Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55645 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Article 4. Burning Regulations 

Rule 1. Open Burning 1

4–1–0.5 .................................... Definitions ............................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–1 ....................................... Scope ..................................... 02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–2 ....................................... Prohibition against open burning.02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–3 ....................................... Exemptions ............................. 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–4 ....................................... Emergency burning ................ 10/28/2011 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–4.1 .................................... Open burning approval; criteria and conditions.12/15/2002 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–4.2 .................................... Open burning; approval revocation.02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

4–1–4.3 .................................... Open burning approval; delegation of authority.02/10/2001 09/17/2014, [insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

Rule 2. Incinerators 

4–2–1 ....................................... Applicability ............................ 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531. 

4–2–2 ....................................... Incinerators ............................. 12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531. 

4–2–3 ....................................... Portable incinerators (Repealed).12/15/2002 11/30/2004, 69 FR 69531. 

* * * * * * * 

1EPA is approving Rule 1 for the counties of Adams, Allen, Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clay, Clinton, 

Crawford, Daviess Dearborn, Decatur, De Kalb, Delaware, Dubois, Elkhart, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fulton, Gibson, Grant, Greene, Hamilton, 

Hancock, Harrison, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Huntington, Jackson, Jasper, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Kosciusko, La Porte, Lagrange, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Martin, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Parke, Perry, 

Pike, Posey, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Ripley, Rush, St. Joseph, Scott, Shelby, Spencer, Starke, Steuben, Sullivan, Switzerland, Tippecanoe, 

Tipton, Union, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Wabash, Warren, Warrick, Washington, Wayne, Wells, White, and Whitley. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–22049 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686; FRL 9916–12– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Arizona; 

Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa Area 

to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision 

to the Arizona state implementation 

plan, a request from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) because the request meets 

the statutory requirements for 

redesignation under the Clean Air Act. 

EPA is also approving the State’s plan 

for maintaining the 1997 ozone standard 

in the Phoenix-Mesa area for 10 years 

beyond redesignation, and the 

inventories and related motor vehicle 

emissions budgets within the plan, 

because they meet the applicable 

requirements for such plans and 

budgets. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., Confidential Business 

Information). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3964, 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area is sometimes referred to as the Maricopa 

nonattainment area. The precise boundaries of the 

area are found at 40 CFR 81.303. 

2The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time 

frame. Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is 

formed from photochemical reactions in the 

atmosphere between volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence 

of sunlight. 

3The design value for the 8-hour standard is the 

three-year average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the 

worst-case monitoring site in the area. When the 

design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm 

(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix I) at each monitoring site within the 

area, the area is meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

4Our proposed rule also includes a table (at page 

16743, table 2) that shows that design values have 

been consistent with attainment of the 1997 ozone 

standard since the 2005–2007 period. 

5See letters from Michael Sundblom, Air Quality 

Director, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 

dated April 21, 2014; Eric C. Massey, Director, Air 

Quality Division, ADEQ, dated May 30, 2014; and 

Dennis Dickerson, Acting Director, Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department, dated June 3, 2014. 

B. Determination That the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

Under Section 110 and Part D 

C. Determination That the Improvement in 

Air Quality in the Area Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for 

the Area Under CAA Section 175A 

II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On March 26, 2014 (79 FR 16734), we 

proposed to take several related actions. 

First, under Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’) section 110(k)(3), EPA proposed 

to approve a March 23, 2009 submittal 

from the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) of the 

Maricopa Association of Governments’ 

(MAG’s) plan titled ‘‘MAG Eight-Hour 

Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

Nonattainment Area,’’ (February 2009) 

(‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan’’) 

as a revision to the Arizona state 

implementation plan (SIP).1

In connection with the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA proposed 

to find that the maintenance 

demonstration showing that the area 

will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS 2 for 10 years beyond 

redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and 

the contingency provisions meet all 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A. EPA also proposed to find 

adequate and approve the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan because 

we found that they meet the applicable 

transportation conformity requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

Second, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve 

ADEQ’s request that accompanied the 

submittal of the maintenance plan to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We 

did so based on our proposed approval 

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan, and our conclusion that the area 

has met the criteria for redesignation 

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

conclusion was based on our 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that 

relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are 

fully approved, that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions, 

and that Arizona has met all the section 

110 and part D requirements of the CAA 

that are applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area for 

purposes of redesignation. 

