 itwill not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Nonetheless, EPA has discussed the proposed action with the three Tribes, the FortMcDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and the Tohono O'odham Nation located within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hourozone nonattainment area. List of Subjects

40CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40CFR Part81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 14, 2014. Jared Blumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX.

[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]
RIN2060-AR89

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Updates to HCFC Trade Language As Appliedto Article5 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 ofHCFCs to reflect thatHCFC control measures have

now taken effect for Parties operating under Article 5ofthe Montreal Protocol; references to Party ratification status; tariffcodes for ozone depleting substances to address changes made in 2012by the U.S. International Trade 

### 16749