11664 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Legally enforceable refers to a 

characteristic of a debt and means there 

has been a final agency determination 

that the debt, in the amount stated, is 

due, and there are no legal bars to 

collection. A debt would not be legally 

enforceable, for example, if the debt is: 

(1) The subject of a pending 

administrative review required by a 

statute or regulation that prohibits 

collection action during the review 

process; or 

(2) Governed by a statute that 

precludes collection. 

(b) In general. Fiscal Service and 

other debt collection centers may take 

debt collection action on behalf of one 

or more Federal agencies or a unit or 

subagency thereof. Fiscal Service 

provides these services through its 

Cross-Servicing program and its 

Centralized Receivables Service. 

(c) Mandatory transfer of debts to 

Fiscal Service’s Cross-Servicing 

program. (1) A debt is considered 

eligible for transfer to the CrossServicing program only if it is past due 

and is legally enforceable. 

(2) Except as set forth in paragraphs 

(c)(3) and (d) of this section, a creditor 

agency must transfer any eligible debt 

that is over $25 (or such other amount 

as Fiscal Service may determine) to the 

Cross-Servicing program by no later 

than 120 days delinquent if the creditor 

agency relies on the Cross-Servicing 

program to submit the transferred debts 

for centralized offset on the creditor 

agency’s behalf or, otherwise, by no 

more than 180 days delinquent. 

(3) If a final agency determination 

resulting from an administrative appeal 

or review process is not made until after 

the time specified in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section, the creditor agency must 

transfer such debt to the Cross-Servicing 

program within 30 days after the date of 

the final decision. 

(4) For accounting and reporting 

purposes, the debt remains on the books 

and records of the Federal agency, 

which transferred the debt. 

(5) On behalf of the creditor agency, 

Fiscal Service will take appropriate 

action to collect or compromise the 

transferred debt, or to suspend or 

terminate collection action thereon. 

Appropriate action to collect a debt may 

include referral to another debt 

collection center, a private collection 

contractor, or the Department of Justice 

for litigation. The creditor agency must 

advise Fiscal Service, in writing, of any 

specific statutory or regulatory 

requirements pertaining to its debt and 

will agree, in writing, to a collection 

strategy, which includes parameters for 

entering into compromise and 

repayments agreements with debtors. 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Is at a private collection 

contractor if the debt has been referred 

to a private collection contractor for a 

period of time determined by the 

Secretary; 

* * * * * 

(vi) Is being serviced and/or collected 

in accordance with applicable statutes 

and/or regulations by third parties, such 

as private lenders or guaranty agencies; 

or 

* * * * * 

(4) A debt is being collected by 

internal offset if a creditor agency 

expects the debt to be collected in full 

within three (3) years from the date of 

delinquency through the withholding of 

funds payable to the debtor by the 

creditor agency, or if the creditor agency 

has issued notice to the debtor of the 

creditor agency’s intent to offset such 

funds. 

(5) The secretary may exempt classes 

of debt from mandatory referral. 

* * * * * 

(j) Fees. Fiscal Service and other debt 

collection centers may charge Federal 

agencies fees sufficient to cover the full 

cost of providing debt collection 

services authorized by this section. 

Fiscal Service and other debt collection 

centers may calculate fees in any 

manner designed to cover up to the full 

cost of providing these services, 

including based on a percentage of 

collections received on account of a 

debt while it was being serviced under 

this section or a flat fee based on actions 

taken under this section by Fiscal 

Service or another debt collection center 

with regard to a debt or group of debts. 

Such fees may be determined based on 

overall program costs and need not be 

based on costs related to the collection 

of a specific debt. Fiscal Service and 

debt collection centers are authorized to 

retain fees from amounts collected and 

may deposit and use such fees in 

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g). Fees 

charged by Fiscal Service and other debt 

collection centers may be added to the 

debt as an administrative cost if 

authorized under 31 U.S.C. 3717(e). 

(k) Social Security numbers. When 

conducting activities for or related to its 

Centralized Receivables Service or 

Cross-Servicing program, Fiscal Service 

will ensure that an individual’s Social 

Security number will not be visible on 

the outside of any package it sends by 

physical mail or in the subject line of an 

email. In addition, Fiscal Service 

generally will redact or partially redact 

Social Security numbers in documents 

it sends by mail; however, to administer 

these programs, Fiscal Service may 

include Social Security numbers in 

mailed documents, including, for 

example: 

(1) In interoffice and interagency 

communications; 

(2) In communications with private 

collection contractor and agents that 

assist Fiscal Service in its debt 

collection activities; 

(3) In notices and letters, including 

demand letters and notices to employers 

regarding wage garnishment, when the 

Social Security number is (or is 

embedded in) a creditor agency’s 

account number, debt identification 

number, or debtor identification 

number; 

(4) In notices to employers regarding 

wage garnishment; 

(5) In response to a request of a debtor 

or a debtor’s representative for records 

of Fiscal Service’s collection activities; 

and 

(6) When required by law. 

David A. Lebryk, 

Fiscal Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03584 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AS–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0869; FRL–9503–01– 

R9] 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request; Nogales PM2.5 Planning Area; 

Arizona 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the ‘‘FINAL SIP Revision: Nogales PM2.5

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request (2006 Fine Particulate 

NAAQS)’’ (‘‘Nogales Maintenance Plan’’ 

or ‘‘Plan’’) as a revision to the state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the State 

of Arizona. The Nogales Maintenance 

Plan includes, among other elements, an 

emissions inventory consistent with 

attainment, a maintenance 

demonstration, contingency provisions, 

and a motor vehicle emissions budget 

for the ten-year maintenance period. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

the State of Arizona’s request to 

redesignate the Nogales area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 24- 

hour national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) for 

particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or 

less (PM2.5). The EPA is proposing these 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11665 

1 62 FR 38652. 

2 71 FR 61144. 

3 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 

4The legal nonattainment area boundaries for the 

Nogales area are described in 40 CFR 81.303. ADEQ 

provided a map portraying these boundaries in the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan, 5, Figure 2. 

5 79 FR 31566. 

6 78 FR 887. 

7For a discussion of the clean data determination 

for the Nogales area and our clean data policy, see 

our October 30, 2012 proposed rulemaking (77 FR 

65656). Also, the EPA codified the clean data policy 

in regulation as part of the PM2.5 implementation 

rule finalized on August 24, 2016; 81 FR 58010 

(codified at 40 CFR 51.1015). 

8SO2 is commonly used as the indicator for all 

gaseous sulfur oxides (SOX). 

actions because this SIP revision meets 

the applicable Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’) requirements for maintenance 

plans and because the State has met the 

requirements under the Act for 

redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment with respect to the Nogales 

area. 

DATES: Written comments must arrive 

on or before April 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0869 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, or if 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (ARD–2), 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972– 

3958, or by email at lee.anita@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

B. The Nogales Area and Regulatory 

Actions 

C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

Redesignations and Maintenance Plans 

II. Submissions from the State of Arizona to 

Redesignate the Nogales Area to 

Attainment of the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

A. Summary of State Submissions 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submission of SIP 

Revisions 

III. Evaluation of Arizona’s Redesignation 

Request for the Nogales Area 

A. Evaluation of Whether the Nogales Area 

Has Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Meeting the Requirements 

Applicable for the Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

C. The Area Must Show that the 

Improvement in Air Quality is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 

175A 

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations 

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

The EPA sets the NAAQS for certain 

ambient air pollutants at levels required 

to protect human health and the 

environment. Particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5, is one of 

these ambient air pollutants for which 

the EPA has established health-based 

standards. On July 18, 1997, the EPA 

established the first NAAQS for PM2.5

(‘‘the 1997 PM2.5 Standards’’), including 

an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) based on a 

three-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) 

standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations.1 The EPA 

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on significant evidence and 

numerous health studies demonstrating 

the serious health effects associated 

with exposures to PM2.5. Subsequently, 

on October 17, 2006, the EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by revising it to 35 mg/m3 and retained 

the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 

15.0 mg/m3.2

B. The Nogales Area and Regulatory 

Actions 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by 

the CAA to promulgate designations for 

areas throughout the U.S. in accordance 

with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. 

Effective December 14, 2009, the EPA 

established the initial air quality 

designations for most areas in the 

United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.3 Among these areas so 

designated in 2009, the EPA designated 

the Nogales planning area (‘‘Nogales 

area’’) as nonattainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitoring 

data from 2004 through 2007. The 

Nogales area covers 76.1 square miles 

and is in southern Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona, adjacent to the international 

border with Mexico and the city of 

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.4

On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ all areas that were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards at the time 

under subpart 4 of part D of CAA title 

I, including the Nogales area.5 The EPA 

also established a due date of December 

31, 2014, for states to submit SIP 

revisions related to attainment and 

nonattainment new source review 

required for these areas pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

On January 7, 2013, the EPA issued a 

determination under our clean data 

policy (a ‘‘clean data determination’’) 

for the Nogales area in relation to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured, 

and certified data for the 2009–2011 

time frame.6 The EPA’s clean data 

determination for the Nogales area 

suspended, for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, CAA requirements in sections 

172 and 189 for an attainment 

demonstration, reasonably available 

control measure (RACM) demonstration, 

and reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration; it also suspended the 

contingency measure provisions in 

section 172.7

Although the EPA’s clean data 

determination suspended certain CAA 

requirements for the State, the 

requirement to submit PM2.5 emissions 

inventories consistent with CAA section 

172(c)(3) remained. Consequently, in 

September 2013, Arizona submitted to 

the EPA emissions inventories for PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors (oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2),8 and 

ammonia (NH3)). The EPA approved 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11666 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

9 80 FR 6907. 

10 82 FR 21711 (May 10, 2017). 

11 57 FR 13498. 

12 57 FR 18070. 

13Letter dated April 7, 2021, from Daniel 

Czecholinski, Director, Air Quality Division, 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to 

Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX. Subsequently, Arizona made an 

electronic submittal of the Nogales Maintenance 

Plan on April 13, 2021, via the EPA’s State Plan 

Electronic Collection System. 

14 ‘‘Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

and Public Comment Period and Hearing’’ 

published in the Nogales International on December 

29, 2020, and January 1, 2021; Exhibit E–III, 

Appendix E, Nogales PM2.5 Maintenance Plan. A 

similar public notice appeared on the ADEQ 

website. 

15 ‘‘Public Hearing Presiding Officer 

Certification’’ signed by Zachary Dorn, Presiding 

Officer, notarized and dated February 17, 2021, 

Appendix E, Nogales Maintenance Plan. The 

hearing transcript, the public comments, and State 

responses are also found in Appendix E of the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan. 

these PM2.5 and precursor emissions 

inventories on February 9, 2015.9

In May 2017, as required by the CAA, 

the EPA determined that the Nogales 

area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by December 31, 2015, the date 

specified by the Act.10 The EPA relied 

on 2013–2015 ambient PM2.5 data in 

making this determination that the 

Nogales area attained the NAAQS by the 

applicable date. 