For the purposes of this final rule, we 

have summarized the basis for our 

findings in connection with the 

proposed approvals of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan and 

redesignation request. For a more 

detailed explanation as well as 

background information concerning the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA 

requirements for redesignation, and the 

ozone planning history of the PhoenixMesa area, please see our March 26, 

2014, proposed rule. 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

Prior to redesignating an area to 

attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) 

requires that we determine that the area 

has attained the NAAQS. For our 

proposed rule, consistent with the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 

50, EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air 

monitoring data for the monitoring 

period from 2010 through 2012, as 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database, and determined, based 

on the complete, quality-assured, and 

certified data for 2010–2012, that the 

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the 

design value 3 is less than 0.084 ppm.4

We also reviewed preliminary data from 

2013 and found that it was consistent 

with continued attainment of the 

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area. See 

pages 16737–16739 of our March 26, 

2014 proposed rule. 

In the proposed rule, we anticipated 

that by the time we took final action, 

data for year 2013 would be certified, 

and that preliminary data for a portion 

of year 2014 would be available. In 

anticipation of the newly certified and 

available data, we also indicated that, in 

our final action, we would update our 

attainment determination for the 

Phoenix-Mesa area based on complete, 

certified data for 2011–2013 and would 

review preliminary data for 2014. As 

expected, the relevant certifications 

have been submitted,5 and based on 

review of complete, certified data for 

2011–2013, we find that the 8-hour 

ozone design value for 2011–2013 for 

the Phoenix-Mesa area is 0.081 parts per 

million (ppm) based on the data from 

the monitoring site (North Phoenix) 

recording the highest design value 

among the various monitoring sites 

within the nonattainment area. Like the 

design value for 2010–2012 documented 

in the proposed rule, the design value 

for 2011–2013 is below 0.084 ppm, and 

is, thus, consistent with attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Preliminary 

data for 2014 are also consistent with 

continued attainment. 

B. Determination That the Area Has a 

Fully Approved SIP Meeting 

Requirements Applicable for Purposes 

of Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the 

CAA require EPA to determine that the 

area has a fully approved applicable SIP 

under section 110(k) that meets all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D for the purposes of 

redesignation. For the reasons 

summarized below, we find that the 

Phoenix-Mesa area has a fully approved 

applicable SIP under section 110(k) that 

meets all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D for the purposes 

of redesignation. See pages 16739– 

16741 of our March 26, 2014 proposed 

rule. 

With respect to section 110 of the 

CAA (General SIP Requirements), we 

conclude that the Phoenix-Mesa portion 

of the approved SIP, which includes 

rules pertaining to areas and sources 

under the jurisdiction of ADEQ, the 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD), and the Pinal 

County Air Quality Control District 

(PCAQCD), meet all SIP requirements 

for the Phoenix-Mesa area that are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Our conclusion in this 

regard is based on our review of the 

Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona 

SIP. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55647 

6Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive 

requirements for all nonattainment areas of any 

pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. 

Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment areas 

classified under subpart 2. 

7See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 

2001) upholding this interpretation. 

8 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012. 

9Specifically, we reviewed temperature data to 

determine if unusual meteorological conditions 

could have played a significant role in attaining the 

1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and 

determined that unusually favorable meteorology 

did not play a significant role. We also discussed 

the economic slowdown affecting the Phoenix-Mesa 

area starting in 2008 but noted that the downward 

trend in ozone concentrations had already been 

established well before that time. 

10See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (‘‘Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements’’). 

11The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

includes both specific contingency measures (such 

as the Gross Polluter Option for I/M Program 

Waivers, Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options, 

and Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Emissions 

Standards, among others) that have already been 

adopted and are being implemented early, and a 

mechanism to trigger the adoption of additional 

measures as needed. See pages 3–21 and 3–22 of the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

With respect to part D (of title I of the 

CAA), we reviewed the Phoenix-Mesa 

portion of the Arizona SIP for 

compliance with applicable 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

under both subparts 1 and 2.6 First, we 

note that EPA previously approved the 

Eight-Hour Attainment Plan for the 

Phoenix-Mesa area based upon the 

determination that it met all applicable 

requirements for such plans under 

subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 

FR 35285, June 13, 2012), including the 

requirements for an emissions 

inventory, for contingency measures, 

and for demonstrations of 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures, of reasonable further 

progress, and of attainment by the 

applicable attainment date. As to the 

other applicable subpart 1 requirements, 

we find that: 

• Arizona has met the nonattainment 

applicable New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 

eight-hour ozone nonattainment area 

because rules meeting the fundamental 

nonattainment NSR requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas are approved 

in the Arizona SIP; and 

• The requirements for transportation 

conformity SIPs under section 176(c) do 

not apply for the purposes of a 

redesignation request under section 

107(d)(3) because state conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation and 

federal conformity rules apply where 

state rules have not been approved.7

With respect to the requirements 

associated with subpart 2, we noted that 

the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was initially 

designated nonattainment under subpart 

1 of the CAA, but was classified as 

marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard under subpart 2 of 

part D of the CAA in May 2012,8 i.e., 

after Arizona’s submittal of the 

redesignation request. Under EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time a 

redesignation request is submitted, and 

in consideration of the inequity of 

applying retroactively any requirements 

that might in the future be applied, we 

determined that the additional 

requirements for marginal 

nonattainment areas do not apply to the 

Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area for the purposes of 

redesignation. 

C. Determination that the Improvement 

in Air Quality in the Area Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes 

redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment unless EPA determines that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable regulations. Based on 

our review of the control measures that 

provided for attainment of the nowrevoked one-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area and the 

additional control measures adopted 

and approved for attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, and based on 

our consideration of other factors such 

as weather patterns and economic 

activity,9 we find that the improvement 

in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa area 

is the result of permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions from a 

combination of numerous EPAapproved State and local stationary 

source and mobile source control 

measures, along with federal motor 

vehicle and nonroad control programs. 

See pages 16741–16742 of our March 

26, 2014 proposed rule. 

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for 

the Area Under CAA Section 175A 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) precludes 

EPA from redesignating an area from 

nonattainment to attainment unless EPA 

has fully approved a plan for 

maintaining compliance with the 

NAAQS. The required elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment are set forth in CAA section 

175A. As explained in the proposed 

rule, we interpret this section of the Act 

to require, in general, the following core 

elements: attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and contingency plan. 

Based on our review and evaluation of 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan, we conclude that it contains the 

core elements and meets the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. See 

pages 16742–16748 of our proposed 

rule. Our conclusion was based on the 

following findings: 

• The base year emissions inventory 

for 2005 is comprehensive, the methods 

and assumptions used by MAG to 

develop the 2005 emission inventory are 

reasonable, and the inventory 

reasonably estimates actual ozone 

season emissions in an attainment year. 

Moreover, we found that the 2005 

emissions inventories reflect the latest 

planning assumptions and emissions 

models available at the time the plan 

was developed, and provide a 

comprehensive and reasonably accurate 

basis upon which to forecast ozone 

precursor emissions for years 2019 and 

2025; 

• MAG’s photochemical modeling 

adequately demonstrates maintenance 

for at least 10 years after redesignation 

to attainment; 

• The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

plan indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD 

will continue to operate an appropriate 

air quality monitoring network to verify 

the continued attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS; 

• The continued operation of an 

ozone monitoring network and the 

requirement that MCAQD, with input 

from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, and MAG, 

must inventory emissions sources and 

report to EPA on a periodic basis 10 are 

sufficient for the purpose of verifying 

continued attainment; and 

• The contingency provisions of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan identify 

specific contingency measures,11

contain tracking and triggering 

mechanisms to determine when 

contingency measures are needed, 

contain a sufficient description of the 

process of recommending and 

implementing contingency measures, 

and contain specific timelines for 

action, and will, therefore, be adequate 

to ensure prompt correction of a 

violation and comply with the 

contingency-related requirements under 

CAA section 175A(d). 

Lastly, we find adequate and are 

approving the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) contained in the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan because 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

12The commenter cites two Federal Register 

documents: a proposed disapproval of 

redesignation requests and maintenance plans for 

Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City, 

Utah PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717, 

December 1, 2009), and a final rule requiring Utah 

to revise SSM provisions in its SIP (76 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011). 

13The Cement Kiln Decision involved a challenge 

to EPA’s National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR 

10006 (February 12, 2013), in which EPA included 

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emissions standards that result from 

unavoidable malfunctions. In the Cement Kiln 

Decision, the Court vacated the portion of the 2013 

rule pertaining to the affirmative defense. 

14Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp., 

No. W–12–cv–108, W.D. Tex., memorandum 

opinion and order filed March 28, 2014. 

15EPA has proposed, under CAA section 

110(k)(5), to find a number of SIPs, including the 

we find that they meet the 

transportation conformity adequacy 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

and (5). Specifically, we find that, 

among other things, the MVEBs, when 

considered with emissions from all 

other sources, would be consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for 

ten years beyond redesignation. 

II. Responses to Comments on the 

Proposed Rule 

EPA’s March 26, 2014 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. During this period, we received 

two comment letters. One comment 

letter was from a member of the public 

who supports EPA’s proposed actions. 

The other letter, from Sierra Club, 

opposes the proposed actions. A 

summary of Sierra Club’s comments and 

EPA’s responses are provided below. 