C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for Redesignations and Maintenance 

Plans 

The CAA establishes the criteria that 

must be met for the EPA to redesignate 

a nonattainment area to attainment of a 

given NAAQS. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) sets forth the following 

criteria: (1) The EPA must determine 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) the EPA must have fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

CAA section 110(k); (3) the EPA must 

determine that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions; (4) 

the EPA must have fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 175A; and, (5) the state must 

have met all requirements applicable to 

the area under section 110 and title I, 

part D (‘‘part D’’) of the CAA. Section 

110 identifies a comprehensive list of 

elements that must be included in SIPs 

and part D establishes the SIP 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

Part D is divided into six subparts. The 

generally applicable SIP requirements 

for nonattainment areas are found in 

subpart 1 of part D, and the particulate 

matter-specific SIP requirements are 

found in subpart 4 of part D. 

The EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in a document titled 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 1992,11 and 

supplemented on April 28, 1992 

(collectively referred to herein as the 

‘‘General Preamble’’).12 The EPA issued 

additional guidance in two memoranda: 

A September 4, 1992 memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, titled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (referred to herein 

as the ‘‘Calcagni memo’’); and, a 1994 

memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

titled ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment’’ (‘‘Nichols memo’’). 

The EPA’s approval of a state’s 

maintenance plan is one of the CAA 

prerequisites for redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment. 

Section 175A of the CAA provides the 

general framework for a state’s 

maintenance plans. A state’s initial 10- 

year maintenance plan must provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 

10 years after redesignation and include 

any additional control measures 

necessary to ensure such maintenance. 

In addition, maintenance plans must 

contain contingency provisions 

necessary to assure the prompt 

correction of a violation of the NAAQS 

during the maintenance period. At a 

minimum, these contingency provisions 

must include a requirement that a state 

will implement all control measures 

contained in the nonattainment SIP 

prior to redesignation. Because a state’s 

maintenance plan submittals are SIP 

revisions, the EPA is obligated under 

CAA section 110(k) to approve them or 

disapprove them depending upon 

whether they meet the applicable CAA 

requirements for such plans outlined 

above. 

For the reasons described in section 

III of this proposal, the EPA is proposing 

to approve the Nogales Maintenance 

Plan and to approve Arizona’s request 

for redesignation of the Nogales area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA’s proposed approvals 

are based on our conclusion that 

Arizona has satisfied all the criteria 

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

II. Submissions From the State of 

Arizona To Redesignate the Nogales 

Area To Attainment of the 24-Hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

A. Summary of State Submissions 

On April 13, 2021, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA its 

redesignation request and the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP.13 This document addresses 

all of the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

requirements for redesignating a 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

NAAQS and includes the required 

maintenance plan elements. The 

Nogales Maintenance Plan is organized 

into seven chapters and five appendices 

with the maintenance plan elements 

found in Chapters 5 and 6. The five 

appendices provide support for the Plan 

and are divided into the following 

categories: Technical support and 

documentation for emissions 

inventories (appendices B–D); and SIP 

adoption authority, public notice and 

hearing documentation (appendices A 

and E). 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submission of SIP 

Revisions 

CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) 

require a state to provide reasonable 

public notice and opportunity for public 

hearing prior to the adoption and 

submission of a SIP revision to the EPA. 

To meet this procedural requirement, a 

state must include evidence that it 

provided adequate public notice and an 

opportunity for a public hearing, 

consistent with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

ADEQ provided public notice and 

opportunity for public comment on the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan. On 

December 29, 2020, ADEQ released a 

draft of the Nogales Maintenance Plan 

for public review and published a notice 

of public meeting to be held on January 

28, 2021, to consider adoption of the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan.14 Following 

a virtual public hearing on January 28, 

2021,15 ADEQ adopted the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP on April 7, 2021, and 

submitted the Plan to the EPA on April 

13, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan became 

complete by operation of law pursuant 

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

Based on information provided in the 

SIP submission and summarized in this 

proposal, the EPA proposes to find that 

the submittal of the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan meets the procedural 

requirements for public notice and 

hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 

110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11667 

16 57 FR 13563. 

17 40 CFR 58.2(a). 

18 40 CFR 58.16. AQS is the EPA’s national 

repository of ambient air quality data. 

19 40 CFR 58.15(a). 

20 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0. 

21The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 

three-year average of 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

22 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b). 

23 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, section 1.2.3. 

24We have included in our docket copies of 

Arizona’s monitoring network plans for 2018–2020, 

e.g., ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan 

for the Year 2020.’’ 

25We have included in our docket our reviews of 

ADEQ’s annual network plans and the 

correspondence transmitting these reviews, e.g., 

correspondence dated October 28, 2020, from Gwen 

Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, 

EPA Region IX, to Daniel Czecholinski, Director, 

Air Quality Division, ADEQ. 

26See, e.g., ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for the Year 2020,’’ Table 2.2–1, ‘‘SIP 

Network Monitoring Requirements.’’ 

27We have included in our docket ADEQ’s 

annual data certifications for 2018, 2019, and 2020, 

e.g., correspondence dated April 26, 2021, from 

Daniel Czecholinski, Director, Air Quality Division, 

ADEQ, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, EPA Region IX. Annual data 

certification requirements can be found at 40 CFR 

58.15. 

28 40 CFR 58.15(c). 

29AQS, Design Value Report (AMP480), dated 

November 19, 2021. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. 

32Technical Systems Audit of the Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program: Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, April 2—April 6, 2018; 

Final Report dated April 2019 (‘‘2018 TSA’’). The 

2018 TSA is attached to its transmittal letter dated 

April 25, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA 

Region IX, to Timothy J. Franquist, ADEQ. 

III. Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Redesignation Request for the Nogales 

Area 

A. Evaluation of Whether the Nogales 

Area Has Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of 

the CAA, for a nonattainment area to be 

redesignated to attainment, the EPA 

must determine that the area has 

attained the relevant NAAQS. The EPA 

interprets this requirement to mean that 

the area must have an attaining design 

value based on the most recently 

available and quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data, collected in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58.16 These requirements 

include quality assurance procedures 

for monitor operation and data 

handling, siting parameters for 

instruments or instrument probes, and 

minimum ambient air quality 

monitoring network requirements.17

State, local, or tribal agencies that 

operate air monitoring sites in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 must 

enter the ambient air quality data and 

associated quality assurance data from 

these sites in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS) database.18 These 

monitoring agencies certify annually 

that these data are accurate to the best 

of their knowledge, taking into 

consideration the quality assurance 

findings.19 Accordingly, the EPA relies 

primarily on AQS data when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, generally the EPA’s 

finding of attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS must be based upon 

complete, certified data gathered at 

eligible monitoring sites in the 

nonattainment area in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and entered in AQS.20

For the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, 

Appendix N section 1.0(c) defines 

eligible monitoring sites as those that 

meet the technical requirements in 40 

CFR 58.11. Under 40 CFR 50.13 and in 

accordance with part 50, Appendix N, 

an area meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when the design value at each 

eligible monitoring site within the area 

is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3, based 

on the rounding convention in 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix N.21

To have a valid design value showing 

attainment of the PM2.5 standard at a 

given monitoring site, the ambient air 

quality data must meet data 

completeness or substitution 

requirements for each year under 

consideration. The completeness 

requirements are met when at least 75 

percent of the scheduled sampling days 

for each quarter have valid data.22 In 

determining whether data are suitable 

for regulatory determinations, the EPA 

uses a ‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach, 

considering the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix A ‘‘in combination 

with other data quality information, 

reports, and similar documentation that 

demonstrate overall compliance with 

Part 58.’’ 23

2. Monitoring Network Review, Quality 

Assurance, and Data Completeness 

ADEQ is the governmental agency 

with the authority and responsibilities 

under the State’s laws for collecting 

ambient air quality data for the Nogales 

area. As a result, ADEQ submits annual 

monitoring network plans to the EPA.24

These plans document the status of 

ADEQ’s air monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR 58.10. The EPA 

reviews these annual network plans for 

compliance with the specific 

requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With 

respect to PM2.5, we have found that the 

annual network plans submitted by 

ADEQ meet these requirements under 

40 CFR part 58, including minimum 

monitoring requirements.25 The Nogales 

Post Office monitoring site (AQS ID: 04– 

023–0004) is the only PM2.5 monitoring 

site in the Nogales area.26

In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, 

ADEQ certifies annually that the 

previous year’s ambient concentration 

and quality assurance data are 

completely submitted to AQS and that 

the ambient concentration data are 

accurate, taking into consideration the 

quality assurance findings.27 Along with 

the certification letters, ADEQ submits a 

summary of the precision and accuracy 

data for all ambient air quality data.28

The EPA’s evaluations of the relevant 

quality assurance data are reflected in 

the associated AQS design value 

reports.29 These reports include a 

certification evaluation and concurrence 

(‘‘Cert&Eval’’) flag indicating the overall 

quality of the corresponding monitoring 

data. Over the period 2018–2020, the 

associated Cert&Eval flag in the design 

value report was ‘‘Y’’ for the Nogales 

Post Office PM2.5 monitoring site, 

meaning that ‘‘[t]he certifying agency 

has submitted a certification letter, and 

EPA has no unresolved reservations 

about data quality (after reviewing the 

letter, the attached summary reports, the 

amount of quality assurance data 

submitted to AQS, the quality statistics, 

and the highest reported 

concentrations).’’ 30

The Nogales area Design Value Report 

also included a validity indicator 

(‘‘Valid Ind.’’) that reflects whether the 

design value is valid (i.e., calculated 

using data that meet the applicable 

completeness criteria). For the purposes 

of this proposal, we reviewed the data 

for the 2018–2020 period for 

completeness and determined that the 

PM2.5 data collected by ADEQ met the 

75 percent completeness criterion for all 

12 quarters at the PM2.5 monitoring site 

in the Nogales area.31

Finally, the EPA conducts regular 

technical systems audits (TSAs) where 

we review and inspect state and local 

ambient air monitoring programs to 

assess compliance with applicable 

regulations concerning the collection, 

analysis, validation, and reporting of 

ambient air quality data. For the 

purposes of this proposal, we reviewed 

the findings from the EPA’s 2018 TSA 

of ADEQ’s ambient air monitoring 

program.32 In Finding 11 of the 2018 

TSA, the EPA noted that: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

33 Id. at 24. 

34Letter dated July 2, 2019, from Daniel 

Czecholinski, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 

to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, EPA Region IX, Attachment: Finding 

Corrective Action Form. 

35 2018 TSA Report, 24. 

36 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, sections 3.2.3 and 

4.2.1. 

37EPA, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems (‘‘QA Handbook’’), 

Vol. II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, 

appendix D, March 2017, 28. 38 Id., 2. 39We calculated the design value for the 2018– 

2020 period as the average of the annual 98th 

percentiles for each of the three years according to 

40 CFR 50, Appendix N, section 4.5. 40AQS, Design Value Report, dated November 19, 

2021. 

41AQS, Combined Site Sample Values Report, 

dated November 19, 2021. 

42 75 FR 36023, 36026 (June 24, 2010) and 

citations within. 