Comment: The Sierra Club contends 

that EPA must disapprove the State of 

Arizona’s redesignation request for the 

Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area because the 

inclusion of State and Maricopa County 

rules in the Arizona SIP that provide an 

affirmative defense potentially 

applicable to violations due to excess 

emissions that occur during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (‘‘SSM 

events’’) prevents EPA from determining 

that all applicable Clean Air Act 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

for redesignations have been met. 

Specifically, Sierra Club contends that 

the affirmative defense provisions in the 

Arizona SIP prevent EPA from 

determining: 

• That the improvement in air quality 

is due to enforceable reductions as 

required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 

because the affirmative defense 

provisions applicable during SSM 

events make emission reductions 

unenforceable; 

• that the maintenance plan 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS as required under sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(a) when 

emissions can increase above the 

emission inventory and allowable levels 

during SSM events; and 

• that the State has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D as 

required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 

and 110(a)(2)(A) because the emission 

limits in the SIP, at least during SSM 

events, are not enforceable because of 

the affirmative defense provisions. 

In support of this claim, the Sierra 

Club notes that EPA has found in other 

actions 12 that illegal SSM provisions 

related to emissions during SSM events 

constituted grounds for denying 

redesignation requests. Moreover, the 

Sierra Club notes that EPA has proposed 

a SIP call for both the State and 

Maricopa County affirmative defense 

provisions applicable during startup 

and shutdown events based on a finding 

that such provisions are inconsistent 

with the CAA. Sierra Club also cites a 

recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

decision (Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, No. 10–1371 (D.C. Cir., 

Apr. 18, 2014—‘‘Cement Kiln 

Decision’’),13 as standing for the 

principle that affirmative defense 

provisions, even those applicable only 

during malfunctions, are inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act because such provisions purport to 

alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of 

federal courts to assess penalties for 

violation in contravention of sections 

113 and 304. Lastly, Sierra Club 

includes a recent District Court opinion 

as an example of a citizen enforcement 

action undermined by the presence in a 

SIP of affirmative defense provisions 

applicable during malfunction events.14

Response: EPA does not agree that the 

affirmative defense provisions in the 

State and Maricopa County portions of 

the Arizona SIP provide a basis for 

disapproving the redesignation request 

for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment 

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

for the reasons set forth below. 

The CAA sets forth the general criteria 

for redesignation of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment in section 

107(d)(3)(E). These criteria include a 

determination by EPA that the area has 

attained the relevant standard [section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i)] and that EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area for 

purposes of redesignation [section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)]. EPA must also 

determine that the improvement in air 

quality is due to reductions that are 

permanent and enforceable [section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)], and that the EPA has 

fully approved a maintenance plan for 

the area under section 175A [section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. EPA addressed all 

these criteria in the proposal to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

area. The commenter alleges that EPA’s 

analysis is flawed because inclusion of 

the affirmative defense in the SIP makes 

the Agency’s determination under 

redesignation criteria at CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), (iv), and (v) invalid. 

As EPA stated in its proposed rule, 

CAA SIP requirements that are not 

linked with a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification, 

including certain section 110 

requirements, are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

purposes of evaluating compliance with 

the specific redesignation criteria in 

CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 79 

FR at 16739, FN 22. EPA maintains this 

interpretation because these 

requirements remain applicable after an 

area is redesignated to attainment. For at 

least the past 15 years, EPA has applied 

this interpretation with respect to 

requirements to which a state will be 

subject after the area is redesignated. 

See, e.g., 73 FR 22307, 22312–22313 

(April 25, 2008) (proposed redesignation 

of San Joaquin Valley; EPA concluded 

that section 110(a)(2)(D) transport 

requirements are not applicable under 

section 110(d)(3)(E)(v) because they 

‘‘continue to apply to a state regardless 

of the designation of any one particular 

area in the state’’); 62 FR 24826, 24829– 

24830 (May 7, 1997) (redesignation of 

Reading, Pennsylvania, Area; EPA 

concluded that the additional controls 

required by section 184 were not 

‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of section 

107(d)(3)(E) because ‘‘they remain in 

force regardless of the area’s 

redesignation status’’). Courts reviewing 

EPA’s interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ in 

the context of requirements applicable 

for redesignation have agreed with the 

Agency. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001). 

With respect to the affirmative defense 

provisions in the Arizona SIP, 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

will in no way relieve the State and 

Maricopa County of their 

responsibilities to remove the 

affirmative defense provisions from the 

SIP, if EPA later takes action to require 

correction of the Arizona SIP with 

respect to the affirmative defense 

provisions.15 Because we conclude that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55649 

Arizona SIP, substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements because the SIP provides an 

affirmative defense for excess emissions during 

certain SSM events. See 78 FR 12460, at 12533– 

12536 (February 22, 2013). 

16EPA approved the State’s SSM affirmative 

defense rules prior to designating the Phoenix-Mesa 

Area non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. See [Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) 

R18–2–310 (‘‘Affirmative Defenses for Excess 

Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’)] at 66 FR 48087 (September 18, 2001) 

and Maricopa County’s SSM affirmative defense 

rule [Maricopa County Rule 140 (‘‘Excess 

Emissions’’) at 67 FR 54957 (August 27, 2002). At 

the time EPA approved the affirmative defense 

provisions as a part of the SIP, the Agency believed 

them to be consistent with CAA requirements. 

17The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

defines ‘‘point sources’’ as stationary sources that 

emit 25 (English) tons per year or more of carbon 

monoxide, 10 tons per year or more of ozone 

precursors, or 5 tons or more of PM10 or ammonia 

compounds. See page 11 of appendix A, exhibit 1 

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

the affirmative defense provisions are 

not applicable requirements for 

purposes of this redesignation action, 

the existence of the affirmative defense 

provisions in the SIP does not 

undermine our conclusion that the 

redesignation criteria under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) have been met. 

The affirmative defense provisions at 

issue provide an affirmative defense to 

monetary penalties for violations due to 

excess emissions for certain categories 

of stationary sources during qualifying 

SSM events.16 The Sierra Club 

maintains that the inclusion of these 

provisions in the SIP renders the 

emissions limits in the nonattainment 

SIP and maintenance plan that are 

subject to the affirmative defense 

provision unenforceable, thus 

undermining the Agency’s conclusion 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions as required 

under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), and the 

conclusion that the maintenance plan 

will ensure maintenance of the NAAQS 

prospectively as required under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv). The Sierra Club did not 

explain the precise basis for its claim 

that potential assertion of the 

affirmative defenses at issue would 

render the existing EPA approved SIP 

inconsistent with the criteria under 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv), and 

thus, in effect, invites EPA to determine 

that the existence in the SIP of 

affirmative defense provisions, without 

regard to the types of sources relied 

upon for attainment and maintenance, 

per se means that EPA may not make a 

positive determination with respect to 

the redesignation criteria under CAA 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv). We do 

not believe that the redesignation 

criteria must be interpreted so narrowly, 

but may be interpreted to account for 

the larger planning context in a given 

area. 

As noted above, the affirmative 

defense provisions in the Arizona SIP 

purport to allow sources to avoid 

monetary penalties for violations of an 

applicable emissions limit under certain 

limited circumstances, but those 

provisions do not prohibit the state, 

EPA or citizens from seeking injunctive 

relief to force a source that is violating 

the applicable SIP emission limitations 

to take steps to address the noncompliance. Penalties are not the only 

means to address exceedances of a SIP 

emission limitation, even though the 

possibility or threat of penalties 

provides deterrence against violations 

and may cause a source to agree more 

readily to correct a problem 

prospectively. The continued 

availability of injunctive relief supports 

EPA’s contention that the emissions 

limits in the SIP are sufficiently 

enforceable for purposes of 

redesignation, even though EPA now 

believes that such affirmative defense 

provisions in SIPs are not consistent 

with the CAA and must be revised. 

Second, attainment of the 1997 ozone 

standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and 

maintenance of the standard through 

2025 primarily rely upon emission 

limits on mobile and area sources to 

which the affirmative defense 

provisions in the Arizona SIP do not 

apply. For example, all of the specific 

control measures relied upon by the 

state for numeric credit for attainment 

and maintenance planning purposes, 

with very minor exceptions, apply to 

mobile and area sources. See figures ES– 

3 and ES–4 on pages ES–4 and ES–5 in 

the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for 

the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 

2007); and figures ES–2 and ES–3 on 

pages ES–5 and ES–6 in the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. These control 

measures relate to nonroad equipment 

standards, fuel formulations, and 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

requirements rather than stationary 

source controls. 

This is not to say that controls on 

stationary source are not an important 

part of the overall ozone control strategy 

in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Rather, the 

point is that the extent to which 

individual stationary sources, which 

might assert an affirmative defense for 

an SSM event that would likely have 

occurred even in the absence of an 

affirmative defense, can affect regional 

ozone concentrations in the PhoenixMesa area is likely limited. For instance, 

based on the emissions inventory for 

this area, the highest-emitting 

individual stationary sources in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area emit approximately 

0.80 metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOC 

and 2.55 mtpd of NOX based on the 

individual facility data for 2005 

compiled in appendix A, exhibit 1 of 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan. Such emissions constitute 

approximately 0.12% and 0.94% of the 

overall regional inventory for VOC and 

NOX, respectively. 