43Calcagni Memo, 3; Wall v. EPA, F.3d 426 (6th 

Cir. 2001); and Southwest Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 114 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998). 

44 68 FR 25418, 25426 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations within. 

The distance between collocated PM2.5

monitors were not being met at Nogales Post 

Office (AQS ID: 04–023–0004). The primary 

Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5

monitor was 4.5 meters from the collocated 

FRM PM2.5 monitor and therefore not 

meeting the requirement of 2 to 4 meters 

between monitors. Additionally, the 

collocated FRM PM2.5 monitor was closer to 

the side of the building than the primary 

FRM PM2.5 monitor and was close to not 

meeting siting requirements. Since the 

collocated FRM PM2.5 monitor was 4.5 meters 

closer to the side of the building than the 

primary FRM PM2.5 monitor, the monitor pair 

could measure different concentrations.33

To address this finding, ADEQ moved 

the collocated monitor to 2.2 meters 

from the primary FRM monitor on 

February 2, 2019.34

The EPA did not recommend 

invalidating any data from the Nogales 

Post Office monitoring site based on this 

TSA finding.35 The purpose of distance 

requirements for collocated PM2.5

monitors is to ensure that the two 

monitors measure similar 

concentrations so that data from the 

monitors can be compared to estimate 

the precision of the measurements.36

Under the EPA’s weight of evidence 

approach for evaluating the suitability 

of data for regulatory purposes, the 

precision of PM2.5 measurements is 

considered a systematic criterion,37

meaning that it is important for the 

correct interpretation of the data, but it 

does not usually affect the validity of a 

sample or group of samples.38

Accordingly, the fact that the collocated 

monitors were 4.5 meters apart does not 

affect the validity of the data collected 

at the Nogales Post Office monitoring 

site. 

To summarize, based on the EPA’s 

reviews of the relevant monitoring 

network plans, certifications, quality 

assurance data, and 2018 TSA, we 

propose to find that the PM2.5 data 

collected at the Nogales Post Office 

monitoring site are suitable for 

determining whether the Nogales area 

has attained 2006 PM2.5 24-hour 

NAAQS based on the most recent 

certified data available in AQS. 

3. Evaluation of Attainment 

Table 1 shows the calculated 24-hour 

PM2.5 design value at the Nogales Post 

Office monitoring site within the 

Nogales area for the 2018–2020 

period.39 The data show that the 24- 

hour design value for the 2018–2020 

period, 26 mg/m3, was equal to or less 

than 35 mg/m3, the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour 

NAAQS; 40 and, preliminary data for 

2021 continue to show that the Nogales 

area is meeting the NAAQS.41

Consequently, based upon three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

data from 2018–2020, the EPA proposes 

to determine that the Nogales area has 

attained and continues to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—NOGALES AREA 2020 DESIGN VALUE FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 24-HOUR NAAQS WITH ANNUAL 98TH PERCENTILE

CONCENTRATIONS

[μg/m3] 

Monitor AQS site 

ID No. 

98th percentile 2018–2020 

design value 2018 2019 2020 

Nogales Post Office ............................................................. 04–023–0004 21.8 24.7 32.2 26 

Source: AQS, Design Value Report, dated November 19, 2021. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements 

Applicable for the Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

and (v), the EPA must have fully 

approved the applicable SIP for the 

nonattainment area under CAA section 

110(k) and the state containing such an 

area must have met all requirements 

applicable to the area under section 110 

and part D. We interpret the references 

to the ‘‘applicable implementation 

plan’’ and ‘‘applicable requirements’’ in 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and in 

107(d)(3)(E)(v), respectively, to mean 

that a SIP must be fully approved only 

with respect to requirements that are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. The CAA section 110 and 

part D requirements that are linked to a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification (except 

those directly related to attainment, as 

discussed in section II.B.2 of this 

proposal) are the relevant measures to 

evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. Requirements that apply, 

regardless of the designation of an area 

of a state, are not applicable 

requirements for the purpose of 

redesignation, and the state will remain 

subject to these requirements after the 

nonattainment area is redesignated to 

attainment. 

For example, CAA section 

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

certain measures to prevent sources in 

a state from significantly contributing to 

air quality problems in another state; 

these SIPs are often referred to as 

‘‘transport SIPs.’’ Because the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for transport 

SIPs are not linked to a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification, but apply regardless of 

the area’s attainment status, these are 

not applicable requirements for the 

purpose of redesignation, under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). This is consistent 

with the EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of the conformity SIP 

requirement for redesignations.42

The EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request,43 and any additional measure 

or element we may approve in 

conjunction with our redesignation 

action.44


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11669 

45 77 FR 66398. The EPA approved the submittals 

as satisfying most requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2), but disapproved the submittals with 

respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), 

and (K) because of a deficiency with respect to PSD 

requirements in Maricopa and Pima counties. We 

also partially disapproved the submittals with 

respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), but this disapproval 

pertained only to Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal 

counties and thus has no relevance to the Nogales 

area. 

46 General Preamble, 13564. 

47Calcagni memo, 6. 

48The Seventh Circuit decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding the 

EPA’s redesignation of the St. Louis metropolitan 

area to attainment) is one such example. 

1. State Implementation Plan 

Requirements Under Section 110 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in CAA section 

110 include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permitting 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD); provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

for nonattainment new source review 

permit programs; provisions for air 

pollution modeling; and, provisions for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emissions control rule 

development. 

On numerous occasions, ADEQ has 

submitted, and the EPA has approved, 

provisions addressing the basic CAA 

section 110 provisions. The Arizona SIP 

contains enforceable emissions 

limitations; requires monitoring, 

compiling, and analyzing of ambient air 

quality data; requires preconstruction 

review of new or modified stationary 

sources; provides for adequate funding, 

staff, and associated resources necessary 

to implement its requirements; and, 

provides the necessary assurances that 

the State maintains responsibility for 

ensuring that the CAA requirements are 

satisfied in the event that local or 

regional agencies are unable to meet 

their CAA obligations. Relevant to this 

proposal, on November 5, 2012, the EPA 

approved SIP revisions submitted by the 

state of Arizona with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.45

In conclusion, we find that there are 

no outstanding or disapproved 

applicable SIP submittals that prevent 

redesignation of the Nogales area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, 

we propose to conclude that the ADEQ 

has met all SIP requirements for the 

Nogales area that are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 of the CAA. 

2. State Implementation Plan 

Requirements Under Part D 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of 

the CAA contain air quality planning 

requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for all nonattainment areas 

of any pollutant governed by a NAAQS, 

including PM2.5. The subpart 1 

requirements include, in relevant part, 

provisions for implementation of 

RACM, a demonstration of RFP, 

emissions inventories, a program for 

preconstruction review and permitting 

of new or modified major stationary 

sources, contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity. 

Subpart 4 contains specific planning 

and scheduling requirements for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The requirements 

described in CAA section 189(a), (c), 

and (e) apply specifically to Moderate 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and include 

the following: An approved permit 

program for construction of new or 

modified major stationary sources; 

provisions for RACM; an attainment 

demonstration; quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment 

by the applicable attainment date; and, 

provisions to ensure that the control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to 

major stationary sources of PM2.5

precursors, except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS 

in the area. 

As noted in section I.B of this 

proposal, in 2013 the EPA issued a 

clean data determination for the Nogales 

area, based on 2009–2011 data. As part 

of this determination, we found that the 

following CAA requirements in sections 

172 and 189 would not apply to the 

Nogales area for so long as the area 

continued to attain the PM2.5 standard 

or until the area was redesignated to 

attainment: An attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP, and 

contingency measures. 

Moreover, in the context of evaluating 

the area’s eligibility for redesignation, 

there is a separate and additional 

justification for finding that 

requirements associated with attainment 

are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Prior to and independent 

of the clean data policy, and in the 

context of redesignations specifically, 

the EPA has interpreted CAA SIP 

submittal requirements associated with 

attainment of the NAAQS (such as 

attainment and RFP demonstrations) as 

not being applicable for purposes of 

redesignation.46 Similarly, the Calcagni 

memo provides that requirements for 

RFP and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they have 

meaning and applicability only where 

areas do not meet the NAAQS.47 With 

respect to contingency measures, the 

EPA explained that the section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measure requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment 

by the applicable date; consequently, 

these requirements no longer apply 

when an area has attained the standards 

and is eligible for redesignation. In 

addition, CAA section 175A(d) provides 

requirements for specific maintenance 

plan contingency provisions that 

effectively supersede the requirements 

of section 172(c)(9) for these 

maintenance areas. 

In sum, the EPA has concluded that 

the requirements associated with 

attainment do not apply for purposes of 

evaluating whether an area attaining the 

standards qualifies for redesignation. 

The EPA has enunciated this position 

since the General Preamble was 

published in 1992, and it represents our 

interpretation of what constitutes 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E). The courts have recognized 

the scope of the EPA’s authority to 

interpret ‘‘applicable requirements’’ in 

the redesignation context.48

The remaining applicable part D 

requirements for Moderate PM2.5 areas 

include the following: (1) An emissions 

inventory under section 172(c)(3); (2) a 

permit program for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 under 

sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A); (3) 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

under section 189(e), except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standards 

in the area; (4) requirements under 

section 172(c)(7) that meet the 

applicable provisions of section 

110(a)(2); and, (5) provisions to ensure 

that federally supported or funded 

projects conform to the air quality 

planning goals in the applicable SIP 

under section 176(c). We discuss each of 

these requirements next. 

a. Emissions Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of PM2.5 and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11670 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

49CAA section 302(j). 50PSD requirements control the growth of new 

source emissions in areas designated as attainment 

or unclassifiable for a NAAQS. 51 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015); 83 FR 19631 

(May 4, 2018); 86 FR 31927 (June 16, 2021). 

52See, generally, the Nichols memo; see also, the 

more detailed explanations in the following 

redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-AkronLorrain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 

1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669, 

October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 

31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996); and San 

Joaquin Valley, California (73 FR 22307, 22313, 

April 25, 2008 and 73 FR 66759, 66766–66767, 

November 12, 2008). 

53 In Section III.D of this proposal, we discuss the 

point source emissions projections with respect to 

the Valencia Power Plant, the sole operating point 

source in the Nogales area and include perquisite 

citations to the Plan. 

54With respect to other criteria pollutants, PSD 

requirements already apply in the Nogales area. 

55 40 CFR 52.144. 

56 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

57See generally 81 FR 58017–58026. 