Moreover, overall point source 17

emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area 

constitute only 1.7% and 4.0% of VOC 

and NOX emissions, respectively, based 

on the 2005 inventories presented on 

pages ES–8 and ES–9 of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. These values 

underscore the importance of mobile 

and area (and biogenic) sources, to 

which the affirmative defense 

provisions do not apply, to the regional 

inventory, and by extension, to regional 

ozone concentrations. The current 

design value for the Phoenix-Mesa area, 

meanwhile, which is equal to the 

projected design value, is 0.081 ppm, 

five percent below the applicable 

NAAQS. Thus, the hypothetical 

potential for any one individual point 

source, or even small subset of such 

sources, to cause a violation of the 1997 

ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa 

area due to higher emissions that would 

likely have occurred in the absence of 

the affirmative defense provisions, is 

quite low. For these reasons, we 

conclude that the affirmative defense 

provisions in the Arizona SIP do not 

make the emission limits relied upon for 

attainment and maintenance 

unenforceable for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv) or 

otherwise undermine EPA’s approval, 

finalized herein, of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan and related 

grant of ADEQ’s redesignation request 

for the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997 

ozone standard. 

Sierra Club also contends that EPA 

has previously found in other actions 

that illegal SSM provisions constitute 

grounds for denying redesignation 

requests and references EPA’s December 

1, 2009 proposed disapproval of Utah’s 

redesignation requests for Salt Lake 

County, Utah County, and Ogden City 

PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 

62717). However, this aspect of the 

proposed disapproval, which was one of 

many deficiencies identified by EPA, 

was based on the state’s inclusion in the 

submittal of new SIP revisions that 

would provide blanket exemptions from 

compliance with emission standards 

during SSM events. In the redesignation 

at issue here, the state did not seek to 

create new SIP provisions that are 

inconsistent with CAA requirements as 

part of its redesignation request or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

18See September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, at page 3; 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d, 984, 989–990 (6th Cir. 1998); 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); 68 FR 

25418, 25426, May 12, 2003. 

19National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland 

Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013). 

maintenance plan, and the already 

existing affirmative defense provisions 

do not purport to preclude all potential 

forms of enforcement, or to provide a 

blanket exemption from compliance. 

A more analogous action by EPA is 

the Agency’s final redesignation of the 

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

(OH–WV–KY) nonattainment area to 

attainment for the fine particulate 

matter standard (PM2.5) standard. See 77 

FR 76883 (December 31, 2012). In 

response to comments challenging the 

proposed redesignation due to the 

presence of certain SSM provisions in 

the Ohio SIP, EPA concluded that the 

SSM provisions in the Ohio SIP did not 

provide a basis for disapproving the 

redesignation request. Id., at 76891, 

76892. In so concluding, EPA noted that 

the SSM provisions and related SIP 

limits at issue in that state were 

approved into the SIP and thus were 

permanent and enforceable for the 

purposes of meeting the criteria for 

redesignation, and that EPA had other 

statutory mechanisms for addressing 

any problems associated with the SSM 

measures. EPA emphasizes that the 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

does not relieve Arizona of the 

responsibility to remove legally 

deficient SIP provisions either 

independently or pursuant to a SIP call. 

To the contrary, EPA maintains that it 

may determine that the affirmative 

defense provisions are contrary to CAA 

requirements and take action to require 

correction of those provisions even after 

the area has been redesignated to 

attainment. This interpretation is 

consistent with prior redesignation 

actions. See Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Growth Alliance v. EPA, 114 F.3d 984 

(6th Cir. 1998) (Redesignation of 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area 

determined valid even though the 

Agency subsequently proposed a SIP 

call to require Ohio and other states to 

revise their SIPs to mitigate ozone 

transport to other states). 

As of this time, the State’s and 

Maricopa County’s affirmative defense 

provisions are part of the approved SIP, 

and EPA is not required to re-evaluate 

the validity of previously approved SIP 

provisions as part of this 

redesignation.18 If approved SIP 

provisions are separately determined to 

be deficient, EPA is able to evaluate 

those concerns in the appropriate 

context, and can, if necessary, issue a 

‘‘SIP call,’’ which triggers a requirement 

for states to submit a corrective SIP 

revision. 

EPA acknowledges that we are 

currently evaluating a petition that 

pertains to EPA’s SSM Policy that 

interprets the requirements of the CAA 

with respect to the proper treatment of 

excess emissions during SSM events in 

SIP provisions. As part of that process, 

EPA is separately evaluating the issue of 

whether states have authority to create, 

and EPA has authority to approve, any 

affirmative defense provisions in SIPs. 

On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a 

‘‘Petition to Find Inadequate and 

Correct Several State Implementation 

Plans under Section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown, 

Malfunction, and/or Maintenance 

Provisions.’’ The petition includes 

interrelated requests concerning the 

treatment of excess emissions in state 

rules by sources during periods of SSM. 

On February 22, 2013, EPA proposed to 

grant in part and deny in part the 

request in the petition to rescind its 

policy interpreting the CAA to allow 

states to have appropriately drawn SIP 

provisions that provide affirmative 

defenses to monetary penalties for 

violations during periods of SSM (78 FR 

12460). EPA also proposed either to 

grant or to deny the petition with 

respect to the specific existing SIP 

provisions related to SSM events in 

each of the 39 states identified by the 

Sierra Club as inconsistent with the 

CAA. In this context, EPA has proposed 

to grant the petition with respect to both 

the State’s and Maricopa County’s 

affirmative defense provisions for 

startup and shutdown periods, and to 

deny the petition with respect to the 

arguments concerning the agencies’ 

affirmative defense provisions for 

periods of malfunction. Under EPA’s 

February 2013 proposal, a schedule has 

been proposed for states to submit 

corrective SIP revisions. 

The Sierra Club also argues that the 

Cement Kiln Decision, issued by the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 

18, 2014, prevents EPA from approving 

any affirmative defense provisions in 

SIPs because they are inconsistent with 

CAA provisions relevant to citizen 

enforcement under sections 113 and 

304. In the decision, the D.C. Circuit 

vacated affirmative defense provisions 

applicable to violations due to 

unavoidable malfunctions provided in 

EPA’s standard for emissions from 

Portland cement plants.19 The court 

concluded that sections 113 and 304 

preclude EPA from creating such 

affirmative defense provision in its own 

regulations because it would purport to 

alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of 

federal courts to assess civil penalties 

for violations of CAA requirements. EPA 

is currently analyzing this opinion and 

is evaluating its impact on our 

interpretation of the CAA regarding the 

permissibility of affirmative defenses in 

SIP provisions, including those 

applicable to malfunctions. In the event 

that EPA determines that no affirmative 

defense provisions are permissible in 

SIPs, the Agency will have the authority 

and discretion to require the states to 

remove deficient provisions from the 

SIPs pursuant to section 110(k)(5). EPA 

maintains that this concern is better 

addressed through the exercise of that 

authority, than through its authority to 

redesignate areas that otherwise attain 

the NAAQS and meet the requirements 

of section 107(d)(3), consistent with 

EPA’s long standing approach to 

evaluating requests for redesignation to 

attainment. 

In conclusion, with regard to the 

redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa area, 

Arizona has a fully approved SIP. The 

provisions that the Sierra Club objects to 

do not preclude EPA’s determination 

that the emissions reductions that have 

provided for attainment and that will 

provide for maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard in the PhoenixMesa area are permanent and 

enforceable, as those terms are meant in 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, or that the 

state has met all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D for the purposes of redesignation. In 

addition, the area has attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard since 2007, and 

has demonstrated it can maintain 

compliance with the standard for at 

least 10 years after redesignation to 

attainment. EPA notes, moreover, that it 

is approving contingency provisions 

under section 175A(d) as part of the 

area’s maintenance plan. The 

contingency element of the maintenance 

plan provides assurance that the area 

can promptly correct a violation that 

might occur after redesignation. Finally, 

EPA is addressing the affirmative 

defense provisions in the Arizona SIP in 

separate action or actions, and 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

will in no way relieve the State and 

Maricopa County of their 

responsibilities to remove the 

affirmative defense provisions from the 

SIP, if EPA later takes final action to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55651 

20As noted in our proposed rule at 79 FR 16736, 

EPA has lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to 

0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour ozone standard), and 

has designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

Today’s action redesignates the Phoenix-Mesa area 

as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

only. The Phoenix-Mesa area remains 

nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard until redesignated for that standard. 

require such revisions to the Arizona 

SIP. 

III. Final Action 

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

the reasons provided above and in the 

proposed rule, EPA is approving 

ADEQ’s submittal dated March 23, 2009 

of the MAG Eight-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

Nonattainment Area (February 2009) 

(‘‘Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan’’) as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. In connection with the 

Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the 

maintenance demonstration showing 

how the area will continue to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years 

beyond redesignation (i.e., through 

2025) and the contingency provisions 

meet all applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A. 

EPA is also finding adequate and 

approving the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) from the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes 

because we find that they meet the 

applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

The MVEBs are 43.8 metric tons per day 

(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOX. 