58 Id at 58020. 

59Also, the Nogales area has recorded ambient air 

quality data under the PM2.5 NAAQS continuously 

since 2009; refer to Nogales Maintenance Plan, 15, 

Figure 6. 

precursor pollutants for the baseline 

year from all sources within the 

nonattainment area. As noted earlier in 

section I.C, we approved the Nogales 

area emissions inventories under CAA 

section 172(c)(3) in 2015. 

b. Permits for New and Modified Major 

Stationary Sources 

CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 

189(a)(1)(A) require that states submit 

SIP revisions that establish certain 

requirements for new or modified major 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas, including provisions to ensure 

that major new sources or major 

modifications of existing sources of 

nonattainment pollutants incorporate 

the highest level of control (referred to 

as the lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER)), and that increases in emissions 

from such stationary sources are offset 

to provide for RFP towards attainment 

in the nonattainment area. The major 

source threshold for Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment areas is 100 tons per year 

of PM2.5.49 The process for reviewing 

permit applications and issuing permits 

for new or modified stationary sources 

of air pollution is referred to as new 

source review (NSR). With respect to 

nonattainment pollutants in 

nonattainment areas, this process is 

referred to as nonattainment NSR 

(NNSR). Areas that are designated as 

attainment or unclassifiable for one or 

more NAAQS are required to submit SIP 

revisions that ensure that major new 

stationary sources or major 

modifications of existing stationary 

sources meet the federal requirements 

for PSD, including application of best 

available control technology for each 

applicable pollutant emitted in 

significant amounts, among other 

requirements.50

ADEQ has air permitting 

responsibilities in Santa Cruz County 

and the Nogales area. ADEQ has an 

EPA-approved NNSR program for 

PM2.5.51 With respect to sources subject 

to ADEQ’s jurisdiction, EPA-approved 

regulations include rules for the review 

of applications for new or modified 

stationary sources. The EPA has not 

approved ADEQ regulations specifically 

meeting the NNSR requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A). The 

EPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of 

the CAA, however, such that final 

approval of an NNSR program is not a 

prerequisite to approving a state’s 

redesignation request. The EPA has 

determined in past redesignations that 

an NNSR program does not have to be 

approved prior to redesignation 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the standards without 

part D NNSR requirements in effect.52

The demonstration of maintenance of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan relies on projections 

of future emissions based on various 

growth factors. For the types of 

stationary sources that are subject to 

ADEQ jurisdiction, future emissions are 

projected based on either the 

operational history of the facility or 

population growth projections and do 

not take credit for future control 

technology requirements, such as LAER, 

or for imposition of emissions offsets.53

Thus, we find that the maintenance 

demonstration for the Nogales area does 

not rely on an NNSR program, and that 

the area need not have a fully-approved 

NNSR program prior to approval of the 

PM2.5 redesignation request for the area. 

If we finalize the redesignation action 

as proposed herein, the requirements of 

the PSD program will apply with 

respect to PM2.5.54 With respect to the 

PSD requirements, ADEQ has an EPAapproved PSD program under CAA 

sections 160 through 165 of the CAA, 

except for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and 

the EPA has delegated to ADEQ the 

authority to administer the federal PSD 

program for GHGs under 40 CFR 

52.21.55 These programs will apply to 

PM2.5 emissions from new major sources 

and major modifications upon 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

Thus, new major sources and major 

modifications to existing major sources 

with significant PM2.5 emissions, as 

defined under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, 

will be required to obtain a PSD permit. 

We conclude that the Arizona SIP 

adequately meets the requirements of 

section 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) for 

purposes of redesignation of the Nogales 

area. 

c. Control Requirements for PM2.5

Precursors 

Section 189(e) of the CAA provides 

that control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10

(including PM2.5) also apply to PM 

precursors from those sources, except 

where the EPA determines that major 

stationary sources of such precursors do 

not contribute significantly to PM10

levels that exceed the standards in the 

area. The CAA does not explicitly 

address whether it would be appropriate 

to include a potential exemption from 

precursor controls for all source 

categories under certain circumstances. 

In implementing subpart 4 for PM10, the 

EPA has allowed states to determine 

that a precursor was ‘‘insignificant’’ 

where the state could show in its 

attainment plan that it would attain the 

NAAQS expeditiously without adoption 

of emissions reduction measures aimed 

at that precursor. This approach was 

upheld in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA.56 Subsequently, the 

EPA included this approach within the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.57 A state 

may develop its attainment plan and 

adopt RACM that target and control 

only those precursors that are necessary 

for the purpose of timely attainment.58

Therefore, because the section 189(e) 

requirement is primarily actionable in 

the context of addressing precursors in 

an attainment plan, a precursor 

exemption analysis under section 189(e) 

and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

is not an applicable requirement that 

needs to be fully approved in the 

context of a redesignation under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed 

earlier in our proposal, for areas that are 

attaining the standards, the EPA does 

not interpret the requirements of 

subpart 1 and subpart 4 that are 

associated with attainment to be 

applicable requirements for the purpose 

of redesignating the area to attainment. 

As previously noted, the EPA 

determined in 2013 and more recently 

in 2017 that the Nogales area had 

attained the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.59

Therefore, no additional controls of any 

pollutant, including any PM2.5

precursor, are necessary to bring the 

area into attainment. In section III.A of 

this proposal, we propose to find that 

the area continues to attain the NAAQS. 

In section III.C, the EPA proposes to 

determine that the Nogales area has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11671 

60CAA section 176(c)(4)(E). 

61See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

62Calcagni memo, 4. 

63Nogales Maintenance Plan, 22–24. 

64Nogales Maintenance Plan, 22. 

65Nogales Maintenance Plan, 24. 

66Nogales Maintenance Plan, 19–22. 

67Nogales Maintenance Plan, 21. 

68 Id. at 15, Figure 6. 

attained the standard due to permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions. 

Also, as presented in section III.D, we 

propose to find that the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan demonstrates 

continued maintenance of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS through 2032. Taken 

together, these factors support our 

conclusion that PM2.5 precursors are 

controlled adequately. 

d. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2) 

Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2). As 

described in section III.B.1 of this 

proposal, we conclude that the Arizona 

SIP meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) that are applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation. 

e. General and Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

states are required to revise their SIPs to 

establish criteria and procedures to 

ensure that federally supported or 

funded projects in nonattainment areas 

and former nonattainment areas subject 

to a maintenance plan (referred to as 

‘‘maintenance areas’’) conform to the air 

quality planning goals in the applicable 

SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that 

state conformity provisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations that the CAA requires the 

EPA to promulgate. The EPA’s 

conformity regulations are codified at 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A (referred to 

herein as ‘‘transportation conformity’’) 

and subpart B (referred to herein as 

‘‘general conformity’’). Transportation 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs, and projects 

developed, funded, and approved under 

title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit 

Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53), and 

general conformity applies to all other 

federally supported or funded projects. 

SIP revisions intended to address the 

conformity requirements are referred to 

herein as ‘‘conformity SIPs.’’ In 2005, 

Congress amended section 176(c) of the 

CAA. Under the amended conformity 

statutory provisions, states are no longer 

required to submit conformity SIPs for 

general conformity, and the conformity 

SIP requirements for transportation 

conformity have been reduced to 

include only those relating to 

consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability.60

We have not approved a 

transportation conformity SIP for the 

Nogales area. We consider it reasonable, 

however, to interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d) because the 

conformity SIP requirement continues 

to apply post-redesignation (conformity 

applies in maintenance areas as well as 

nonattainment areas) and because the 

federal conformity rules (set forth in 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A and subpart B) 

apply where the EPA has not approved 

a state’s rule.61

C. The Area Must Show That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

To approve a redesignation to 

attainment, under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, the EPA is 

required to determine that a 

nonattainment area’s improvement in 

air quality is due to emissions 

reductions that are permanent and 

enforceable, and that the improvement 

results from the implementation of the 

applicable SIP, applicable federal air 

pollution control regulations, and other 

permanent and enforceable regulations. 

Under this criterion, a state must be able 

to reasonably attribute the improvement 

in air quality to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

Attainment resulting from temporary 

reductions in emissions 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 emissions reductions.62

Within the Nogales area, federal 

programs have been the primary 

measures contributing permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions 

leading to attainment of the NAAQS. 

Increasingly stringent federal motor 

vehicle standards for cars and trucks, 

federal requirements for lower sulfur 

content in diesel fuel, and capital 

improvements to ports of entry (POE), 

and expansion of the Mariposa POE 

have contributed to reducing ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations since the Nogales 

area was classified as nonattainment in 

2009. 

The federal motor vehicle program 

and federal fuel standards for sulfur 

content in diesel have contributed to 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Nogales area by reducing emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, such 

as SO2 and NOX.63 Federal tier 2 and 3 

motor vehicle standards implemented 

from 2004 to 2014 helped to reduce onroad mobile source PM2.5 emissions in 

the Nogales area by 53 percent, from 

2008 to 2017.64 Federal sulfur content 

standards for diesel fuel were 

implemented in conjunction with the 

federal motor vehicle program 

standards. Lower sulfur content fuel has 

reduced SO2 emissions and allowed 

pollution control equipment to operate 

more effectively to reduce emissions of 

other pollutants as well. Taken together 

these federal programs contributed to 

NOX emission reductions of 56 percent 

in the Nogales area, in addition to the 

PM2.5 emissions reduction discussed 

above.65

Beginning in 2010, the Mariposa POE, 

located 1.7 miles west of the Nogales 

Post Office monitor, underwent a series 

of capital improvements to expand this 

POE, to divert truck traffic from the 

DeConcini POE located in downtown 

Nogales, and to facilitate faster vehicle 

inspections resulting in less truck idling 

and faster throughput at the Mariposa 

POE.66 These capital improvements 

included significant increases in the 

number of inspection facilities for both 

commercial trucks and motor vehicles. 

These POE capital improvements 

contributed to reduced PM2.5 emissions 

associated with truck crossings at the 

U.S./Mexico border.67

With respect to the connection 

between the emissions reductions and 

the improvement in air quality, we also 

conclude that the air quality 

improvement in the Nogales area is not 

the result of a local economic downturn, 

temporary emissions reductions, or 

unusual or extreme weather patterns. 

Our conclusion is based on the 

observation that the PM2.5 design value 

for the Nogales area has been below 35 

mg/m3, the level of the 2006 PM2.5 24- 

hour NAAQS, since 2009 and has been 

consistently between 25–30 mg/m3 from 

2011 to 2020.68 In sum, ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the Nogales area have 

been consistently below the NAAQS for 

a lengthy period of time, and have not 

been subject to large swings and 

disparate observations that a sudden 

facility closure or an extreme weather 

pattern might produce. 

In conclusion, we find that the 

improvement in ambient air quality in 

the Nogales area is due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in emissions 

of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, 

resulting from control measures such as 

(1) implementation of the federal motor 

vehicle program and diesel fuel 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

69Calcagni Memo, 8–9. 70The Plan was submitted to the EPA on April 

13, 2021, prior to certification of 2020 monitoring 

data on April 26, 2021. 71Nogales Maintenance Plan, Appendix B— 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document 

for the 2006 Nogales PM2.5 Maintenance Area’’. 72Nogales Maintenance Plan, 38, section 5.1 and 

Table 5–1. 

73TSD, 25, Table 3–1. 

74 Id. at 25, Section 3.1. 

75 Id. at 27, Section 3.3. 

76EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES) is a state-of-the-science emission 

modeling system. 

77 Id. at 25, Section 3.2.1. 

78 Id. at 25, Section 3.2.2. 

79 Id. at 27, Section 3.2.3. 

80As we discuss in section III.D.2 of this 

proposal, the winter day emissions inventories for 

the maintenance demonstration include winter 

daily emissions estimates and daily average 

emissions estimates scaled from the annual 

emissions estimates. 

standards; and (2) facility capital 

expansions and processing 

improvements leading to reduced motor 

vehicle idling times and faster vehicle 

throughput at federal POEs. Therefore, 

we propose to find that Arizona has 

satisfied the criterion for redesignation 

set forth at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

CAA Section 175A 

Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the 

CAA, to approve a redesignation to 

attainment, the EPA must fully approve 

a maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. Section 175A 

specifies the required elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. Under section 175A, the 

plan must demonstrate continued 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after the EPA approves 

a redesignation to attainment. Eight 

years after redesignation, a state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan that 

demonstrates continued attainment for 

the subsequent 10-year period following 

the initial 10-year maintenance period. 

To address the possibility of future 

NAAQS violations, the maintenance 

plan must contain such contingency 

provisions as the EPA deems necessary 

to promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area. The Calcagni memo 

provides further guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should include an attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring and verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Based on our review 

and evaluation of the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan, we are proposing to 

approve the Plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

A maintenance plan for the PM2.5

NAAQS should include an ‘‘attainment 

emissions inventory’’ of direct PM2.5

emissions and PM2.5 precursors in the 

area to identify a level of emissions 

sufficient to attain the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.69 The attainment emissions 

inventory should be consistent with the 

EPA’s most recent guidance on 

emissions inventories for nonattainment 

areas available at the time it was 

developed and should represent 

emissions during the timeframe 

associated with the ambient air quality 

monitoring data showing attainment of 

the NAAQS. The EPA has provided 

guidance for developing PM emissions 

inventories in ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations’’ (July 2017). 

The Nogales Maintenance Plan’s 

demonstration that the area attained the 

standard is based on monitoring data 

from 2017–2019, the three most recent 

years with certified air quality data 

available at the time of adoption and 

submittal of the Plan.70 Consistent with 

this timeframe, ADEQ selected 2017 for 

the attainment emissions inventory. 

Appendix B of the Nogales Maintenance 

Plan is a technical support document 

(TSD) detailing the emissions data and 

development of the emissions inventory 

for the Plan.71

The attainment emissions inventory 

in the Nogales Maintenance Plan 

includes PM2.5, NOX, SOX, VOC, and 

NH3 estimates from all relevant source 

categories, which the Plan divides 

among point, nonpoint, on-road mobile, 

non-road mobile, and fugitive road 

dust.72 ADEQ developed the emissions 

estimates for each source type using 

appropriate sources and methods.73

Point source emissions were based on 

ADEQ’s State and Local Emissions 

Inventory System (SLEIS) database and 

facility permit data.74 Non-point source 

emissions were based on the countylevel data in the EPA’s 2014 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) projected to 

2017 and allocated to the smaller 

nonattainment area.75 On-road mobile 

source emissions were derived from 

running the MOVES2014b 76 emissions 

factor model with the appropriate 

vehicle population and vehicle miles 

traveled data.77 Non-road mobile source 

emissions were derived from the same 

MOVES2014b model and county-level 

data, again allocated to the smaller 

nonattainment area.78 Fugitive road 

dust emissions, from paved and 

unpaved roads, were derived from the 

county-wide 2014 NEI estimates, 

projected to 2017 using Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT) 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, 

and allocated to the Nogales area using 

population share.79

Table 2 presents a summary of actual 

annual PM2.5 emissions estimates for the 

2017 attainment year for sources in the 

Nogales area.80 Based on the emissions 

estimates for 2017 in Table 2, combined 

fugitive road dust (unpaved and paved 

roads) accounts for approximately 59 

percent of total PM2.5 emissions in the 

area. The next highest source category is 

non-point sources at 30 percent. 

TABLE 2—2017 NOGALES AREA PM2.5 AND PRECURSOR COMPOUND EMISSIONS INVENTORIES BY SOURCE CATEGORY

[Tons per year] 

Category PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC NH3

Point Sources ....................................................................... 0.17 7.8 0.054 0.066 ........................

Non-Point Sources ............................................................... 57.0 39.0 2.4 432.0 3.7 

On-Road Mobile Emissions ................................................. 10.2 414.4 1.8 245.1 6.0 

Non-Road Mobile Emissions ............................................... 9.3 123.2 0.48 77.0 0.188 

Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust ............................................... 96.2 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Paved Road Fugitive Dust ................................................... 13.6 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Totals ............................................................................ 186.5 584.4 4.7 754.2 9.9 

Source: TSD, 41, Table 4–9. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11673 

81Nogales Maintenance Plan, 15, Table 2–2. 

82Calcagni memo, 9–11. 

83Calcagni memo, 9. 

84 Id. at 4. See also, Memorandum dated 

November 30, 1993, from Kent D. Berry, Acting 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

Subject: Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) Nonattainment Areas. 

85Nogales Maintenance Plan, section 5 and TSD. 

86TSD, 20–22, Section 2.3 and Table 2–1. 

87The EPA announced the release of a new 

version of MOVES in the Federal Register on 

January 7, 2021. 86 FR 1106. In that document, we 

explained that state and local agencies that had 

already completed significant work on a SIP with 

a version of MOVES2014 could continue to rely on 

the earlier version of MOVES. Id. at 1108. As of 

January 7, 2021, ADEQ had already released a draft 

of the Nogales Maintenance Plan for public review. 

Therefore, we consider the Plan’s reliance on 

MOVES2014b to be appropriate. 

88Nogales Maintenance Plan, 8, Table 1–5. 

89 Id. at 39, Table 5–2. 

90Nogales Maintenance Plan Section 5.2.3; TSD 

Section 5.1; TSD-Appendix D. TSD 19, Figure 2–2 

provides a map showing the location of the 

Valencia Power Plant in relation to the City of 

Nogales and the Nogales Post Office air quality 

monitoring station. 

Based on our review of the attainment 

emissions inventory in the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan, including the 

supporting information in the TSD, we 

find that the attainment year inventory 

is comprehensive, the methods and 

assumptions used by ADEQ to develop 

the inventories are reasonable, and the 

2017 inventory reasonably estimates 

actual PM2.5 emissions in that year. We 

also find that the 2017 emissions 

inventory is appropriate for use as the 

attainment inventory for the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan because the year 2017 

is within the 2017–2019 period during 

which the area was attaining the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS.81

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires 

that the maintenance plan ‘‘provide for 

the maintenance of the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 

least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ A 

state may generally demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by conducting modeling 

that shows that the future mix of 

sources and emissions rates will not 

cause a violation of the NAAQS.82

Assumptions concerning emissions 

rates in maintenance demonstrations 

should generally reflect permanent, 

enforceable measures.83 Therefore, the 

analysis should assume that sources are 

operating at permitted levels (or historic 

peak levels), unless evidence is 

presented that such an assumption is 

unrealistic.84

To demonstrate maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for ten 

years from redesignation, ADEQ 

projected annual and winter emissions 

inventories for PM2.5, NOX, SOX, VOC, 

and NH3 for 2026, the interim 

maintenance year, and 2032, the tenyear maintenance demonstration year.85

Given that almost all recorded 

exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the recent past have 

occurred during the winter months of 

December and January,86 ADEQ based 

its maintenance demonstration on a 

winter day emissions inventories 

analysis. Furthermore, because the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a daily standard 

it is appropriate for the maintenance 

demonstration to be in the form of a 

daily emissions inventory comparison. 

a. Annual Emissions Inventories 

Comparisons 

Using the 2017 emissions inventories 

as a baseline and growth factors 

described in the TSD, ADEQ projected 

emissions inventories for 2026 and 

2032. These projections were based 

primarily on Arizona’s forecasts of 

population and VMT or in some cases, 

information particular to a given source 

or source category. To estimate mobile 

source emissions, ADEQ used an EPA 

on-road emissions model (i.e., 

MOVES2014b).87 Table 3 summarizes 

ADEQ’s 2017 attainment year PM2.5

emissions and projected PM2.5 emission 

levels for 2026 and 2032. 

TABLE 3—2017, 2026, AND 2032 NOGALES AREA PM2.5 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES BY SOURCE CATEGORY

[Tons per year] 

Category 2017 2026 2032 

Projected 

change from 

2017 to 2032 

Point Sources .................................................................................................. 0.17 1.23 1.23 +1.06 

Non-Point Sources ........................................................................................... 57.0 57.9 57.6 +0.6

On-Road Mobile Emissions ............................................................................. 10.2 2.2 1.4 ¥8.8 

Non-Road Mobile Emissions ........................................................................... 9.3 6.0 5.2 ¥4.1 

Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust .......................................................................... 96.2 98.8 100.6 +4.4 

Paved Road Fugitive Dust ............................................................................... 13.6 14.0 14.2 +0.6 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 186.5 180.1 180.2 ¥6.3 

Source: TSD 41, Table 4–9; TSD 60–63, Tables 6–4 through 6–8. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding. 

Despite expected population growth 

in the Nogales area,88 the Plan’s 

projected PM2.5 annual emissions 

through 2032 are lower than the 2017 

attainment year inventory emissions. 

The decrease in annual PM2.5 emissions 

from 2017 to 2032 most likely reflects 

continued implementation of the federal 

motor vehicle program, cleaner motor 

vehicle fuels, and ongoing vehicle fleet 

turnover, whereby newer and cleaner 

vehicles are substituted for older more 

polluting vehicles as they are retired. A 

comparison of precursor compound 

totals from 2017 to 2032 in Table 4 

suggests a similar conclusion. VOC and 

NOX emissions are projected to decrease 

due to large reductions in the on-road 

mobile source category.89 SOX

emissions are projected to increase, 

largely due to emissions in the point 

source category from the Valencia 

Power Plant (VPP), an electrical 

generation facility located north of the 

City of Nogales.90 To address this 

projected increase in SOX emissions in 

the annual and winter daily inventories, 

ADEQ provided additional analyses to 

demonstrate that VPP operations are 

unlikely to cause or contribute to future 

violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. We 

review the VPP analyses before 

proceeding to our review of the winter 

daily emissions inventories. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

91 Id. at 44, Table 5–4. 

92 Id. at Tables 5–3 and 5–4. 

93 Id. at 44. 

94TSD-Appendix D: Valencia AERSCREEN 

Modeling Overview Technical Memo, from Kamran 

Khan, ADEQ, to Scott Bohning, EPA-Region IX, 

December 19, 2018. 

95A Modeled Emission Rate for Precursors 

(MERP) is the precursor emission rate that is likely 

to cause an impact that may cause or contribute to 

a NAAQS violation. The VPP PTE emissions of 240 

tpy NOX and 200 tpy SOX are far below the MERP 

levels for annual impacts for the southwestern U.S., 

roughly 11,000 tpy for each; also, VPP PTE 

emissions are also far below the MERPs for 24-hour 

impacts (i.e., 6514 tpy for NOX and 1508 tpy for 

SOX). ‘‘Guidance on the Development of Modeled 

Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 

Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the 

PSD Permitting Program,’’ EPA 454/R–19–003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, April 2019, 

available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-airact-permit-modeling-guidance. 

96EPA, 2011. ‘‘AERSCREEN Released as the EPA 

Recommended Screening Model’’. Memorandum 

dated April 11, 2011, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Available at web page https://www.epa.gov/scram/ 

air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screeningmodels#aerscreen. 

97TSD, 43 and TSD-Appendix D. 

98TSD, 18, 19; Figures 2–1 and 2–2, respectively. 

99 Id. at 44. 

100TSD, 64, Section 7.1 and Appendices B & C. 

101 Id. at 64–66, Section 7.2. 

TABLE 4—2017, 2026, AND 2032 NOGALES AREA EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR PM2.5 AND PRECURSOR POLLUTANT

TOTALS

[Tons per year] 

Pollutant 2017 2026 2032 

Projected 

change from 

2017 to 2032 

PM2.5 ................................................................................................................ 186.5 179.9 180.2 ¥6.3 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 584.4 307.4 250.6 ¥333.8 

SOX .................................................................................................................. 4.7 9.8 9.8 +5.1 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 754.3 665.8 650.0 ¥104.3 

NH3 .................................................................................................................. 9.8 8.3 7.9 ¥1.9 

Source: Plan 39, Tables 5–2 and 5–3. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding. 

As noted, the EPA generally 

recommends use of permitted 

‘‘maximum potential to emit’’ (‘‘PTE’’) 

levels or maximum historical emissions 

in maintenance demonstrations, unless 

a state presents evidence that such an 

assumption is unrealistic. ADEQ 

examined past VPP emissions levels to 

determine if the facility has approached 

its PTE. Facility records from 2000 to 

2018 show that VPP has operated at 

levels significantly below its PTE.91 For 

instance, from 2000–2018, the VPP’s 

highest annual particulate matter 

emissions was 1.23 tons per year (tpy) 

in 2001 compared to its PM2.5 PTE of 

45.52 tpy.92 Emissions levels from VPP 

have been even lower since 2014, due 

to a reduction in operating hours that 

resulted from improvements to 

transmission lines in the area.93 Given 

that VPP’s 2001 emissions represent the 

highest level of facility emissions since 

2000, ADEQ used this data set as the 

basis for projecting conservative annual 

emissions estimates of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors for VPP. 

Also, because VPP can legally emit at 

its PTE, ADEQ conducted an analysis to 

determine the ambient air quality effects 

for direct PM2.5 in the Nogales area if 

VPP were to operate at PTE levels.94

VPP emissions of NOX and SOX are well 

below the Modeled Emission Rates for 

Precursors recommended in EPA 

guidance, and so we would not be 

expect them to cause or contribute to a 

violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.95 ADEQ 

used AERSCREEN, an EPA screeninglevel air quality model to estimate VPP’s 

worst case 24-hour PM2.5 concentration 

when operating at PTE for direct PM2.5

emissions. AERSCREEN 96 provides 

conservatively high concentration 

estimates by using worst case 

meteorology from among a range of 

wind speeds, degrees of cloud cover, 

temperatures, and other meteorological 

parameters. ADEQ post-processed 

AERSCEEN model output to exclude 

locations inside the facility boundary 

because they are not considered ambient 

air subject to the NAAQS. The analysis 

covered distances out to 10 kilometers; 

the highest concentrations were near the 

facility boundary, decreasing with 

distance from the boundary. ADEQ’s 

analysis estimated that the highest 

ground level ambient PM2.5

concentration that would result from 

VPP operating at its PTE, including 

background PM2.5 concentrations, 

would be 30.9 mg/m3, which is below 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/ 

m3.97

In addition to the AERSCREEN 

analysis, ADEQ examined the Nogales 

area meteorological data and wind 

patterns and determined that prevailing 

winds blow from south to north and that 

in cold weather with stagnant wind 

conditions, cold air masses move south 

to north.98 Given that VPP is well north 

of the Nogales Post Office monitor, 

usual Nogales wind patterns and air 

movement are likely to move VPP 

emissions away from the monitor and 

the urbanized area in the southern 

portion of the nonattainment area. 

Furthermore, peak electrical power 

consumption in the desert southwestern 

U.S. is during the summer months, 

making this the most likely period VPP 

is to be operational, whereas the winter 

months have the highest PM2.5

concentrations in the Nogales area.99

To summarize, as a conservative 

estimate of annual emissions levels at 

VPP, ADEQ utilized 2001 emissions 

data, the highest historical emissions 

levels in the 2000–2018 period. In 

addition, ADEQ estimated the worst 

case 24-hour PM2.5 concentration for 

VPP and determined that at PTE levels 

the facility’s PM2.5 emissions are 

unlikely to cause or contribute to a 

violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

conclusion is further buttressed by 

prevailing wind direction and 

meteorological data for the Nogales area. 

b. Winter Daily Emissions Inventories 

Comparisons 

In determining the need for winter 

daily emissions inventories as a basis 

for an attainment year (2017) to 

maintenance year (2032) comparison, 

ADEQ reviewed the 2014–2016 ambient 

air quality data sets. ADEQ found the 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations rose as 

temperature dropped with the onset of 

the winter season, November through 

January.100 December had the highest 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations and 

concentrations rose as ambient 

temperatures dropped, particularly on 

days where the daily low temperature 

was less than 40° F. Given the data, 

ADEQ selected November-January as the 

Nogales area winter season. 

With a few exceptions, the winter 

daily emissions inventories are based on 

the annual emission inventories.101

More precisely, most winter daily 

source category emissions estimates are 

average daily emissions estimates 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11675 

102ADEQ used 0.0000964 ton of PM per megawatt 

hour (i.e., 0.1928 pounds of PM per megawatt hour) 

as an emissions level and a gross daily load of 228 

megawatt hours per day as an activity level, both 

values representing the highest operational data 

from 2013–2018. TSD, 65–66, Equation 7–2, within 

Section 7.2.1. 

103TSD, 66. ADEQ calculated 1.8 tpy by 

multiplying 44 pounds per day by 83 days; 83 days 

are the maximum number of VPP operating days in 

the 2013–2018 period. In generating its 2032 

projected VPP emissions, ADEQ is assuming that all 

83 operational days are occuring during the winter 

season at the facility’s highest recent rate; hence, 

their assertion that this is a conservative estimate 

of VPP emissions, given that VPP is more likely to 

be operational during the summer months during 

peak periods of energy demand. 

104TSD, 31, 32, 64. Section 3.3.2.2 describes how 

the annual RFC per capita emissions factor was 

generated and applied to get an annual RFC 

emissions estimate. This annual estimate was then 

converted to a winter daily missions estimate by 

dividing the annual emissions estimate by the 

number of winter days from November through 

January, 92 days. 

105Nogales Maintenance Plan, 43, Table 5–6. 

(annual emissions estimates divided by 

365 days per year), except for the 

seasonal calculations for residential fuel 

combustion (RFC). The annual RFC 

emissions estimate was allocated to the 

92-day November through January 

winter season. The winter daily 

emissions estimates for VPP were not 

based on winter operations, but were 

conservative in that all estimated annual 

VPP emissions were assigned to the 92- 

day winter season. The 2017 daily 

emissions estimate was based on 2013– 

2018 VPP operational data. The 

projected 2026 and 2032 daily 

emissions estimates were conservative 

estimates based on 2013–2018 data and 

operational maximums from 2013.102

Then, ADEQ compared the ‘‘winter 

daily’’ projected 2026 and 2032 PM2.5

estimate for VPP (i.e., 1.8 tpy or 44 

pounds per day) with the historical 

2001 high PM2.5 value (i.e., 1.2 tpy), and 

found it to be a relatively more 

conservative estimate.103

TABLE 5—2017, 2026, AND 2032 NOGALES AREA PM2.5 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES BY SOURCE CATEGORY

[Pounds per winter day] 

Category 2017 2026 2032 

Projected 

change from 

2017 to 2032 

Point Sources .................................................................................................. 13.8 44.0 44.0 +30.2 

Non-Point Sources ........................................................................................... 164.0 181.9 190.9 +26.9 

Residential Fuel Consumption ......................................................................... 561.0 500.0 463.0 ¥98.0 

On-Road Mobile Emissions ............................................................................. 56.3 12.0 8.2 ¥48.1 

Non-Road Mobile Emissions ........................................................................... 51.2 32.7 28.5 ¥22.7 

Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust .......................................................................... 527.2 541.5 551.0 +23.8 

Paved Road Fugitive Dust ............................................................................... 74.5 76.5 77.8 +3.3 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 1,448.0 1,388.0 1,363.0 ¥84.6 

Source: TSD, 67–70, Tables 7–2 and 7–4. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding. 

A review of the total daily PM2.5

emissions in Table 5 shows that overall 

emissions are expected to decrease from 

2017 to 2032. Like the annual emissions 

inventories estimates, mobile source 

emissions show the largest decreases 

and offset smaller increases in fugitive 

dust. RFC emissions are projected to 

decrease because of households 

switching to cleaner burning fuel 

sources over time.104

TABLE 6—2017, 2026, AND 2032 NOGALES AREA EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR PM2.5 AND PRECURSOR POLLUTANTS

[Pounds per winter day] 

Pollutant 2017 2026 2032 

Projected 

change from 

2017 to 2032 

PM2.5 ................................................................................................................ 1,448 1,388 1,363 ¥85 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 3,821 2,882 2,594 ¥1,227 

SOX .................................................................................................................. 45 82 83 +38 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 4,672 4,172 4,069 ¥603 

NH3 .................................................................................................................. 105 93 89 ¥16 

Source: TSD 67–70, Tables 7–2 and 7–3. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding. 

A review of Table 6 shows that PM2.5

and all precursor compound emissions 

are decreasing from 2017 to 2032, 

except for SOX emissions. SOX

emissions are predicted to increase by 

38 pounds per day over this timeframe 

due to increases in projected emissions 

from VPP, the only point source in the 

Nogales area.105 As discussed, the 

projected 2032 daily VPP emissions 

estimates are very conservative when 

compared to past historical operations 

data, in terms of both magnitude and 

seasonal intensity, i.e., assuming all 

facility emissions occur during the 

winter season. Also, ADEQ has 

examined the effect on ambient PM2.5

concentrations if VPP emitted PM2.5 at 

PTE levels and determined that the 

facility’s direct PM2.5 emissions are 

unlikely to cause a violation of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, even at such high 

and historically unachieved emissions 

levels. Lastly, the Nogales area 

meteorology and wind pattern make it 

unlikely that VPP emissions would have 

a significant effect on ambient PM2.5

concentrations at the Nogales Post 

Office monitor. 

c. EPA Evaluation and Conclusion 

Based on our review, we find that 

ADEQ used reasonable methods, growth 

factors, and assumptions to project 

direct PM2.5 and precursor compound 

emissions to 2026 and 2032. ADEQ’s 

emissions inventory projections show 

that future emissions through 2032 will 

be below estimated actual emissions in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

106Our conclusion is further supported by the 

meteorological data (TSD, 17–24) and chemical 

speciation data (Plan, 44) that ADEQ has presented. 

107Calcagni memo, 11. 

108 Id. 

109Nogales Maintenance Plan, 46, Section 5.4. 

110 Id. at 45–46. 111 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016). 

2017, the attainment year, for PM2.5 and 

all relevant precursor pollutants, except 

SOX. ADEQ’s projected 2032 SOX

emissions increase represents a small 

percentage of the overall emissions 

inventory compared to PM2.5 and 

precursors, whether compared 

individually or collectively.106 Also, the 

projected SOX emissions estimates 

reflect conservative assumptions 

concerning VPP future operations when 

considered against the facility’s 

historical record and most likely future 

operating scenario. ADEQ provided 

additional analyses and information to 

demonstrate that VPP is unlikely to 

cause a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

if VPP were to emit PM2.5 at PTE levels. 

In conclusion, we find that ADEQ has 

provided an adequate basis to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS within the Nogales area 

through 2032. 

Section 175A requires that 

maintenance plans provide for 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in 

the area for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. If this redesignation 

becomes effective in 2022, the projected 

2032 emissions inventory demonstrates 

that the Nogales area will maintain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years beyond 

redesignation. Moreover, the projected 

interim emissions inventory for 2026, 

i.e., the milestone year between the 

2017 attainment inventory and the 2032 

maintenance plan horizon year, 

sufficiently demonstrates that the 

Nogales area will maintain the 

standards throughout the period from 

redesignation through 2032. Therefore, 

we propose to find that the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan adequately 

demonstrates maintenance of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2032. 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Once an area has been redesignated, 

the state should continue to operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58, to verify the attainment status 

of the area.107 Data collected by the 

monitoring network are also needed to 

implement, if triggered, the contingency 

provisions of the maintenance plan. 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

proposal, PM2.5 is currently monitored 

by ADEQ within the Nogales area. In 

section 5.2 of the Nogales Maintenance 

Plan, ADEQ commits to continue 

operating a PM2.5 air quality monitoring 

network in the Nogales area consistent 

with federal regulations and to consult 

with the EPA via the annual network 

review process regarding any potential 

changes to the network. We find that the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan contains 

adequate provisions for continued 

ambient PM2.5 monitoring to verify 

continued attainment of the NAAQS 

through the maintenance period. 

In addition to the ambient air 

monitoring program, the EPA also 

recommends that the State verify 

continued attainment through methods 

other than ambient air quality 

monitoring to show no significant 

change in projected activity levels or 

emissions factors, e.g., periodic reviews 

of key data and assumptions used to 

develop the attainment inventory.108 In 

the Nogales Maintenance Plan, ADEQ 

commits to perform a comprehensive 

review of the factors and assumptions 

used to develop the attainment and 

projected inventories to determine 

whether significant changes have 

occurred.109 ADEQ’s review will be 

conducted for the 2026 interim 

projection year and may include the 

following elements: Permit applications 

and source reports, population data, 

agricultural activity information, 

wildfire/prescribed burning data, and 

motor vehicle activity data.110 In the 

Plan, ADEQ also identifies the legal 

authority under which the State collects 

the needed information to conduct the 

comprehensive review of the factors and 

assumptions used in developing the 

attainment and projected emissions 

inventories. We find that ADEQ’s 

commitment to verify continued 

attainment of the NAAQS through a 

comprehensive review of the factors and 

assumptions used to develop the 

emissions inventories in the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan is acceptable. 

4. Contingency Provisions 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that maintenance plans contain 

contingency provisions, as the EPA 

deems necessary, to promptly correct 

any violations of the NAAQS that occur 

after redesignation of the area. Such 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the state will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned that were 

contained in the SIP prior to the area 

being redesignated to attainment. These 

contingency provisions are 

distinguished from contingency 

measures required for nonattainment 

areas under CAA section 172(c)(9) in 

that they are not required to be fullyadopted measures that will take effect 

without further action by the state for 

the maintenance plan to be approved. 

The contingency provisions of a 

maintenance plan are, however, an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that contingency measures are 

adopted expeditiously once the Plan’s 

contingency provisions are triggered by 

a specified event. Thus, a state should 

identify the specific indicators or 

triggers that will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. Next, the maintenance 

plan should clearly identify the 

measures to be adopted, include a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation of the measures, 

and contain a specific timeline for 

action by a state. 

The State has adopted a contingency 

plan to address possible future PM2.5 air 

quality problems in the Nogales area. 

The contingency provisions are 

included in section 5.5 of the Plan. 

Upon a monitored violation of the PM2.5

24-hour NAAQS, ADEQ commits to the 

following steps: 

1. Within 60 days of the NAAQS violation 

trigger, ADEQ will begin analyzing the 

cause(s) of the exceedances that led to the 

violation. The analysis will include review 

and validation of ambient air quality and 

meteorological data, evaluation to determine 

if any of the exceedances qualifies as an 

exceptional event per the EPA’s Exceptional 

Event Rule (EER),111 and assessment of 

emissions sources contributing to elevated 

PM2.5 levels. 

2. If an exceedance qualifies as an 

exceptional event, ADEQ will prepare and 

submit to the EPA an exceptional event 

demonstration. If, during its evaluation, 

ADEQ determines that new measures are 

needed to satisfy the requirements of the 

exceptional events rule, ADEQ will adopt 

and implement new measures that are 

permanent and enforceable and meet the 

‘‘reasonable’’ level of control described in the 

EER. 

3. If the exceedance does not qualify as an 

exceptional event, ADEQ will determine 

which source(s) contributed to the 

exceedance, identify existing control 

measures for the source(s), verify source(s) 

compliance with existing measures, and if 

necessary, develop, adopt and implement 

new permanent and enforceable measures or 

strengthen existing measures. 

Under the contingency plan, if new 

control measures are needed, then the 

adoption process will begin within 12 

months and final adoption will be 

completed within 18 months of the 

triggering event (i.e., a monitored 

violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS). The 

State would require compliance with 

new control measures within six 

months of final adoption of the 

contingency measures. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11677 

112Nogales Maintenance Plan, 47. 

113 Id. at 47–48. 

114Control strategy SIPs refer to RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIPs. 40 CFR 93.101. 

115Section 93.102(b)(2)(iii) of the conformity rule 

identifies VOC and NOX as PM10 precursor 

pollutants that are presumed insignificant unless 

the SIP makes a finding that the precursor is 

significant. 

116 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

117 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more 

information on the transportation conformity 

requirements and applicable policies on MVEBs, 

please visit our transportation conformity website 

at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/index.htm. 

118 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

119Nogales Maintenance Plan, 49–52. 

120 Id. at 50. 

The Nogales Maintenance Plan 

includes a list of contingency measures 

considered for implementation if the 

contingency plan is triggered focusing 

on the principal source categories 

contributing to PM2.5 emissions in the 

Nogales area.112 The source categories 

include stationary sources, fugitive dust 

sources, and residential wood burning 

devices. In addition to the contingency 

plan, ADEQ commits to initiate a review 

of VPP operations to reduce emissions 

and implement control measures, as 

needed, if the facility’s direct PM2.5

emissions exceed 20 percent of PTE as 

shown in the VPP annual facility 

emissions report.113

From our review, we find that the 

State has established a contingency plan 

for the Nogales area that clearly contains 

the following: (1) Tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to determine 

when contingency measures are needed; 

(2) a description of the process for 

developing and implementing 

contingency measures; (3) specific 

timelines for action; and (4) identifies 

specific source categories for review, 

including a specific review process and 

trigger for the VPP facility. Thus, we 

propose to conclude that the 

contingency provisions of the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan are adequate to 

ensure prompt correction of a NAAQS 

violation and satisfy the requirements of 

the CAA section 175A(d). 

5. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

and local air quality and transportation 

agencies, the EPA, FHWA, and FTA to 

demonstrate that an area’s regional 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs conform to the 

applicable SIP. This demonstration is 

typically done by showing that 

estimated emissions from existing and 

planned highway and transit systems 

are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

contained in all control strategy SIPs 

and maintenance plans.114

These control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans typically set budgets 

for criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Budgets are established 

for specific years and specific pollutants 

or precursors and must reflect the motor 

vehicle control measures contained in 

the RFP plan and the attainment or 

maintenance demonstration. Under the 

transportation conformity rule, budgets 

must be established for the last year of 

the maintenance plan for direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors subject to 

transportation conformity analyses.115

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, the EPA’s 

adequacy criteria.116 To meet these 

requirements in maintenance plans, the 

budgets must be consistent with the 

maintenance requirements and reflect 

all the motor vehicle control measures 

contained in the maintenance 

demonstration.117 The EPA’s process for 

determining adequacy of a budget 

consists of three basic steps: (1) 

Providing public notification of a SIP 

submission; (2) providing the public the 

opportunity to comment on the budget 

during a public comment period; and (3) 

making a finding of adequacy or 

inadequacy.118

Within the Nogales Maintenance Plan, 

ADEQ described the process the State 

followed for developing the budgets and 

has enumerated a budgets for the 

Nogales area.119 The 2032 conformity 

budgets for PM2.5 and NOX for the 

Nogales area are provided in Table 7 on 

a pounds per day basis consistent with 

the maintenance demonstration 

emissions inventories discussed this 

proposal. Because the Nogales area 

experiences high volumes of 

commercial trucking crossing the 

international border with Mexico, 

ADEQ included a NOX budget because 

NOX emissions are a mobile source 

related PM2.5 precursor. ADEQ did not 

include emissions from road 

construction and maintenance. Upon 

reviewing the emissions inventories, the 

State determined that road construction 

and maintenance emissions were de 

minimis and unlikely to cause or 

contribute to violations of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.120

TABLE 7—2032 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE NOGALES AREA

[Pounds per winter day] 

Source PM2.5

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

Direct On-Road Mobile Sources (exhaust, tire and brake wear) ............................................................................ 8.2 513.0 

Paved Road Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 77.8 ........................

Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust .................................................................................................................................. 551.0 ........................

Totals ................................................................................................................................................................ 637.0 513.0 

Source: Plan, 51, 52; Tables 6–3 and 6–4. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

121 It should be noted that a transcription error 

occurred in Table 6–3 of the Plan where the figures 

for paved and unpaved road emissions were 

inadvertently switched, each for the other in the 

tons per day column. Table 8 reflects the correct 

tons per year assignment consistent with the 

pounds per day figures and the annual emissions 

inventories figures. 

122TSD, 46–48, Section 5.3; TSD, 60 61, Section 

6.3. 

123ADEQ used the appropriate AP–42 guidance 

in sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 to calculate fugitive 

dust from paved and unpaved roads. The AP–42 

emission factor equation inputs for estimating 

paved and unpaved road fugitive dust emissions 

can be found in Appendices C and D of the Plan. 

The most recent EPA revision and approval of these 

AP–42 emission factor equations occurred in 2011 

and are reflected in the Plan’s estimates; 76 FR 6328 

(February 4, 2011). 

124 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). 

125Under the transportation conformity 

regulations, the EPA may review the adequacy of 

submitted motor vehicle emission budgets 

simultaneously with the EPA’s approval or 

disapproval of the submitted implementation plan. 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

126 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii). 

127 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994). 

128 86 FR 7009 (January 25, 2021). 

Table 8 shows the 2032 budgets 

provided by ADEQ on a tons per year 

basis, consistent with the annual 

emissions inventories.121

TABLE 8—2032 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE NOGALES AREA

[Tons per year] 

Source PM2.5

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

Direct On-Road Mobile Sources (exhaust, tire and brake wear) ............................................................................ 1.4 93.7 

Paved Road Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 14.2 ........................

Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust .................................................................................................................................. 100.6 ........................

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 116.2 93.7 

Source: Plan, 51, 52; Tables 6–3 and 6–4. 

ADEQ provided the methodologies to 

develop the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the TSD and appendices C 

and D of the Plan. As discussed in 

section III.D of this proposal, ADEQ 

used the EPA’s MOVES2014b model in 

the development of these budgets; this 

was the latest available version of the 

model at the time the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan was developed. 

Paved road VMT estimates for 

estimating direct and fugitive PM2.5

emissions were provided by and in 

consultation with ADOT using an 

interpolation methodology where 2017, 

2026, and 2032 VMT were estimated 

from Nogales area traffic data.122 ADEQ 

used the most recent AP–42 emissions 

factor equations from the EPA and 

National Emissions Inventory data to 

develop paved and unpaved road 

fugitive dust emissions estimates.123

As part of our review of the 

approvability of the motor vehicle 

emissions budget in the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan, we have evaluated 

the budgets using the adequacy criteria 

specified in the transportation 

conformity rule.124 First and foremost, 

Section 93.118(e)(4)(iv) requires that a 

budget, when considered together with 

all other emissions sources, be 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for RFP, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to a given 

implementation plan submission). In 

this case, the Nogales area budget is 

consistent with the requirements for 

maintenance, as discussed in Sections 

III.D of this proposal. Second, the 

Nogales budget is presented in a daily 

format consistent with a maintenance 

plan intended to meet the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, as well as an annual and tons 

per year basis consistent with the 

emissions inventories. Third, Section 

93.118(e)(4)(iii) requires that the budget 

be clearly identified and precisely 

quantified. ADEQ has done so in 

Section 6.3.3 of the Plan. Fourth, ADEQ 

developed the budgets in consultation 

with ADOT, the regional transportation 

agency for the Nogales area. Lastly, prior 

to their submission to the EPA, ADEQ 

submitted the budgets for public 

inspection and comment as discussed in 

Section II.B of this proposal. 

We have reviewed the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan and find that they 

meet applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements including the adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.1118(e)(4) and (5). 

We will complete the adequacy review 

concurrent with our final action on the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan. The EPA is 

not required under the transportation 

conformity rule to find budgets 

adequate prior to our proposing 

approval of them.125 In this proposed 

rule, the EPA is announcing that the 

adequacy process for these budgets 

begins, and the public has 30 days to 

comment on the budgets presented here 

and in the Nogales Maintenance Plan.126

While a finding of adequacy and 

approval are two separate actions, 

reviewing the budgets for their 

adequacy against the criteria in the 

transportation conformity rule informs 

the EPA’s decision to propose approval 

of the budgets. We have completed our 

detailed review of the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan and are proposing 

herein to approve the maintenance 

demonstration in section III.D, and we 

have reviewed the budgets in the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan and find that 

they are consistent with this 

maintenance demonstration. 

Furthermore, the budgets are based on 

control measures that have been 

adopted and implemented, and they 

meet all other applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements including the 

adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 

93.1118(e)(4) and (5). Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the 2032 

maintenance year budgets in the 

Nogales Maintenance Plan. We may 

either finalize the adequacy process and 

find the budgets adequate for the 

purposes of transportation conformity or 

approve the budgets for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Nogales area as 

proposed, whichever occurs first. We 

may also finalize an adequacy finding 

and approval of the budgets in our final 

action on the Nogales Maintenance 

Plan, per 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii). 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Executive Order 12898 requires that 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, 

identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions on 

minority and low-income 

populations.127 Additionally, Executive 

Order 13985 directs federal government 

agencies to assess whether, and to what 

extent, their programs and policies 

perpetuate systemic barriers to 

opportunities and benefits for people of 

color and other underserved groups,128


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11679 

129 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021). 130 ‘‘EJScreen for NogalesAZ NAA 2006 FinePM 

NAAQS 18Jan2022.xlsx’’ in the docket for this 

proposal. The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain 

environmental and demographic indicators 

representing the Nogales area. EJSCREEN provides 

a nationally consistent dataset and approach for 

combining environmental and demographic 

indicators and is available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

ejscreen/what-ejscreen. 

131EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators 

(e.g., air toxics cancer risk, lead paint exposure, and 

traffic proximity and volume) and demographic 

indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and 

linguistically isolated populations). Depending on 

the indicator, a community that scores highly for an 

indicator may have a higher percentage of its 

population within a demographic group or a higher 

average exposure or proximity to an environmental 

health hazard compared to the state, region, or 

national average. EJSCREEN also reports EJ indexes, 

which are combinations of a single environmental 

indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. 

For additional information about environmental 

and demographic indicators and EJ indexes 

reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ‘‘EJSCREEN 

Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening 

Tool—EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,’’ 

section 2, September 2019. 

132EPA, ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’ 

section 4, June 2016. 

and Executive Order 14008 directs 

federal agencies to develop programs, 

policies, and activities to address the 

disproportionate health, environmental, 

economic, and climate impacts on 

disadvantaged communities.129 To 

identify environmental burdens and 

susceptible populations in underserved 

communities in the Nogales area, we 

performed a screening-level analysis 

using the EPA’s environmental justice 

(EJ) screening and mapping tool 

(‘‘EJSCREEN’’).130 Our screening-level 

analysis indicates that the Nogales area 

scores high when compared to the 

national average for the EJSCREEN 

‘‘Demographic Index,’’ which is the 

average of an area’s percent minority 

and percent low income populations, 

i.e., the two demographic indicators 

explicitly named in Executive Order 

12898.131 As discussed in the EPA’s EJ 

technical guidance, people of color and 

low-income populations often 

experience greater exposure and disease 

burdens than the general population, 

which can increase their susceptibility 

to adverse health effects from 

environmental stressors.132

Underserved communities can also 

experience reduced access to health 

care, nutritional, and fitness resources, 

further increasing their susceptibility. 

As discussed in section III.A, the 

Nogales area meets the health-based 

2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS of 35 mg/m3

based on the 2018–2020 design value 

and continues to meet the NAAQS 

based on preliminary data for 2021. This 

proposed action would redesignate the 

Nogales area to attainment. 

Redesignation to attainment would not, 

in and of itself, create any new 

requirements. Rather, it would result in 

the applicability of requirements 

already contained in the CAA for areas 

that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Thus, we believe that our 

proposed action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations and/or indigenous peoples, 

as specified in Executive Order 12898. 

V. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

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

the reasons presented above, the EPA is 

proposing to approve the Nogales 

Maintenance Plan submitted by ADEQ 

on April 13, 2021, as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. In doing so, we are 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

demonstration and contingency 

provisions as meeting all of the 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A, and to approve the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets and find that these 

budgets are adequate. 

In addition, under CAA section 

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

approve Arizona’s request to redesignate 

the Nogales area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. We are doing so based on our 

conclusion that the State has met all the 

criteria for redesignation under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). Specifically, we 

propose to make the following findings: 

• The Nogales area has attained the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 

most recent three-year period (2018– 

2020) of quality-assured, certified, and 

complete PM2.5 data; 

• The relevant portions of the 

Arizona SIP are fully approved; 

• The improvement in Nogales area 

ambient air quality is due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in direct and 

precursor PM2.5 emissions; 

• Arizona has met all requirements 

applicable to the Nogales area with 

respect to section 110 and part D of the 

CAA; and 

• The Nogales area has a fully 

approved maintenance plan meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A, 

including motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the year 2032. 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions. We will accept 

comments from the public for 30 days 

following publication of this proposal in 

the Federal Register and will consider 

any relevant comments before taking 

final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographic area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. Redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather, 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices 

provided they meet the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve a 

state plan and redesignation request as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For these 

reasons, the proposed actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• Will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority 

populations, low-income populations 

and/or indigenous peoples, as specified 

in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), as discussed in 

Section IV of this proposal. 

In addition, there are no areas of 

Indian country within the Nogales area, 

and the State plan for which the EPA is 

proposing approval does not apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this proposed action does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of NAAQS in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: February 18, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04070 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No.: 220224–0057] 

RIN 0648–BL06 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Herring Fishery; Framework 

Adjustment 9 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

approve and implement Framework 

Adjustment 9 to the Atlantic Herring 

Fishery Management Plan. This 

proposed rule would establish a 

rebuilding plan for herring, adjust 

accountability measure catch threshold 

triggers when catch exceeds a herring 

annual catch limit or management area 

sub-annual catch limit, and revise 

existing regulations to clarify area 

closure and possession limit restrictions 

and add prohibitions that were 

inadvertently omitted from previous 

management actions. This action is 

necessary to respond to updated 

scientific information and to achieve the 

goals and objectives of the fishery 

management plan. The proposed 

measures are intended to help prevent 

overfishing, rebuild the overfished 

herring stock, achieve optimum yield, 

and ensure that management measures 

are based on the best scientific 

information available. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received by March 17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2022–0021, 

by the following method: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0021 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method or received after the end 

of the comment period may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Copies of Framework 9, including the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and the 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) 

prepared by the New England Fishery 

Management Council in support of this 

action are available from Thomas A. 

Nies, Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

The supporting documents are also 

accessible via the internet at https://

www.nefmc.org/management-plans/ 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Fenton, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9196, 

Maria.Fenton@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Regulations implementing the 

Atlantic Herring Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, 

subpart K. The herring fishery is 

managed using annual catch limits 

(ACL) and Management Area sub-ACLs, 

possession limits, gear restrictions, and 

seasonal sub-ACL periods. In-season 

accountability measures (AM), 

including possession limit reductions 

and fishery closures, help ensure catch 

does not exceed the ACL or sub-ACLs. 

Reactive AMs require that when total 

catch exceeds an ACL or sub-ACL, the 

amount of the overage is deducted from 

the applicable sub-ACL and ACL in a 

subsequent fishing year. 

The Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC) completed the most 

recent Management Track Assessment 

of the Atlantic herring stock in June 

2020. The draft assessment summary 

report is available on the NEFSC 

website (https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.

noaa.gov/saw/sasi/sasi_report_

options.php). The assessment indicated 

that the stock is not subject to 

overfishing, but is now overfished. This 

represents a change from the 2018 

assessment, which indicated that the 

stock was not subject to overfishing and 

was approaching an overfished 

condition. The 2020 assessment also 

indicated that herring recruitment 

continues to be at historic low levels. 

Based on these findings, NMFS notified 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council in October 2020 that it must 

prepare and implement a new 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1