They include a 10% safety margin, and 

correspond to the peak episode day 

(Thursday) in June 2025 that was used 

to model maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area in the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

These new MVEBs become effective 

on the date of publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2)) and must be used by U.S. 

Department of Transportation and the 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

for future transportation conformity 

analyses for the Phoenix-Mesa area with 

applicable horizon years after 2024. The 

existing 2008 VOC and NOX MVEBs 

established in MAG’s approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan also 

remain in effect. On-road motor vehicle 

emissions in any required analysis years 

up to and including 2024 cannot exceed 

levels established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs. 

Second, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), we are approving ADEQ’s 

request, which accompanied the 

submittal of the maintenance plan, to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.20

We are doing so based on our 

conclusion that the area has met the five 

criteria for redesignation under CAA 

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

this regard is in turn based on our 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS; that relevant 

portions of the Arizona SIP are fully 

approved; that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions; 

that Arizona has met all requirements 

applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa area 

with respect to section 110 and part D 

of the CAA; and that the area has a fully 

approved maintenance plan meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A (i.e., 

the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

approved herein). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment under section 

107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying 

approval of a maintenance plan as a SIP 

revision under section 110(k)(3) are 

actions that affect the status of a 

geographical area and do not impose 

any additional regulatory requirements 

on sources beyond those imposed by 

State law. Redesignation to attainment 

does not in and of itself create any new 

requirements, but rather results in the 

applicability of requirements contained 

in the CAA for areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 

the Administrator is required to approve 

a SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, these actions merely 

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, these 

actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. Nonetheless, in accordance 

with EPA’s 2011 Policy on Consultation 

and Coordination with Tribes, EPA has 

discussed the actions with the three 

Tribes located within the Phoenix-Mesa 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area: The 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt 

River-Pima Maricopa Indian 

Community, and the Tohono O’odham 

Nation. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 17, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: August 20, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(160) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(160) The following plan was 

submitted on March 23, 2009, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) MAG Eight-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 

Nonattainment Area (February 2009), 

adopted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on March 23, 

2009, excluding the appendices. 

* * * * * 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 81.303 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the table heading 

‘‘Arizona—Ozone (Arizona–1997 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘Arizona–1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)’’; and 

■ b. In the newly headed table 

‘‘Arizona–1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary),’’ under 

‘‘Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:’’ revising the 

entries for ‘‘Maricopa County (part)’’ 

and ‘‘Pinal County (part)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA–1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and Secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/ 

classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: 

Maricopa County (part) ..................................................................................... 10/17/2014 Attainment.


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55653 

ARIZONA–1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and Secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/ 

classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

T1N, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N, R3E; 

T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E; T1N, R1W; T1N, R2W; T1N, 

R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, 

R3E; T2N, R4E; T2N, R5E, T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; 

T2N, R10E; T2N, R11E; T2N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); 

T2N, R13E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R1W; T2N, R2W; 

T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N, R7W; T3N, R1E; 

T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E; T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, 

R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, 

R11E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E (except that portion 

in Gila County); T3N, R1W; T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N, 

R5W; T3N, R6W; T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E; 

T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R11E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, 

R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R1W; T4N, R2W; T4N, 

R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, 

R3E; T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; T5N, R7E; T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E 

(except that portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W; 

T6N, R1E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E; 

T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E; T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except 

that portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, R1W (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, 

R3W; T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, R1E (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T7N, R2E; (except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R3E; 

T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E; T7N, R9E (except 

that portion in Gila County); T7N, R1W (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T7N, R2W (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R2E 

(except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in 

Yavapai County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, 

R5E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R6E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T8N, 

R9E (except that portion in Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1S, R1E (except 

that portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that portion in Pinal 

County and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, 

R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, 

R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T2S, 

R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W; T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; 

T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; 

T3S, R5W; T4S, 1E; T4S, R1W; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S, 

R5W. 

Pinal County (part) ................................................................................................... 10/17/2014 Attainment.

Apache Junction: T1N, R8E; T1S, R8E (Sections 1 through 12) 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–22029 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0324; FRL–9915–81] 

Butanedioic Acid, 2-methylene-, 

Polymer With 2,5-fuandione, Sodium 

and Ammonium Salts, Hydrogen 

Peroxide-Initiated; Tolerance 

Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of butanedioic 

acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 2,5- 

furandione, sodium and ammonium 

salts, hydrogen peroxide-initiated when 

used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide 

formulation. Technology Sciences 

Group Inc. on behalf of Specialty 

Fertilizer Products LLC. submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

requesting an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES