+(,121/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 13425 2005 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Aug 4 16:18:33 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

language permit the FDIC to address the

meaning.of Section 104(d) for a state

bank confronting state laws outside its

home state that disadvantage it by

putting it in a different legal or

competitive position than its national

bank or in-state state bank competitors.

The following specific items might be

covered in an FDIC rule or statement of

policy:

* The rule should state that the

Section 104(d) preemption applies to

insured banks, and to their subsidiaries,

affiliates and associated persons.

* The rule should define a "person"

to include a depository institution,

subsidiary, affiliate, and associated

person.

* The rule should state that in view

of the breadth of the nondiscrimination

requirements stated in Section 104(d)

the word "restrict" in Section 104(d)(1)

is to be read broadly to include any state

law, rule, interpretation or action that

calls for any limitation .or requirement.

Any state law that "restricts" but is

nondiscriminatory under Section

104(d)(4) is not preempted under

Section 104(d). By the same token, any

state law that "restricts" and is

discriminatory under Section 104(d)(4) -

is preempted under Section 104(d).

e The rule should address each of the

four nondiscrimination provisions in

Section 104(d)(4) to confirm that each is

a distinct test and that any state law or

action that fails any one test is

preempted.

* The rule should address the scope

of "actions" in Section 104(d)(4) to

include all types of formal or informal

administrative actions by any state or*

local governmental entity, including

decisions with respect to civil

enforcement of state rules.

* The rule should address Section

104(d)(4)(D)(i) in light of the terms used

in subparagraph (ii) to specify that

subparagraph (i) addresses treatment

under state law of an out-of-state

insured state bank, which is plainly an

"insured depository institution," that is

different from the treatment of any

national bank or in-state state bank and

banks, which is an "other person

engaged in the same activity" under

these provisions. It should also specify

that this discrimination can take various

forms, including state laws, rules, or "actions" that treat out-of-state state

banks or their subsidiaries differently

from in-state or federal institutions,

whether expressly (e.g., through a state

law exemption for federal institutions,

addresses "other persons engaged in the same

activity", while Subparagraph (ii) addresses "other

persons engaged in the same activity that are not

depository institutions or affiliates thereof."

but not out-of-state state banks insured

institutions), by operation of law (e.g.,

when state law is preempted for

rational banks or federal thrifts, and

federal credit unions, but not for out-ofstate state banks), or by an

administrative determination to enforce

a state rule against an out-of-state state

bank or affiliate, but not against a

federal entity. The rule could give examples. 9 The rule should define "state law"

to include laws, ordinances, rules, etc.

of political subdivisions (including any

county, municipality, etc.).

5. The FDIC Should Implement Section

27 of the FDI Act by Adopting a Rule

Parallel to the Rules Promulgated by the

OCC and OTS

The scope and implementation of the

express preemption for the "interest

rate" charged in interstate lending

transactions by state and national banks

under Section 27 of the FDI Act and

Section 85 of the National Bank Act

have been authoritatively addressed by

the courts 2 9 and in agency

interpretations. 30 Nevertheless, both the

OCC and OTS have adopted rules

codifying the scope of the respective

statutory provisions. We request that the

FDIC adopt parallel provisions by rule

so that state banks will operate in a

matching legal framework under these

parallel statutes.

The Roundtable appreciates the

FDIC's consideration of this petition.

We recognize that it is very broad and

asks the FDIC to undertake a major

rulemaking. We believe that such an

effort is urgently needed to preserve a

strong dual banking system, to maintain

safety and soundness, and to ensure that

it is attractive to both large and small

banks. Such a system is an integral,

essential part of the framework for

banking in the United States. While we

strongly support the development of

interstate banking and federal

preemption over the last decade, we

believe that the modernization of

American banking requires a parallel

modernization of the state half of the

dual banking system. Since the issues

concern interstate business and

preemption, the needed actions must

come at the federal level. As discussed

above, we believe that Congress has

given the FDIC both the tools and

responsibility to address these needs.

The Roundtable and.its membersstand ready to work with the FDIC and

29 Greenwood Trust Co. v. Moss., 971 F.2d 818

(1st Cir. 1992), Smileyv. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735

(1996).

30 See FDIC General Counsel Opinions 10 and 11.

its staff to achieve these important

objectives. If you have any further

questions or comments, please do not

hesitate to contact me or John Beccia at

(202) 289-4322.

Sincerely,

Richard M. Whiting,

Executive Director and General Counsel.

cc: Chairman Donald E. Powell, William F.

Kroener Ill, Esq.

[FR Doc. 05-5499 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ131-0078; FRL-7887-1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality's submittals of

revisions to the Arizona state

implementation plan that include

substitution of the clean fuel fleet

program requirement with the cleaner

burning gasoline program, adoption of

the serious area 1-hour ozone plan, and

adoption of the 1-hour ozone

maintenance plan for the Phoenix

(Arizona) metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area. We are also -

proposing to approve Arizona's request

to redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan

1-hour ozone nonattainment area from

nonattainment to attainment. EPA

proposes these actions pursuant to those

provisions of the Clean Air Act that

obligate the agency to take action on

submittals of revisions to state

implementation plans and requests for

redesignation. In addition, under

section 107 of the Clean Air Act, we are

proposing to revise the boundary of the

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation. EPA is

proposing this last action consistent

with the Federal trust responsibility to

the Tribes and for the purpose of

relieving the Agency or the Gila River

Indian Community of the need to

promulgate and implement plans and

measures for the Community that are

not needed for attainment or

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour

ozone national ambient air quality

standard.

13425

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13425 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

DATES: Written comments must be

received at the address below on or

before April 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Formal written comments

should be mailed or emailed to Wienke

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901,

tax.wienke@epa.gov. Comments may

also be submitted through the Federal

Register Web site at http://

www.regulations.gov. We prefer

electronic comments.

You can inspect copies of EPA's

Federal Register document at our

Region 9 office during normal business

hours (see address above). Due to

increased security, we suggest that you

call at least 24 hours prior to visiting the

Regional Office so that we can make

arrangements to have someone meet

you. The Federal Register document is

also available as an electronic file on

EPA's Region 9 Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

You may inspect and copy the

rulemaking docket for this notice at the

following location during business

hours.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning

Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the address

listed below:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street,

First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007,

Phone: (602) 771-2217.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

Environmental Protection Agency,

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

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

www.epa.gov/regiono9/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

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

Table of Contents

I Summary of Today's Proposed Action

Il. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in the

Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment

Area

III. The CAA's Requirements for

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans

IV. EPA's Review of the MAG 1-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan's Compliance With the CAA's

Requirements for Ozone Redesignation

Requests and Maintenance Plans

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour

Ozone NAAQS

1. Adequate Monitoring Network

2. Attainment of the Standard

3. Monitoring Results

B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved

SIP Under Section 110(k)

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable -

Reductions in Emissions

D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D of the CAA

1. Section 110 Requirements

2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment

Areas a. Section 172 Requirements

b. Section 176 Requirements c. Section 182 Requirements

E. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved

Maintenance Plan Meeting the

Requirements of Section 175A

1. Emissions Inventory

2. Maintenance Demonstration

3. Monitoring Network

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

5. Contingency Plan

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

(MVEBs)

8. Conclusion

V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix

Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area

A. Background

B. EPA Review of the Community's

Request

C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the

Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan 1-

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

VI. Proposed Action

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve, under

sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), the State

of Arizona's 1998 request to "opt-out"

of the clean fuel fleet (CFF) program and

to approve the cleaner burning gasoline

(CBG) program as a substitute measure.

We are also proposing to approve, under

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the State's

2000 submittal of the Final Serious Area

Ozone State Implementation Plan for

Maricopa County ("Serious Area Ozone

Plan"), which provides a demonstration

of compliance with requirements under

the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") for the

Phoenix metropolitan "serious" 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area.

We are also proposing to approve,

under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and

110(k)(3), the State's 2004 submittal of

the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan for the

'Maricopa County Nonattainment Area

("Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan"), which was

developed and adopted by the Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG) as

meeting CAA requirements for

redesignation requests and maintenance

plans. EPA is proposing to determine

that the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area has fully met the

requirements for redesignation found at

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

redesignation of an area from

nonattainment to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS). However, this

proposal is contingent upon final

approval by EPA of three separate

proposed rulemakings involving two

Maricopa County rules, a negative

declaration, and a set of permit

conditions imposing "reasonably

available control technology" on a

specific stationary source. As part of our

approval of the maintenance plan, we

are proposing to approve the 2006 and

2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets

(MVEBs) for VOC and NOx in the

submitted maintenance plan for

transportation conformity purposes.

In addition, we are proposing, under

section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, to revise

the boundary of the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation. This proposed

action would add the Maricopa County

portion of the Reservation to the current "unclassifiable/attainment" area within

the State of Arizona for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. The effect of this action

would be to relieve the Agency and the

Community of the need to develop and

implement plans and measures that are

not needed for attainment or

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.

II. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in

the Phoenix Metropolitan

Nonattainment Area

Under s'ection 107(d) of the CAA, as

amended in 1977, Maricopa County was

designated as a 1-hour oxidant (later

ozone) nonattainment area in March

1978 (43 FR 8962). Originally, the

nonattainment area was county-wide,

but EPA later approved a State request

to limit the nonattainment area to a

subregion within Maricopa County that

was defined by the boundaries of the

Maricopa Association of Governments'

(MAG) Urban Planning Area. See 44 FR

16388, 16393 (March 19, 1979). We refer

to this area herein as the "Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area" or the "Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area," and

we note that the boundary of this

nonattainment area has remained

defined by reference to the MAG urban

planning area from 1979 through the

present time. However, we are

proposing today to revise the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area boundary to exclude

the Gila River Indian Reservation (see

Section V of this proposed rule).

On November 15, 1990, the CAA

Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

13426

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13426 2005
Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005 /Proposed Rules

Under the Act, as amended in 1990, the

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area remained

nonattainment by operation of law, and

under section 107(d)(4)(A) of the

amended Act, the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area was further

classified as a "moderate" ozone

nonattainment area based on ozone

monitoring data during the 1987-1989

period. See 56 FR 56694, 56717

(November 6, 1991). Because attainment

was'not achieved by November 15, 1996

(the CAA attainment date for "moderate" ozone nonattainment areas),

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area was reclassified to "serious," effective February 13, 1998,

with a new attainment date of

November 15, 1999. See 62 FR 60001

-(November 6, 1997) and 63 FR 7290

(February 13, 1998).

In connection with one of the

requirements for "moderate" ozone

nonattainment areas, the State of •

Arizona submitted the initial 15 percent

Rate of Progress plan (15 percent ROP

plan) for the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area via the Maricopa

Association of Governments 1993 Ozone

Plan for the Maricopa County Area

(November 1993) on November 15,

1993, and an Addendum (March 1994)

to that plan on April 8, 1994. On April

13, 1994, EPA found the initial plan

(including the Addendum) incomplete

because it failed to include in fully

adopted and enforceable form all of the

measures relied upon in the 15 percent

ROP demonstration. This

incompleteness finding started the 18-

month sanction clock in CAA section

179 and the two year clock under

section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a

federal implementation plan (FIP)

covering the 15 percent ROP

requirement. Subsequently in November

1994 and April 1995, Arizona submitted

an attainment plan for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area which

updated the 15 percent ROP

demonstration. On May 12, 1995, we

found the revised 15 percent ROP plan

and the attainment plan complete,

turning off the sanctions clock;

however, under section 110(c), the FIP

clock continued until EPA approved the

15 percent ROP plan.

In August 1996, EPA was sued by the

American Lung Association of Arizona,

ALAA v. Browner, No. CIV 96-1856

PHX ROS (D.Ariz.). This case sought to

enforce EPA's obligation under CAA

section 110(c) to promulgate a PIP for

the 15 percent ROP requirement. On'

July 8, 1997, a consent decree was filed

with the U.S. District Court for the

District of Arizona establishing a

schedule ofiJanuary 20,; 1998 for.

proposing and May 18, 1998 for

promulgating a 15 percent ROP plan.

Under the consent decree, EPA's

obligation to promulgate a 15 percent

ROP plan was relieved to the extent that

we had approved State measures. EPA

determined in its final rule that the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area had in place or would have in place

sufficient control measures to meet the

15 percent ROP requirement for volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor

emission to ozone, under CAA section

182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See

63 FR 28898 (May 27, 1998), as amended at64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).

In February 2000, the State of Arizona

requested that EPA make a finding that

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area had attained the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable "serious" area attainment date of

November 15, 1999 based on 1997-1999

ozone monitoring data. In May of 2000,

we proposed such a finding (see 65 FR

31859, May 19, 2000) and

approximately one year later, we

published a final attainment

determination for the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30,

2001).

On December 7, 1998, in connection

with one of the requirements for

"serious" ozone nonattainment areas,

the State submitted to EPA a SIP

revision opting out of the Clean Fuel

Fleet program requirement and

requesting EPA approval of its interim

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG)

program as a substitute program. On,

June 7, 1999, the revision was found to

be complete by operation of law

pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria

set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

In today's notice, we are proposed to

approve this request.

On December 14, 2000, the State

submitted the Final Serious Area Ozone

State Implementation Plan for Maricopa

County ("Serious Area Ozone Plan") to

EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP.

This plan was found to be complete by

operation of law on June 14, 2001.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) prepared the Serious

Area Ozone Plan, and in doing so,

anticipated a positive attainment

finding for the Phoenix metropolitan

nohattainment area based on 1997-1999

ozone monitoring data. The Serious

Area Ozone Plan includes a complete

emissions inventory for year 1996, and

describes the State's compliance with

CAA requirements for "serious" ozone

nonattainment areas, including the

requirements for enhanced monitoring.

In today's notice, we are proposing to

approve, the Serious Area Ozone.Plan,

for the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area. In earlier actions, we have already

approved revisions to Arizona's Cleaner

Burning Gasoline (CBG) program (69 FR

10161, March 4, 2004) and to Arizona's

Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI)

Program (68 FR 2912, January 22, 2003)

as well as many of Maricopa County's

VOC RACT rules. (The Federal Register

citations and effective dates for these

rules are listed later in this notice in

Table 3.) These programs, as revised, are

the principal State and local controls

relied on in the Serious Area Ozone

Plan.

On April 21, 2004, the State

submitted the One-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

County Nonattainment Area

(Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan) to EPA as a revision

to the Arizona SIP. This plan was found

to be complete by operation of law on

October 21, 2004. The Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG)

prepared the Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan, which relies on

continuation of the control measures

cited above in connection with the

Serious Area Ozone Plan but also

includes additional control measures

including coordination of traffic signal

systems, tougher enforcement of vehicle

registration and emission test

compliance, development of intelligent

transportation systems, and a new

Maricopa County rule governing VOC

emissions from aerospace

manufacturing and rework operations.

The plan includes contingency

measures to remedy any future

violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,

and includes VOC and NOx MVEBs for

2006 and 2015 for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area. In

today's notice, we are proposing to

approve the Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area.

Our proposed approvals of the

Serious Area Ozone Plan and the

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan are contingent upon final EPA

approval of certain otherrulemakings

described in more detail later in this

notice. EPA notes that the Phoenix-Mesa

metropolitan area has been designated

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone

NAAQS, and is subject to additional

requirements as a result. See 69 FR

23858, 23879 (April 30, 2004). Final

approval of this proposal would change

the official designation-for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81

for the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area from nonattainment

to attainment but would hot affect the

413427

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13427 2005
Federal. Register / Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, -March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules

8-hour ozone nonattainment area

designation for the Phoenix-Mesa area.

III. The CAA's Requirements for

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans

The CAA provides the requirements

for redesignating a nonattainment area

to attainment. Specifically, section

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

providing that the following conditions

are met: (1) The Administrator

determines that the area has attained the

applicable NAAQS; (2) the

Administrator has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the

area under section 110(k); (3) the

Administrator 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 pollutant

control regulations and other permanent

and enforceable reductions; (4) the

Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of section

175A; and, (51 the State containing such

area has met all requirements applicable

to the area under section 110 and part

D. EPA provided guidance on

redesignations in the General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

CAA Amendments of 1990,, on April 16,

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR

18070).

EPA has provided further guidance on

processing redesignation requests in the

following documents:

e "Maintenance Plans for

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas",

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs'

Branch, April 30, 1992 (Helms memo

1992a); .,Contingency Measures for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations", Memorandum from G.

T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,

1992 (Helms memo 1992b);

* "Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment", Memorandum from John

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality

Management Division, September 4,

1992 (Calcagni memo 1992a);

* "State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines",

Memorandum from John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, October 28, 1992 (Calcagni

memo 1992b);

* "State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment-of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After

November 15, 1992", Memorandum

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro

memo);

* "Part D New Source Review (part D

NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment", Memorandum from Mary

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994

(Nichols memo); and e "Reasonable Further Progress,

Attainment Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard",

Memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz

memo).

IV. EPA's Review of the MAG 1-Hour

Ozone Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan's Compliance With

the CAA's Requirements for Ozone

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans

EPA believes the State of Arizona has

demonstrated that the area meets all of

the applicable criteria for redesignation

to attainment as specified in Section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS

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

states that for an area to be redesignated

to attainment, the Administrator must

determine that the area has attained the

applicable NAAQS. In this case, the

applicable NAAQS is the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS.

1. Adequate Monitoring Network

The CAA requires States to establish

and operate air monitoring networks to

compile data on ambient air quality for

all criteria pollutants. See section

110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Our

regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish

specific regulatory requirements for

operating air quality surveillance

networks to measure ambient

concentrations of ozone, including

measurement method requirements,

network design, quality assurance

procedures, and in the case of large

urban areas, the minimum number of

monitoring sites designated as National

Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS).

For this 'projposed action, we are

discussing the adequacy of the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area

monitoring network to support our

finding that the Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan appropriately

evaluates the 1-hour ozone problem in

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area. Reliable ambient

data are necessary to validate the base

year air quality modeling which in turn

is necessary to assure a sound

maintenance demonstration. As it existed in the 2000 to 2002

period, the ozone ambient air

monitoring network consisted of four

'National Air Monitoring Stations

(NAMS), 14 State and Local Air

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), and three

Special Purpose Monitors (SPM)

operated by the Maricopa County,

Environmental Services Department

(MCESD) and the Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

Figure 2-1 on page 2-6 in the

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan lists the names of the sites and

their locations in the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area. Since

the 2000-2002 period, the ozone

network has changed, e.g., certain sites

have been discontinued while new sites

have been added. In the 2002-2004

period, the ozone monitoring network

consists of 18 monitoring sites, four

designated as NAMS, 12 designated as

SLAMS, and two SPMs. These sites all

use EPA reference.methods, are sited

according 'to our regulations, meet the

applicable monitoring objectives in our

regulations, and are operated according

to our regulations. We therefore find

that the monitoring network operated by

the MCESD and ADEQ is adequate to

support the technical evaluation of

ozone maintenance in the Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan.

2. Attainment of the Standard

For ozone, an area may be considered

to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

if there are no violations, as determined

in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H, based on three complete,

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured ambient monitoring data. A

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

occurs when the estimated number of

exceedances per year averaged over

three years is greater than 1.0 at any

monitoring site in the area or its

downwind environs, using conventional

rounding techniques.

The calculation of the estimated

exceedances takes into account not only

the number of exceedances during a

given ozone season, but also

"completeness of data, and daily peak

ozone concentrations on days in the

ozone season that can be assumed to be

less than the level of the standard. A

daily exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration

13428

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13428 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules

during a given day is greater than or

equal to 0.125 parts per million (ppm),

using conventional rounding

techniques. Monitoring data must be

collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

recorded in EPA's Air Quality System

(AQS) database.

3. Monitoring Results

MCESD and ADEQ submitted qualityassured ozone monitoring data to EPA

for the 1997 to 1999 ozone monitoring

seasons. As noted previously, we

determined that the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area had attained the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date. See.66 FR 29230 (May

30, 2001). Since then, the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area has

continued to meet the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR AND DESIGN VALUES BY MONITOR IN THE PHOENIX

METROPOLITAN OZONE NONATFAINMENT AREA (2000 TO 2004)

Average

,Site SITE number of Site design

type exceedance value (ppm)

days per year

Blue Point ........................................................................................................................................ NAM S 0 0.110

Central Phoenix .............................................................................................................................. NAM S 0 0.098

Fountain Hills .................................................................................................................................. NAM S 0 0.106

South Scottsdale ............................................................................................................................. NAM S 0 0.099

Tem pe ............................................................................................................................................ SPM 0 0.098

Falcon Field .................................................................................................................................... SLAM S 0 0.104

Rio Verde ..................................................................................... ...... SLAMS 0 0.101

Dysart** ....................................................................................... ". ................................................ SLA M S 0 0.085

South Phoenix ................................................................................................................................. SLA M S 0 0.091

W est Phoenix .................................................................................................................................. SLAM S . 0 0.097

Pinnacle Peak ................................................................................................................................. SLAM S 0 0.101

North Phoenix ................................................................................................................................. SLA M S 0 0.105

G lendale ......................................................................................................................................... SLA M S 0 0.099

W est Chandler .......................... : ..................................................................................................... SLA M S 0 0.099

Cave Creek ..................................................................................................................................... SPM 0 0.099

Hum boldt M ountain ........................................................................................................................ SLA M S 0 0.099

JLG Supersite* ............................................................................................................................... SLA M S 0 0.086

Palo Verde*. .................................................................................................................................... SLA M S 0 0.098

Sources: AOS Database and MCESD 2003 Network Review.

*ADEQ Site. **Site only has data from 2003-2004.

Table 1 also provides design values

for each monitoring site. The design

value generally represents the 4th

highest daily maximum (hourly) ozone

concentration over a given three-year

period at a given site. Design values

provide one basis of comparison

between different parts of a given

nonattainment area with respect to peak

ozone exposure; as such, the design

values are provided herein for

information purposes only. Attainment

of the ozone NAAQS relies on the

average number of exceedances per year

(the design value is used under the CAA

if an area is found to have missed its

attainment deadline and must be

reclassified).

Based on the monitoring data

summarized in Table 1, we propose to

determine that the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area has attained, and

continues to attain, the applicable

NAAQS and therefore meets the related

criterion for redesignation under section

107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the Act.

B. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved SIP Under Section 11 0(k)

EPA fully approved the ozone SIP for

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area that had been

required under the CAA, as amended in

1977. See 47 FR 19326 (May 5, 1982)

and 40 CFR 52.123(d). With respect to

ozone-related SIP requirements under

the CAA, as amended in 1990, EPA is

proposing action in today's notice to

approve the Serious Area Ozone Plan

SIP revision for the Phoenix

metropolitan serious 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area and thereby fulfill

the requirements for a periodic

inventory for 1996 and enhanced

monitoring.

CAA requirements for ozone

nonattaininent areas are cumulative in

that "serious" areas must also meet the

applicable requirements for the two

lesser classifications: "marginal" and

"moderate". Most of the applicable

requirements for the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area, such as the base

year 1990 emissions inventory, an

enhanced vehicle inspection and

maintenance program and various

Maricopa County RACT rules, have

been fully approved under section

110(k) by EPA in previous ru'lemakings

and our final approval of the Serious

Area Ozone Plan will accomplish the

same for the 1996 periodic inventory

requirement and the enhanced

monitoring requirement.

We recognize that there remain

several EPA proposed rules that need to

be finalized before we can finalize our

action described herein. These proposed

rules involve Maricopa County (MC)

Rule '358, sourcelspecific RACT for W.R.

Meadows, the MC rule establishing the

emissions statements requirement, and a

negative declaration. If, and-once, we

finalize our approvals of these separate

proposed actions and finalize our

proposed approval of the Serious Area

Ozone Plan, then we will have fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

section 110(k) and satisfied the criterion

for redesignation under section

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

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

The improvement in air quality must

be due to permanent and enforceable

13429

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13429 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

reductions in emissions resulting from

implementation of the SIP, Federal

measures, and other State-adopted

measures.

EPA believes that the State has

demonstrated that the observed air

quality improvements are due to the

implementation of permanent and

enforceable emission reductions

through the implementation of emission

controls contained in the Arizona SIP

and Federal measures. Subsequent to

the 1990 CAA amendments, Arizona

implemented a number of emission

controls. The area has complied with all

of the emission requirements for a ..

serious ozone nonattainment area as

required by the CAA.

Some of the emission reductions were

achieved through the implementation of

the use of low volatility cleaner burning

gasoline, more stringent Tier I motor

vehicle emission standards,

implementation of an enhanced vehicle

I/M program, controls on area sources,

and the adoption of tighter emissions

limits on existing stationary sources. All

of the emission control measures

contained in the 15 percent ROP plan,

serious area ozone plan, and

redesignation request and maintendnce

plan have been fully adopted, have been

implemented, and are enforceable in the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area. Maricopa County has adopted and

implemented emission control rules

requiring existing sources of VOC to

meet, at minimum, RACT. These

requirements apply to sources in

categories covered by C'tGs and other

major non-CTG sources.

Table 2 shows the decrease in

%missions between 1990 and 1999 due to permanent and enforceable measures.

TABLE 2.-990 AND 1999 PHOENIX METROPOLITAN NONATTAINMENT AREA VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS

(Emissions in metric tons per day]

1990 1999

Source category NO , VOC NOx

Point Sources. ................................................................................................................. 25.6 70.9 15.3 16.5

A rea Sources .................................................................................................................. 111.8 7.4 82.6 43.0

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................................ 136.2 130.1 106.9 129.8

Nonroad Mobile Sources ................................................................................................ 57.9 85.2 78.5 59,3

B iogenics ......................................................................................... ............................... 37.3 .................... 76.7 7.3

Total ......................................................................................................................... 368.8 293.6 360.0 255.9

Note: some columns may not add to 100% due to rounding; on-road mobile sources for 1990 were developed with EPA's MOBILE5a, whereas

1999 on-road mobile sources were developed using EPA's MOBILE5b.

Sources: 1990 data: 1993 MAG Ozone Plan; 1999 data: MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.

It can be seen that overall, both VOC

emissions and NOx emissions decreased

in the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area between 1990 and

1999. Increases in emissions of VOC in

the nonroad mobile source category and

biogenics were offset by larger decreases

in emissions from other source

categories. Increases in emissions of

NOx from area sources were offset by

larger decreases in other source

categories. We propose to find that the

improvement in ozone air quality in the

Phoenix metropolitan-area is due to

emissions reductions from

implementation of permanent and

enforceable measures and that the area

thereby meets the redesignation

criterion under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

D. The Area Must Have Met All

Applicable Requirements Under Section

110 and Part D of the CAA

1. Section 110 Requirements

Although section 110 was amended in

1990, the Maricopa County portion of

the Arizona SIP meets the requirements

of amended section 110(a)(2). A number

of the requirements did not change in

substance, and, therefore, EPA believes

that the pre-amendment EPA-approved

SIP met these requirements. As to those

requirements that were amended, (see

57 FR 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1993),

many are duplicative of other

requirements of the Act. EPA has

analyzed the SIP and determined that it

is consistent with the requirements of

amended section 110(a)(2). The-SIP

contains enforceable emission

limitations, requires monitoring,

compiling and analyzing of ambient air

quality data, requires preconstruction

review of new major stationary sources

and major modifications to existing

ones, provides for adequate funding,

staff, and associated resources necessary

.to implement its requirements, and

requires stationary source emission

monitoring and reporting.

Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C),

and (E) concerning plan enforcement

and implementation requirements are

addressed in Chapter Eight, page 8-146

and Chapter 11, page 11-1 of the

Revised Serious Area Carbon Monoxide

Plan ("Revised 1999 CO Plan"). EPA

approved this plan in a final rule on

March 9, 2005 (see 70 FR 11553). In

order to comply with these CAA

sections, a State law was passed in 1992

which provides an approach for

assurances that State and local

committed measures will be adequately

implemented (see Arizona Revised

Statutes (A.R.S.) Sections 49-406 I. and

J.) A.R.S. Section 49-406 G. (passed by

the Arizona Legislature in 1992)

requires that each agency which

commits to implement any control

measure contained in the SIP must

describe the commitment in a

resolution. The resolution must be

adopted by the appropriate governing

body of the agency'. State law also

requires the entity to specify the

following information in the

resolutions: (1) Its authority for

implementing the limitation or measure

as provided in statute, ordinance, or

rule; (2) a program for the enforcement

of the limitation or measure; and (3) the

level of personnel and funding allocated

to the implementation of the measure.

Chapter 11 of the Revised 1999 CO

Plan includes resolutions from the MAG

member agencies and other

implementing entities. These

resolutions indicate specific

commitments to implement various

control strategies which reduce CO as

well as ozone precursor emissions.

Generally, the authorities of the cities

and towns to implement the types of

measures that they have committed to in

their respective rdsolutions are provided

under A.R.S. section 9-240 Powers of

Common Council. The general

authorities of the County to implement

the measures in the commitments are

provided under A.R.S. section 11-251

and A.R.S. section 49-478. Copies of

these local and county government

authorities were included in Chapter 11

of the Revised 1999 CO Plan.

13430

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13430 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

If any State, County, local

government, regional agency, or other

entity failed to implement a committed

measure, the County would file an

action in Superior Court fo have the

Court order that the measure be

implemented. Likewise, the Director of

ADEQ will backstop the County if it

fails to implement a committed measure

or if the County fails to backstop the

local governments and regional agencies

(see Appendix C, Exhibit 2, Revised

1999 CO Plan).

2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment

Areas

Before an area may be redesignated to

attainment, it must have fulfilled the

applicable requirements of part D.

Under part D of title I of the CAA, an

area's ozone classification determines

the requirements to which it is subject.

Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic

requirements applicable to all

nonaftainment areas. Subpart 2 of part

D establishes additional requirements

for nonattainment areas classified under

table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA.

As described in the General Preamble

for Implementation of Title I of the

CAA, specific requirements of subpart 2

may override or modify general

provisions in subpart 1 (57 FR 13501,

April 16, 1992). Therefore, in order to be

redesignated, the States must meet the

applicable requirements of subpart 1 of

part D-specifically sections 172(c) and

176, as well as the applicable

requirements of subpart 2 of part D.

EPA believes that Arizona has met the

requirements of subpart I of part Dspecifically'sections 172(c) and 176,

insofar as applicable, as well as the

applicable requirements of subpart 2 of

part D of the CAA for the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area, as described below.

a. Section 172 Requirements. This

section contains general requirements

for nonattainment area SIPs. A thorough

discussion of the requirements

contained in section 172(c) may be

found in the General Preamble for

Implementation of title 1 (57 FR 13498,

April 16, 1992).

EPA has interpreted the requirements

of sections 172(c)(1) (non-RACT

reasonably available control measuresRACM), 172(c)(2) (reasonable further

progress-RFP), 172(c)(6) (other

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

measures) as being irrelevant to a

redesignation request because they only

have meaning for an area that is not

attaining the standard. See the General

Preamble of April 16, 1992, and the

Calcagni Memorandum. Finally, the

State has not sought to exercise the

options that would trigger sections

172(c)(4) (identification of certain

emissions increases) and 172(c)(8)

(equivalent techniques). Thus, these

provisions are also not relevant to this

redesignation request. The other plan

provisions under section 172(c) are

discussed below.

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT). Nonattainment

plans must, at a minimum, require.the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources. These requirements are

discussed below under Section 182

Requirements.

. Emissions Inventories. The plan needs

to include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of the relevant "

pollutant as determined necessary by

the Administrator to assure that the

requirements of part D of the CAA are

met. These requirements are discussed

below under Section 182 Requirements.

Permits for New and Modified Major

Stationary Sources. For the section

172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR)

requirements, the CAA requires all

nonattainment areas to meet several

requirements regarding NSR, including

provisions to ensure that increased

emissions will not result from any new

or modified major stationary sources

and a general offset rule.

We have determined that areas being

redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment do not need to comply with

the requirement that an NSR program be

approved prior to redesignation

provided that the area demonstrates

maintenance of the standard without

part D nonattainment NSR in effect. The

rationale for this decision is described

in the Nichols memo.1

The Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix ozone

nonattainment area indicates expected

additional VOC and NOx emissions due

to major source growth. Thus, we find

that the maintenance demonstration for

the Phoenix metropolitan area does not

rely on nonattainment NSR, and the

State need not have a fully-approved

nonattainment NSR program prior to

approval of the redesignation request.

Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) is the replacement

program for NSR, and part of the

obligation under PSD is for a new

source to review increment

consumption and maintenance of the air

quality standards. The PSD program

requires stationary sources to undergo

preconstruction review before facilities

are constructed or modified, and to

I "Part D New Source Review (part D NSR)

Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation

to Attainment", Memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, October 14, 1994.

apply Best Available Control

Technology (BACT). This program will

apply to any major source wishing to

locate in the Phoenix metropolitan area

once the area is redesignated to

attainment. Effective November 22,

1993, we delegated PSD authority to

Maricopa County via a PSD Delegation

Agreement (59 FR 1730, January 12,

1994).

Compliance With Section 11 O(a)(2).

The plan must contain provisions to

meet the requirements of section

110(a)(2) of the CAA (see the discussion

of section 110 requirements above).

b. Section 176 Rqquirements. Section

176(c) of the CAA requires States to

establish criteria and procedures to

ensure that Federally supported or

funded projects conform to the air

quality planning goals in the applicable

SIP. The requirement to determine

conformity applies to transportation

plans, programs and projects developed,

funded or approved under Title 23

U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act

("transportation conformity"), as well as

to all other Federally supported or

funded project& ("general conformity").

Section 176 further provides that

State conformity revisions must be

consistent with Federal conformity

regulations that the CAA required the

EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is

reasonable to interpret the conformity

requirements as not applying for

purposes of evaluating the redesignation

request under section 107(d). The

rationale for this is based on a

combination of two factors. First, the

requirement to submit SIP revisions to

comply with the conformity provisions

of the CAA continues to apply to areas

after redesignation to attainment, since

such areas would be subject to a section

175A maintenance plan. Second, the

EPA's Federal conformity rules require

the performanqe of conformity analyses

in the absence of Federally approved

State rules. Therefore, because areas are

subject to the conformity requirements

regardless of whether they are

redesignated to attainment and must

implement conformity under Federal

-rules if State rules are not yet approved,

EPA believes it is reasonable to view

these requirements as not applying for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426,

439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this

interpretation.

The State of Arizona has fully

adopted general conformity procedures,

approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (64

FR 19916). The State-adopted

transportation conformity procedures

are found in A.R.S. Title 18, Chapter 2,

Article 14. We have not yet approved

transportation conformity procedures in

13431

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13431 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

the SIP. For the reas6ns stated above,

EPA believes the approval of conformity

rules into the State's SIP is not a

prerequisite for redesignation. Federal

transportation conformity rules

continue to apply.

c. Section.182 Requirements. For

purposes of this redesignation, the part

D, subpart 2, section 182(a), (b) and (c)

requirements for a nonattainment area

apply to the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area.

EPA has interpreted the requirements

of sections 182(c)(2) (attainment and

RFP demonstrations), 182(c)(5)

(transportation control), and 182(c)(9)

(contingency measures) as being

irrelevant to a redesignation request

because they only have meaning for an

area that is not attaining the standard.

See the General Preamble of April 16,

1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum.

The other plan provisions under section

182 are discussed below.

1990 Base Year Invientory and

Periodic Emissions Inventory Updates.

Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, as amended in 1990, require

States to submit a comprehensive,

accurate, current inventory of actual

emissions from all sources in the ozone

nonattainment area and to submit

updates of those inventories every three

years until redesignation.

Arizona submitted a complete and

accurate 1990-emissions inventory for

VOC and NOx for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area as

noted in EPA's final approval of the

emissions inventory on May 27, 1998

(63 FR 28898). Arizona submitted

updated periodic emissions inventories

for 1993, 1996, and 1999. The final 1993

ozone SIP inventory was submitted to

us on November 25, 1996. The 1996

base year (July-Septembe; 1996) ozone

inventory was submitted as part of the

Serious Area Ozone Plan, Appendix E.2

We are proposing to approve the 1996

ozone inventory submitted as part of the

Serious Area Ozone Plan. The 1999

periodic ozone emissions inventory for

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area was originally

submitted to EPA in August 2002 and

then re-submitted to EPA as part of the

Redesignation' Request and Maintenance

Plan, in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The

Appendix contains a complete

description of the sources and

2ADEQ held a public hearing for the Serious Area

Ozone Plan on April 26, 2000. ADEQ adopted the

Serious Area Ozone Plan on December 14, 2000 and

submitted it to us on the same date. We find that

ADEQ thereby satisfied the requirements for notice

and public hearing on all SIP revisions under

section 110(1) of the Act.

methodologies used to calculate ozone

emissions.

The 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan also

contains a description of the 1998 and

1999 base year inventories, the interim

year 2006, and the maintenance year

2015 ozone precursor emissions

inventories for use in Urban Airshed

Model (UAM) simulations.

In MAG's emissions inventories,

emissions sources are grouped into five

major categories: Point sources, area

sources, nonroad mobile sources, onroad mobile s6urces, and biogenic

emissions. Point sources include such

categories as industrial, manufacturing,

and electric power generation facilities.

Area sources include residential

woodburning, industrial fuel

combustion, on-site incineration, and

open burning. Biogenic emissions come

from natural vegetation. Nor/road

mobile sources include utility, lawn and

garden, construction, farm and

recreational equipment, and aircraft and

locomotives. On-road mobile sources

include cars, motorcycles, various sizes

of trucks, and buses. Collectively, these

sources contributed a total of 256 metric

tons per day of NOx and 360 metric tons

per day of VOC in 1999.

We propose to approve the 1996 and

1999 periodic emissions inventories and

find that the State has complied with

the inventory requirements of section

182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). We also

propose to approve the 1998 and 1999

base year inventories, the interim year

2006 inventory, and maintenance year

2015 inventory in connection with the

maintenance demonstration discussed

elsewhere in this notice.

Emissions Statement Requirements.

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the Act requires

States to submit a SIP revision requiring

owners or operators of stationary

sources of VOC or NOx to provide the

State with estimates of actual emissions

from such sources. Arizona's SIP

includes regulations requiring annual

emissions statements from major

sources. Specifically, to comply with

this requirement, the State submitted

Maricopa-County (MC) Rule 100.503 to

EPA on February 4, 1993. We approved

this rule by direct final action published

on February 10, 2005. See 70 FR 7038

(February 10, 2005). Assuming no

adverse comments are submitted in

connection with this direct final rule,

our final rule published on February 10,

2005 will be effective on April 11, 2005.

If adverse comments are timely

submitted, then we will withdraw 4he

direct final rule and consider those

comments prior to taking a final action.

See our proposed rule (70 FR 7069) also

published on February 10, 2005. We

will finalize our action-on MC Rule

100.503 prior to taking final, action on

this proposal.

15 Percent ROP Plan Requirements.

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires

the submission of a 15 percent ROP

plan. This plan is to provide for VOC

emission reductions in the

nonattainmentarea of at least 15

percent, from the 1990 baseline

emissions levels, by no later than

November 15, 1996. Arizona submitted

its initial 15 percent ROP plan for the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area on November 15, 1993 and

supplemented it on April 8, 1994. On

April 13, 1994, we found the initial plan

incomplete because it failed to include,

in fully adopted and enforceable form,

all of the measures relied upon in the 15

percent demonstration. This

incompleteness finding started- the 18-

month sanctions clock in CAA section

179 and the two-year clock under

section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a

FIP covering the 15 percent ROP

requirements. In November 1994 and

April 1995, Arizona submitted an

attainment plan for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area which

updated the 15 percent ROP

demonstrations.

On May 12, 1995, we found the

revised 15 percent plan and the

attainment plan complete, turning off

the sanctions clock; however, under

section 110(c), the FIP clock continued

until EPA approved the 15 percent plan.

In August 1996, we were sued by the

American Lung Association of Arizona

and others, American Lung Association

of Arizona, Inc. et al. v. Browner, No.

CIV 96 1856, PHX ROS (D. Arizona) to

enforce EPA's obligation under CAA

section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP for

the 15 percent ROP requirement. On

July 8, 1997, a consent decree was filed

in the case establishing a schedule of

January 20, 1998 for proposing and May

18, 1998 for promulgating a 15 percent

ROP plan. Under the consent decree,

EPA's obligation to promulgate a 1.5

percent ROP plan vas relieved to the

extent that we had approved State

measures. EPA determined in its final

rule that the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area had in place or

would have in place sufficient control

measures to meet the 15 percent ROP

requirement for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), a precursor

emission to ozone, under CAA section

182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See

63 FR 28898 (May 27, 1998), as

amended at 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).

VOC RACT Requirements. Section

172(c)(1) of the CAA specifies that SIPs

must provide for the implementation of

all RACM including all RACT as

13432

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13432 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

expeditiously as practicable to attain the (b) all other major non-CTG stationary pollution control regulations or negative

NAAQS. Sections 182(a)(2)(A) and sources. declarations and how the State intends

182(b)(2) further provide that, at a Arizona's redesignation request, to fulfill the RACT requirement for the

minimum, the SIPs must require the submitted on April 21, 2004, describes few remaining CTG source categories

implementation of RACT for two classes how the State of Arizona has met the and VOC major sources. EPA, thrdugh a

of VOC sources. The VOC source classes VOC RACT requirements under sections number of rulemakings, has approved

are: (a) All sources covered by a Control 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Act for these RACT rules and negative Techniques Guideline (CTG) document nearly all of the CTG source categories declarations as revisions to the Arizona

issued by the Administrator by the date and VOC major sources either through SEP as documented in Table 3.

of attainment of the ozone standard; and adoption of Maricopa County air

TABLE 3.-MARICOPA COUNTY VOC RACT RULES AND SIP STATUS

VOC RACT requirement MC Rule(s), SIP Status, and, if approved, Federal Register Citation

Control Techniques Guidelines

Gasoline Loading Term inals .....................................................................

Gasoline Bulk Plants ...............................................................................

Service Stations- Stage I ........................................................................

Fixed Roof Petroleum Tanks ....................................................................

Miscellaneous Refinery Sources ..............................................................

Cutback Asphalt ............................ ...................................................

Solvent Metal Cleaning ............................................................................

Surface Coating of:-

Cans .................................................................. ; ...............................

Metal Coils .........................................................................................

Fabrics ......................................................... .................................

Paper Products ..................................................................................

Automobile and Ught Duty Trucks ............................................. ; ......

Metal Furniture .................................................................................

Magnetic W ire .................................................... ..............................

Large Appliances ...............................................................................

Leaks from Petroleum Refineries .............................................................

Miscellaneous Metal Parts Surface Coating ............................................

Surface Coating of Flat W ood Paneling ...................................................

kSynthetic Pharmaceutical Manufacture ....................................................

Rubber Tire Manufacture .........................................................................

External Floating Roof Petroleum Tanks .................................................

Graphic Arts ..............................................

Perchloroethylene Drycleaning (a) ............................................................

Gasoline Truck Leaks and Vapor Collection ...........................................

MC Rules 350 and 351: MC Rule 350 adopted July 13, 1988, revised

April 6, 1992; revision approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024).

MC Rule 351 adopted February 15, 1995, approved February 9,

1998 (63 FR 6489).

MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024).

MC Rule 353: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; approved

February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578).

MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision

approved September 5, 19.95 (60 FR 46024).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

MC Rule 340: adopted July 13, 1988, revised June"22, 1992, revised

September 21, 1992; approved February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578).

MC Rule 331: adopted July 13, 1908, revised June 22, 1992, revised

June 19, 1996, revised April 21, 2004; approved February 1, 1996

(61 FR 3578), approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489), approved

December 21, 2004 (69 FR 76417).

MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

MC Rule 336: revised September 21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,

1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

MC Rule 336: revised September 21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,

1999; approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

MC Rule 350: adopted'July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024).

MC Rule 337: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26,

1997, approved February 8, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Perchloroethylene was delisted as a VOC by EPA (see Footnote (a)).

MC Rule 352: adopted November 16, 1992, submitted February 4,

1993, approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024).

13433

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13433 2005
Federal, Register /Vol. 70, Noi;53 / Monday , March ZJ1, 2005 / Ppose&Aiile9

TABLE 3.-MARICOPA COUNTY VOC RACT RUILES AND'SIP STATUS-Continued '

VOC RACT requirement MC Rule(s), SIP Status, and, if approved, Federal Register Citation

Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene Polypropylene, and Poly- MC Rule 358: Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing, proposed approval

styrene Resins. was signed by Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 on March 8,

2005. This proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register by mid-March 2005.

Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical, Polymer, and Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, Aapproved AuResin Manufacturing Equipment. gust 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners ............................. MC Rule 333: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997,

approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Air Oxidation Processes-Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Negative declaration, submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

Industries.' 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants ........... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industries (SOCMI)-Dis- Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

tillation and Reactor Processes. 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Volatile organic liquid storage .................................................................. MC Rule 350: adopted July 13, 1988, revised April 6, 1992; revision

approved September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46024).

SOCMI batch processes .......................................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

Industrial Wastewater ............................................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741). .

Plastic Parts Coating (for business machines and automobiles) ............ MC Rule 336: adopted July 13, 1988, revised September 21, 1992,

June 19, 1996, April 7, 1999, approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR

50759).

Cleaning solvents ..................................................................................... MC Rule 331: adopted July 13, 1988, revised June 22,_ 1992, revised

June 19, 1996, revised April 21,-2004, submitted July 28, 2004; approved February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578), approved February 9, 1998

(63 FR 6489), approved December 21,2004 (69 FR 76417).

Offset lithography ..................................................................................... MC Rule 337: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26,

1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Shipbuilding and ship repair coatings ...................................................... Negative declaration: submitted December 14, 2000, approved August

26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).

W ood Furniture ........................................................................................ MC Rule 342: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26,

1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489)..

Aerospace ................................................................................................. MC Rule 348: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759)..

Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings ......................... MC Rule 335 adopted July 13, 1988, submitted January 4, 1990, approved January 06, 1992 (57 FR 354)

Major Sources Subject to RACT

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing ................................................................ Negative declaration: submitted April 21, 2004, approved by direct final

rule on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7038) if no adverse comments are

received by March 14, 2005.

Rubber Sports.Ball Manufacturing ...... * .............................................. MC Rule 334: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997,

approved February 2, 1998 (63 FR 6489)..

Metal Casting ............................................................................................. MC Rule 341: adopted August 5, 1994, submitted August 16, 1994, approved February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5287).

Commercial Bread Bakeries ........ ........................................................... MC Rule 343: adopted February 15, 1995, submitted August 31, 1995,

approved March 17, 1997 (62 FR 12544).

Semiconductor Manufacturing ............ : ..................................................... MC Rule 338: adopted June 19, 1996, submitted February 26, 1997,

approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes ......................................................... MC Rule 339: adopted November 16, 1992, submitted February 04,

1993, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Coating Wood Millwork ............................................................................. MC Rule 346: adopted November 20, 1996, submitted February 26,

-1997, approved February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489).

Ferrous Sand Casting .............................................................................. MC Rule 347: adopted March 4, 1998, submitted August 4, 1999, approved June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36788).

Vitamin Manufacturing .............................................................................. MC Rule 349: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30815).

Automotive Windshield Wiper Fluid ......................................................... MC Rule.344: adopted April 7, 1999, submitted August 4, 1999, approved November 30, 2001 (66 FR 59699).

Fiberboard for Expansion Joints ...... t ...................... VOC RACT by permit (W.R. Meadows): proposed approval was signed

by Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 on March 3, 2005. This

proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register by

mid-March 2005.

NA= not applicable. (a) Perchloroethylene was delisted as a VOC effective March 8, 1996 (see 61 FR 4588, February 7, 1996).

13434

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13434 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

,As shown in Table 3, the VOC RACT

requirements under sections 172(c)(1),

182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2) have been

met for the vast majority of CTG source

categories and major sources either

through establishment of Maricopa

County (MC) regulations or by submittal

of negative declarations. At this time,

we propose to find that Arizona has met

the RACT requirement for the MAG 1-

hour ozone nonattainment area

contingent upon our full final approval

of (1) MC Rule 358 (establishes RACT

requirements for major VOC sources in

the emissions source category of

Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing), (2)

W.R. Meadows' permit conditions

(establishes RACT requirements for a

specific major VOC source), and (3) the

negative declaration for the one major

VOC source in the emissions source

category of Fiberglass Boat

Manufacturing. The Regional

Administrator for EPA Region 9 signed

rules in early March 2005 proposing

approval of MC Rule 358 and W.R.

Meadows' permit conditions as meeting

the RACT requirement for the affected

sources, and these proposals are

expected to be published in the Federal

Register in mid-March. EPA approved

the negative declaration for the one

major VOC source in the emissions

source category of Fiberglass Boat

Manufacturing on February 10, 2005 (70

FR 7038) by direct final action. If no

adverse comments are received on that

direct final action by March 14, 2005,

then the approval of the negative

declaration will become effective April

11, 2005, but if such comments are

received then the direct final rule will

be withdrawn and EPA will taken final

action after consideration of the

comments.

Stage II Vapor Recovery

Requirements. Section 182(b)(3) of the

CAA requires States to submit Stage II

vapor recovery rules. The Stage II vapor

recovery regulations for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area were

submitted to us on May 27, 1994 by the

State. These rules had been adopted by

the Arizona Department of Weights and

Measures (ADWM) on August 27, 1993.

We approved the program on November

1, 1994, effective January 3, 1995 (see 59

FR 54521). Subsequent State legislation

(House Bill (HB) 2001, in 1997) required

the ADWM to adopt rules to enhance

enforcement of the program. These rules

can be found at A.R.S. 41-2134. The

regulations in the Arizona SIP fully

adopt and implement the Stage 11 vapor

recovery requirements in Arizona. . Vehicle 11M Requirements. Section

182(c)(3) and EPA's final I/M

regulations. in 40 CFR part 51, subpart

S require States with "serious" ozone

nonattainment areas to submit a fully

adopted "enhanced" I/M program. EPA

approved revisions to Arizona's

enhanced vehicle I/M program for the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area as part of the Arizona SIP on

January 22, 2003 (see 69 FR 2912).

ADEQ implements an enhanced I/M

program in Area A, which includes and

goes beyond the Phoenix metropolitan

1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA

believes that the Arizona SIP for the

Phoenix 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area satisfies all of the Section 182(c)(3)

requirements of the CAA.

Clean Fuel Vehicle Programs.

Sections 182(c)(4)(A) of the CAA

requires States to submit a SIP revision

for each serious 1-hour nonattainment

area that includes such measures

necessary to ensure the effectiveness of

clean-fuel vehicle program prescribed

under part C of title II of the Act. In

particular, SIPs for serious ozone

nonattainment areas with 1980

populations of 250,000 or more must

establish a clean-fuel vehicle program

for centrally fueled fleets (referred to

herein as the "clean fuel fleet" (CFF)

program). CAA section 246. Under the

CFF program, a specified percentage of

vehicles purchased by fleet operators for

covered fleets shall be clean-fuel

vehicles and shall use clean alternative

fuels when operating in the covered

area. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act

allows States such as Arizona to "optout" of all or a portion of the clean-fuel

vehicle program including the CFF

program by submitting for EPA approval

a SIP revision consisting of a program or

programs not otherwise required by the

Act that will result in at least equivalent

long term reductions in ozoneproducing and toxic air emissions.

On December 7, 1998, Arizona

submitted to EPA a SIP revision opting

out of the CFF program. The opt-out SIP

requested EPA approval of its interim

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG)

program, which EPA had already

approved into the SIP (see 63 FR 6653,

February 10, 1998), as a substitute

program. 3 On June 7, 1999, the revision

was found to be complete by operation

of law pursuant to EPA's completeness

criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. In the 1998 opt-out SIP

submittal, ADEQ had estimated that the

CBG program would provide 9 metric

tons per day (mtpd) of VOC reductions

in 2010 compared to 0.5 to 1.8 mtpd in

that same year that would have been

achieved by a CFF program. 4 ADEQ also

EPA has since approved additional revisions to

the Arizona CBG program. 4 ADEQ noted that its estimates of the emissions

reductions benefit from a CFF program were likely

estimated that the CBG program would

provide 5.0 mtpd of NOx reductions in

2010 compared to 0.6 to 2.5 mtpd in

that same year that would have been

achieved by a CFF program. See also,

Arizona's modeled emission reductions

from the four control programs, the

National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)

program, CBG, Tier 2 and the CFF

Program, in 2015 in Metropolitan

Phoenix. 5

TABLE 4.-EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

FROM FOUR CONTROL PROGRAMS

IN 2015 IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX

Emissions reductions

Program (tons per day)

HC NOx

Tier 2 ................ 18.3 86.4

CBG .................. 8.0 5.0

NLEV ................ 2.2 3.9

Federal Clean

Fuel Fleet ...... 0.5-1.8 0.7-2.5

The CBG program is not explicitly

required by the CAA in the Phoenix

metropolitan ozone nonattainment area.

Additionally, the resulting reductions of

ozone-producing emissions from this

program (VOCs and NOx) meet or

exceed the emissions reductions that

would have occurred if the CFF program

were implemented. EPA will be

approving only those emissions

reductions needed to meet the CFF

program. Finally, because reductions in

toxic air emissions are proportional to

the reduction in VOC emissions, any

substitute plan which reduces VOCs

will also reduce toxic air emissions in

the same proportion. Therefore,

Arizona's substitute plan will meet the

CFF program requirement for air toxics

emissions.

Based on the above evaluation, we

propose to approve, under section

182(c)(4)(B) of the Act, ADEQ's

submittal of the CBG program as a

substitute measure achieving equivalent

long-term emissions reductions of

ozone-producing and toxic air

pollutants as would have been achieved

by implementation of a CFF program. In

overstated because the estimates did not account for

the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)

program, which was expected to be implemented in

Arizona and to lead to the availability of loweremitting (conventional) light duty vehicles

beginning with the 2001 model year.

5 EPA promulgated the NLEV program on June 6,

1997 under which vehicle manufacturers

voluntarily agreed to market light duty gasoline

vehicles with emissions substantially lower than

Tier 1 vehicles. (62 FR 31193, (June 6, 1997)). On

February 10, 2000, EPA promulgated the Tier 2/

gasoline sulfur standards that established more

stringent exhuast emissions standards for light and

medium duty gasoline vehicles. (65 FR 6698,

(February 10, 2000)).

13435

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13435 2005
Fedeiai, Register/ Vol. 70, No. 53./Monddy, ,March 21, 2005 /Proposea Ri-il§

doing so, we find that the State has

provided sufficient documentation of

compliance with the notice and hearing

requirements for SIP revisions under

section 110(1) of the Act (see Exhibit 4

of the State's December 7, 1998 SIP

revision submittal).

NOx Emission Control Requirements.

Section 182(f) establishes NOx

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas which require the same provisions

for major stationary sources of NOx as

apply to major stationary sources of

VOCs. However, section 182(f) also

provides that these requirements do not

apply to an area if the Administrator

determines that NOx reductions would

not contribute to attainment.

For the Phoenix metropolitan ozone

nonattainment area, EPA granted a

waiver from the section 182(f)

requirements for NOx. The basis for the

waiver was that Arizona demonstrated

using UAM that additional NOx

emission controls in the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area would

not contribute to the attainment of the

1-hour ozone standard in the area. See

60 FR 19510 (April 19, 1995).

Enhanced Monitoring. As a result of

the reclassification of the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to "serious," the

area became subject to the CAA section

182(c)(1) requirement that the area

establish and implement a

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring

Station (PAMS) network. The Serious

Area Ozone Plan describes the steps that

the State has taken to comply with

section 182(c)(1) (see page 2-8 of the

Serious Area Ozone Plan). In the

Serious Area Ozone Plan, ADEQ

indicated that, in 1999, the PAMS

network was not yet fully implemented

but that it was being phased-in over a"

five year period in accordance with 40

CFR part 58.44 and 40 CFR part 58. We

propose to find that the State has met

the requirements for enhanced

monitoring under section 182(c)(1).

When EPA finalizes today's proposal

for the serious area plan revision to the

Arizona SIP as well as the three separate

rulemakings previously discussed, the

Arizona ozone SIP will meet the

applicable requirements of section 110

and part D.

E. The Area Must Have a FullyApproved Maintenance Plan Meeting

the Requirements of Section 175A

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

requires, as a pre-condition to being

redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment, that the Administrator has

fully approved a maintenance plan for

the area as meeting the requirements of

section 175A of the Act.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The

maintenance plan is a SIP revision that

provides for maintenance of the relevant

NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years

after redesignation. The Calcagni

memorandum dated September 4, 1992,

provides additional guidance on the

required content of a maintenance plan.

A 1-hour ozone maintenance plan

should address the following five areas:

The attainment emissions inventory,

maintenance demonstration, monitoring

network, verification of continued

attainment, and a contingency plan. The

attainment emissions inventory

identifies the emissions level in the area

that is sufficient to attain the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS, based on emissions

during a three-year period which had no

monitored violations. To demonstrate

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS, the results from UAM

modeling analyses should not show

predicted 1-hour maximum ozone

concentrations equivalent to or greater

than 0.125 ppm anywhere in the

modeling domain for the episode

modeled. Provisions for continued

operation of an appropriate air quality

monitoring network are to be included

in the maintenance plan. The State must

show how it will track and verify the

progress of the maintenance plan.

Finally, the maintenance plan must

include a list of potential contingency

measures which ensure lrompt

correction of any violation of the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS.

1. Emissions Inventory

MAG selected 1999 as the attainment

year for purposes of demonstrating

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Modeling episodes in both 1998 and

1999 were used; therefore, MAG

developed modeling inventories for

both of the base years (i.e., 1998 and

1999), as well as an interim year 2006

and the maintenance year of 2015.

These emissions inventories all include

on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, point,

area, and biogenic sources. The 1998

inventory was developed for a July 16-

17 modeling episode, and the 1999

inventory was developed for an August

23-24 modeling episode. Both base year

inventories reflect control strategies in

place at that time. The future year

emission inventories include projected

emissions reductions from control

measures that were implemented and

enforceable after 1998 and 1999.

Sections III and VI of MAG's Technical

Support Document for Ozone Modeling

in Support of the One-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the.PhOenix

metropolitan Nonattainment Area,

November 2003 (included as Exhibit 2

of Appendix A of the Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan) describe

'the inventories in more technical detail.

Emissions for point, area, and

nonroad mobile sources were developed

for a base year and then projected to

2006 and 2015 using appropriate growth

factors.. The growth factors were based

on the 2015 population projections

approved by the MAG Regional Council

in June 1997 and developed from the

1995 Special Census. The 2015

employment factors by Standard

Industrial Classification SIC) code were

extrapolated from projections prepared

by the Arizona Department of Economic

Security (DES) in August 1997. Growth

factors based on 2000 Census Data were

not available at the time the modeling

demonstration was begun. On-road

vehicle activity was increased by eight

and twelve percent for 2006 and 2015,

respectively, because of expected

increases in population and

employment projections for Phoenix

metropolitan.

In the 1998 and 1999 base cases, onroad mobile sources contribute 28 to 30

percent of VOC emissiofis and 51 to 52

percent of NOx emissions and represent

the largest emissions source category for

both NOx and VOC. With the

implementation of the measures in the

maintenance plan and stricter federal

controls on vehicles and fuels, on-road

mobile source NOx emissions decrease

by about 19 percent between 1999 and

2006, and 58 percent between 1999 and

2015. On-road mobile source VOC

emissions decrease by 32 percent

between 1999 and 2006, and 54 percent

between 1999 and 2015.

Due to anticipated regional

population growth, area sources become

the largest source category for NOx and

VOC emissions in 2015. Area source

NOx emissions increase by 25 percent

between 1999 and 2006, and 56 percent

between 1999 and 2015. Area source

VOC emissions increase by 22 percent

between 1999 and 2006, and 49 percent

between 1999 and 2015."

As a result of expected increases in

power plant emissions, point source

NOx emissions increase from 1999 to

2015. Point source NOx emissions

increase 48 percent between 1999 and

2006, and 59 percent between 1999 and

2015. Point source VOC emissions

increase by 13 percent between 1999

and 2006, and 32 percent between 1999

and 2015. With the implementation of

the federal nonroad vehicle and engine

standards, nonroad mobile NOx

emissions decrease by about 14 percent

between 1999 and 2006. Nonroad

13436

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13436 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/-Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

mobile VOC emissions decrease by

about 23 percent between 1999 and

2006, and about 63 percent between

1999 and 2015.

Biogenic emissions are determined by

land use type. Residential land use has

a higher emission factor for biogenic

VOC than agricultural land, while the

opposite is true for biogenic NOx

emissions. Since it is anticipated that

the residential land area will continue

to increase as the Phoenix metropolitan

area grows, and agricultural land uses

will decline, biogenic VOC emissions

are forecast to increase less than 1

percent between 1999 and 2006, and

about 12 percent between 1999 and

2015, while biogenic NOx emissions

decrease by about 3 percent between

1999 and 2006, and about 15 percent

between 1999 and 2015.

By implementing the emissions

control measures in the maintenance

plan, total NOx emissions will decrease

by about 5 percent between 1999 and

2006, and by about 17 percent between

1999 and 2015. Total VOC emissions

will decrease by about 8 percent

between 1999 and 2006, and about 14

percent between 1999 and 2015.

2. Maintenance Demonstration

a. Introduction. To demonstrate

maintenance of the ozone standard

through a ten-year maintenance period,'

MAG projected VOC and NOx emissions

for the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area to 2006 and 2015

and used these emissions estimates in

UAM. The 2006 emission estimates

were generated to test a midpoint in the

ten-year maintenance period. This

interim year 2006 was developed for the

purposes of transportation conformity.

Table 5 summarizes the VOC and

NOx emissions estimates for the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area for 1999, 2006, and 2015.

Comparison of base and future year

inventories, as shown in Table 5,

indicates an 18-21 percent decrease in

NOx emissions between the 1998/1999

base case inventories and 2015. VOC

emissions decrease between 9 and 15

percent during this same time period.

TABLE 5.-PHOENIX METROPOLITAN NONATTAINMENT AREA 1999, 2006, AND 2015 VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS

[Emissions in metric tons per ozone season weekday]

1999* '2006 2015

Source category VOC NO, VOC NOx VOC NO×

Point Sources ......................................................................................... 15.3 16.5 17.4 24.5 20.2 26.3

Area Sources .......................................................................................... 82.6 43.0 101.4 54.1 123.5 67.4

On-Road Mobile Sources ...................................................................... 106.9 129.8 71.9 104.8 48.7 53.6

Nonroad Mobile Sources ........................................................................ 78.5 59.3 61.0 50.9 28.7 57.2

Biogenics ................................................................................................ 76.7 7.3 77.2 7.1 85.8 6.2

Total ................................................................................................. 360.0 255.9 328.9 241.4 306.9 210.7

Notes: * Emissions from 1999 are for the Tuesday in August base case modeling day. Data are from pages ES-5, ES-6, 3-11 and 3-12 of

the maintenance plan.

b. Modeling Procedure. In developing

the maintenance demonstration, MAG

followed EPA's Guideline for Regulatory

Application of the Urban Airshed Model

(EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991;

available at http://www.epa.govl

scramOO1/tt25.htm; hereafter

"GRAUAM"). This involves using

UAM, a photochemical grid model, to

simulate ozone production during

selected recent ozone episodes. These

"base case" simulations incorporate

meteorological and emissions data

corresponding to the episode days.

Future case ozone simulations are then

created using future emissions, which

are estimated using information about

control measures, as well as

socioeconomic projections. The goal is

to show that ozone concentrations

continue to be below the standard in the

future, so that NAAQS maintenance is

demonstrated.

Documentation about the

redesignation request's application of

UAM is contained principally in the

MAG SIP submittal's Appendix A,

Exhibit 2, "Technical Support

Document for Ozone Modeling in

Support of the One-Hour Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan for the Phoenix metropolitan

Nonattainment Area" (hereafter "MAG

TSD"). Development of the application

of UAM followed a protocol, per

GRAUAM (the EPA guideline), which is

included in the Appendix I of the MAG

TSD. This protocol describes procedures

to be followed in developing model

inputs and in judging model

performance, as well as the size of the

modeling domain and the particular

ozone episodes to be modeled. The

protocol was reviewed and agreed to by

both EPA and ADEQ prior to

submission of the maintenance plan.

c. Model Inputs. The modeling

domain used by MAG for the

maintenance modeling demonstration

was larger than in earlier UAM

applications for the Phoenix

metropolitan area. It was extended to

include some large point sources to the

west (and generally upwind) of the main

metropolitan area, and also to the east

to include more of the ozone plume that

had been seen in previous simulations

as well as urban areas which are

growing rapidly. This expanded domain

ensured that all the relevant source and

receptor areas were included in the

simulation, even beyond the

nonattainment area itself.

After analysis of 32 high ozone days

spread among 21 episodes, two ozone

episodes were chosen for modeling: July

16-17, 1998 and August 23-24, 1999.

While there have been no recent

NAAQS exceedances, these episodes

have among the highest ozone

concentrations observed; their peak

concentrations are 118 ppb and 124

ppb, respectively (the NAAQS is 0.12

ppm, or 120 ppb, but values below 125

ppb are rounded down and not

considered exceedances). These

episodes are representative of the two

meteorological "regimes" observed for

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area; simulating both

ensures that the NAAQS will be

maintained under the various

meteorological conditions that can

occur in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Both regimes involve a low pressure

center over southwestern Arizona, with

relatively.high temperatures and low

wind speeds. But the regime type of the

July 1998 episode tends tp have high

ozone in the metropolitan center and

extending northwest. The regime type of

the August 1999 episode is less

common, but has a different spatial

pattern; high ozone tends to occur more

to the east. It also tends to have longer13437

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13437 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

lasting southwesterly winds during the

day than the other regime.

Standard procedures were followed in

developing the meteorological and

emissions inputs. The Diagnostic Wind

Model (DWM) was used for wind

inputs, as it often is with the UAM IV

model, and gave reasonable wind fields.

Mixing heights were prepared using

MIXEMUP, also a fairly standard

procedure for use with UAM.

MIXEMUP inputs were upper air

temperature soundings from Tucson

(the only ones available) combined with

Sky Harbor (Phoenix) Airport surface

temperatures; also, local temperature

and wind data from monitoring sites

were used to generate a spatiallyvarying mixing height that better

reflected the differing land uses (and

hence heating and mixing

characteristics) across the domain. . Emissions inputs were developed

using EPA's EPS2.0 for spatially and

temporally allocating.area source

emissions; MOBILE6 was used for

vehicle emissions, in conjunction with

MAG traffic data and the EMME/2

transportation model. Biogenic

emissions, which are roughly 20% of

total VOC emissions, were estimated

using MAGBEIS2, a localized version of

EPA's Biogenic Emissions Inventory

Software (BEIS2) and incorporating

emission factors from EPA's BELD3

database.

d. Model Testing and Performance. A

number of sensitivity and diagnostic,

tests were carried out to test the effect

of alternative inputs to improve model

performance, and to test whether the

model responds in a physically

reasonable way to various input

changes. This process helps avoid

spurious good performance due to

fortuitously compensating input errors.

The testsimulations included several

alternative boundary concentrations,

zeroing of emissions for various broad

emissions categories, doubling on-ioad

emissions, and reducing wind speeds by

20 percent. This set of simulations is

comparable to the recommendations in

EPA guidelines, and helped elucidate

the functioning of the model.

Model performance statistics for peak

error, overall, bias, and overall error

were all well within EPA-recommended

targets. For example, the July 1998

predicted peak was 119 ppb, while the

peak observation was 118 ppb. For

August 1999, the predicted peak was

125, while peak observation was 124

ppb. Despite this good agreement, there

appears to be a spatial mismatch

between some predictions and

observations for the August 1999

episode. High ozone appears to persist

longer and to be more in the north of the

central business district rather than to

the east-northeast as indicated by

monitored observations. The

explanation for this discrepancy appears

to be that the wind field used in the

model may be shifted slightly relative to

the actual winds, so that the ozone

plume was shifted relative to the

monitors. The model still predicts a

comparable ozone peak, both in timing

and in concentration, but it just does not

happen to be at the monitor locations.

This conclusion is supported by the

sensitivity simulations with reduced

wind speed, since the model responded

as expected to this change, and also has

a fairly large sensitivity to this as

opposed to other variables.

A second anomaly of the August 1999

episode was a persistent moderately

high ozone level south of the central

business district that was not apparent

in the observations and did not seem to

match what would be expected from the

wind directions and the location of

emissions. This did not affect the peak

prediction of the model at all, and

appeared to be a localized effect that

might have been caused by the

proximity of South Mountain, which

blocks transport toward the south and

southeast, and by alternation of morning

and afternoon slope flows that .cause

recirculation of pollutants in the area.

Despite these issues, both episodes meet

EPA performance criteria and provide

an acceptable basis for a maintenance

demonstration.

e. Maintenance Demonstrated. The

maintenance demonstration itself

involves projecting emissions to 2015,

including the effect of controls, using

similar procedures as for the base case

episodes. The model is then re-run on

the two episodes with the new

emissions to test whether the future

controlled emissions are still consistent

with NAAQS attainment. As shown in

Tables 3-3 though and 3-6 of the

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan (pages 3-9 through 3-12), point

and area source emissions increase over

the 1998-2015 period, but this is more

than made up for by emissiona

decreases in nonroad mobile and onroad mobile sources. This resulted in

predicted ozone peaks decreasing by

2015 from 119 to 116 ppb for the July

1998 episode, and from 125 to 120 for

the August 1999 episode. Since these

levels are both at or below 124 ppb,

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS has been demonstrated.

3. Monitoring Network

The Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan addresses the

requirements for continued operation of

an ozone monitoring network. ADEQ

and MCESD have committed to

continue the operation of the monitors

in the area in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58. See also section IV.A.1 and

IV.A.2 of this proposed rule for more

detail on Arizona's monitoring network

for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area.

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

ADEQ, MAG, Maricopa County, and

the local jurisdictions have the legal

authority to implement and enforce the

requirements of the Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan. This

includes the authority to adopt,

implement, and enforce any subsequent

emission control contingency measures

determined to be necessary to correct

future ozone attainment problems. To

implement the 1-hour ozone

maintenance plan, as noted above,

ADEQ and MCESD will continue to

monitor ozone levels in the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area. To

track progress on the Maintenance Plan,

Maricopa County has also committed to

update the emissions inventory for the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area every three years for the duration

of the maintenance plan with input and

assistance from ADVQ and MAG. The

ozone monitoring data and the updated

emissions inventories will be used

through the State's contingency plan to

assure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone

standard.

5. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires

maintenance plans to contain

contingency provisions. EPA guidance

on the requirements for the contingency

plan is provided in the September 4,

1992 Calcagni memo (Calcagni 1992a).

As set forth in the Calcagni memo, we

interpret section 175A(d) of the CAA

not to require fully adopted measures in

the contingency plan. However, the plan

should contain, clearly identified

contingency measures to be adopted, a

schedule, and a specific time limit for

action by the State. In addition, specific

triggers should be identified which will

be used to determine when the

contingency measures need to be

implemented. The contingency plan

portion of the State's maintenance plans

delineate the State's planned actions in

the event of increasing ozone levels

threatening a subsequent violation of

the ozone standard.

MAG followed the August 13, 1993

EPA guidance memorandum entitled

"Early Implementation of Contingency

Measures for Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas".

The contingency plan described in

MAG's maintenance plan contains

13438

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13438 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

control measures that are expected to be

implemented early. MAG's contingency

plan contains three measures, Area A

Expansion, Gross Polluter Option for

I/M Program Waivers, and Increased

Waiver Repair Limit Options. Emissions

reduction credit for.these measures was

not taken in the maintenance

demonstration.

MAG defines the trigger for the

implementation of the contingency plan

as when the fourth highest daily

maximum hourly measurement over the

past three years exceeds 0.120 ppm at

any ozone monitor. If this occurs,

additional measures will be considered,

which may include the strengthening of

existing contingency measures. When

the trigger is activated, additional

control measures will be considered

according to the following schedule: (a)

Verification of the monitoring data to be

completed three months after activation

of the trigger; (b) applicable measures to

be considered for adoption six months

after the date established in (a); and (c)

resulting contingency measure to be

implemented within six to twelve

months, depending on the time needed

to implement the measure. The State

has also committed to continue to

implement all control measures

included in the SIP prior to

redesignation consistent with section

175A(d) of the CAA.

MAG's Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan adequately addresses

the five basic components which

comprise a maintenance plan

(attainment inventory, maintenance

demonstration, monitoring network,

verification of continued attainment,

and a contingency plan) and, therefore,

satisfies the maintenance plan

requirement.

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan

Revisions

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires

States to submit a subsequent

maintenance plan revision eight years

after the original redesignation request

and maintenance plan have been

approved by EPA. The subsequent

revision is to provide for maintenance of

the air quality standard for an additional

10 years. following the first 10-year

maintenance period. As the designated

regional air quality planning agency for

the Phoenix metropolitan area, MAG

has committed on page 3-18 of the 1-

Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan to prepare a revised

maintenance plan eight years after

redesignation to attainment.

7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

(MVEBs)

In addition to meeting the criteria for

redesignation, as a control strategy SIP,

the maintenance plan must contain

MVEBs that, in conjunction with

emissions from all other sources, are

consistent with attainment and

maintenance. An MVEB is the total

allowable VOC and NOx emissions

allocated to highway and transit vehicle

use during the maintenance period

(highway and transit vehicle use

emissions impacted by transportation

plans are projected to 2015 and tested

against the 2015 motor vehicle

emissions budget). The rules and

requirements governing transportation

conformity require certain

transportation activities to be consistent

with the MVEBs contained in emission

control SIPs (40 CFR 93.118). The

projected emissions resulting from the

transportation activities must be less

than or equal to the emissions budget

levels (40 CFR 93.118(a)). The review of

the transportation plan impacts relative

to the emissions budgets occurs after

EPA declares that the emissions budgets

meet the adequacy criteria of the

transportation conformity rule under 40

CFR 93.118(e).

The MVEBs for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area were

developed using emission factors

generated using EPA's MOBILE6 model.

Arizona developed MVEBs for the

maintenance plan years of 2006 and

2015. The MVEBs are for both VOC and

NOx, as precursors to ozone formation,

and were applicable for the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area upon

the effective date of the MVEB adequacy

finding.*

We found the budgets in the

Redesignation Request and Maintenanco

Plan adequate in a letter to Nancy

Wrona, Air Division Director, ADEQ

and Dennis Smith, Executive Director of

MAG, dated August 3, 2004. (See also

69 FR 51079, August 17, 2004,) The

adequacy finding on the maintenance

plan budgets was effective as of

September 1, 2004.

EPA is proposing to approve the

MVEBs included in Arizona's

maintenance plans for conformity

purposes. EPA believes that the

submitted MVEBs are consistent with

the control measures identified in the

SIP, and that the SIP as a whole

demonstrates maintenance with the 1-

hour ozone standard. The 2006 and

2015 motor vehicle emission budgets

included in the MAG maintenance plan

are summarized in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6.-PHOENIX METROPOLITAN

NONATAINMENT AREA 2006 AND

2015 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS

[Emissions in metric tons per ozone season

summer day]

Year VOC NOx

2006 .. 71.9 104.8

2015 .......................... 48.7 53.6

8. Conclusion

We propose to approve the State's

submittal (dated April 21, 2004) of

MAG's Resignation Request and

Maintenance Plan as a revision to the

Arizona SIP. In doing so, we find that

ADEQ and MAG have provided

sufficient documentation of compliance

with the notice and hearing

requirements for SIP revisions under

section 110(1) of the Act.6

V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix

Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area

At the request of the Gila River Indian

Community and based on the evaluation

provided below, EPA is proposing to

change the boundary of the Phoenix

Metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation

("Reservation").

A. Background

1. Current Area Boundary, Designation,

and Classification

Areas of the country were originally

designated as attainment, nonattainment

or unclassifiable following enactment of

the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. See

43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). These

designations were generally based on

monitored air quality values compared

to the applicable NAAQS. EPA

originally designated all of Maricopa

County as a nonattainment area for the

photochemical oxidant NAAQS. See 43

FR 8962, 8968 (March 3, 1978). The

following year, EPA approved a request

by the State of Arizona to reduce the

size of this nonattainment area to

include only the Maricopa Association

of Governments (MAG) Urban Planning

Area (see 44 FR 16388, March 19, 1979),

which included the Phoenix

metropoliian area and also the northern

quarter of the Gila River Indian

Reservation (most of the reservation lies

6 MAG and ADEQ held a joint public hearing for

the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

on March 1, 2004. The MAG Regional Council

adopted the Redesignation and Maintenance Plan

on March 25, 2004 and ADEQ adopted the

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan on

April 21, 2004.

13439

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13439 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

within Pinal County). We refer to this

area in this notice as the Phoenix

metropolitain 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area. Also in 1979, we

established a new ozone NAAQS to

replace the photochemical oxidant

NAAQS (see 44 FR 8202, February 8,

1979) but retained the designation of

"nonattainment" for the new ozone

NAAQS for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-

hour nonattainment area.

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, the designation of "nonattainment" for the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area was carried forward

by operation of law, and pursuant to the

1990 amended Act, the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area was

further classified as "moderate"

nonattainment. See 56 FR 56694, 56717

(November 6, 1991). The nonattainment

area boundary remained the same, i.e.,

the MAG Urban Planning Area. On

November 6, 1997, the MAG 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area was

reclassified to serious due to a failure to

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1996. The reclassification

was effective February 13, 1998. See 62

FR 60001 (November 6, 1997) and 63 FR

7290 (February 13, 1998).

Area boundaries and area

classifications have been amended over

the years under the applicable CAA

provisions, either by request of a state,

by operation of law, or by EPA

initiative. For the State of Arizona, the

current area designations and

classifications are codified at 40 CFR

81.303.

2. Gila River Indian Community's

Request for a Boundary Change

On March 2, 2005, the Gila River

Indian Community ("Community"), a

federally-recognized tribal government, 7

submitted a request to EPA to correct

the boundary of the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the

Reservation.8 The Community's request

included background information andanalysis of air quality data existing at

the time of and subsequent to the

designation in 1978 as well as the

nature of the ozone sources on the

Reservation demonstrated that the

Reservation has not had a monitored or

predicted violation of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS since, and that no significant

sources of ozone precursor emissions

exist on the Reservation. The

7See 67 FR 46328, 46329 (July 12, 2002).

8 As noted previously, the Phoenix metropolitan

1-hour ozone nonattainment area includes the

portion of the Reservation that lies within Maricopa

County, approximately the northern 25 percent of

the Reservation.

Community's request and supporting

documentation are included in the

docket for this proposed action.

B. EPA Review of the Community's

Request

1. EPA's Authority to Change

Boundaries

The Community requested that EPA

act under section 110(k)(6) to correct thE

boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan

1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and

while we agree that a revision to the

boundary to exclude the Reservation is

warranted, we have decided to

redesignate the boundary of the area

under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act

rather than to correct the boundary

under section 110(k)(6). Under section

107(d)(3)(A), EPA has the authority to

revise the boundary of a nonattainment

area on the basis of air quality data,

planning and control considerations, or

any other air quality-related

considerations the Administrator deems

appropriate.

2. The Gila River Indian Reservation

Airshed

The Gila River Indian Reservation

consists of approximately 374,000 acres

in south central Arizona, south of the

Phoenix metropolitan area. Currently,

the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area includes the northern 92,000 acres

of the Reservation. The Reservation is

physically separated from the Phoenix

metropolitan area by the Sierra Estrella

and South Mountain Ranges. The Sierra

Estrella Mountain Range runs north and

south along the western edge of the

Reservation. The South Mountain Range

runs diagonally in a northeasterly

direction, between one and five miles

beyond the northern Reservation

boundary. These mountain ranges act as

a physical barrier between the two

airsheds.

A segment of the northern border of

the Reservation adjacent to Chandler

does not have a topographical barrier to

air pollution transport. However, the

prevailing winds flow to the northeast,

sending ozone emissions from Chandler

away from the Reservation. Along the

northeastern border of the Reservation,

the Santan Mountain Range separates

the Reservation from Gilbert and

Apache Junction.

The Reservation has a population of

approximately 11,250 people, with a

population density of approximately 20

people per square mile. There are no

major population centers within the

Reservation. By comparison, Maricopa

County (including vast rural areas west

of the urban area, which are not part of

the nonattainment area) has a

population of over 3 million, with a

population density of over 230 people

per square mile.

3. Ozone and the Reservation

In general, ambient ozone

concentrations are caused by on-road

and nonroad mobile emissions sources,

area sources, large stationary sources

and biogenic sources that qmit VOCs

and NOx. The level of mobile source

emissions, often the largest part of the

inventory in a major metropolitan area,

can be generally correlated to

population density and land use

patterns. The Community population

density of 20 people per square mile is

minor compared to all of Maricopa

County, which has a density of over 230

people per square mile. Commuting

patterns on the Reservation are virtually

nonexistent. Approximately 2,200 cars,

trucks and vans commute to work

within the Reservation, compared to

1,250,000 in Maricopa County. There is

little economic integration with

commercial development in

metropolitan Phoenix, and the

Reservation remains largely rural and

agricultural. The Community plans to

expand its agricultural base .b3 investing

millions of dollars in agricultural

infrastructure.

There is only one major source of

emissions in the Community, an

aluminum extrusion facility. Based on

an inventory prepared by the

Community for year 1997 and the fact

that sources within the Community

have not changed in any significant way

since then, the Community estimates

that total annual emissions of ozone

precursor pollutants are approximately

1,000 tons of VOCs and 1,900 tons of

NOx for the entire Community. For the

purposes of comparison with the other

emissions estimates cited in this notice,

total Community emissions are

approximately 2.5 metric tons per day

(mtpd) of VOCs and 4.7 mtpd of NOx on

an annual average basis. In that part of

the Community that is within the

Phoenix nonattainment area, the

Community estimates that there are 250

tons of VOC and 490 tons of NOx per

year (equivalent to 0.6 mtpd of VOC and

1.2 mtpd of NOx). Emissions of VOCs

from the Community portion of the

nonattainment area represent less than

0.002% and 0.006% of VOC and NOx

emissions, respectively, of total

estimated emissions generated within

the Phoenix metropolitan

nonattainment area. Thus, total

emissions from the Community are not

sufficient to cause or contribute to

violations of the 1-hour standard or

otherwise have a measurable impact on

rest of the Phoenix metropolitan

13440

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13440 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, -No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005 /Proposed Rules

nonattainment area. High 1-hour ozone

concentrations in the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area are

associated almost exclusively with

summertime temperatures and

meteorological patterns. During the

summer months, the natural wind

patterns in the Salt River Valley are

from the west toward the northeast,

causing air pollutants from Phoenix to

be transported away from the Gila River

Indian Reservation. Therefore, there is

substantial basis for concluding that the

Reservation is an insignificant generator

of ozone emissions.

4. Ozone Planning Issues

Attainment of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan

area was achieved by Arizona through

the SIP planning process. It is important

to note that, under the CAA, the State

and local air pollution control agencies

do not have authority to administer air

regulatory programs over the

Reservation; consequently, the SIP rules

that were applied to the metropolitan

area and resulted in attainment of the

NAAQS did not apply to the

Reservation. Furthermore, due to the

Reservation's lack of ozone precursor

sources, it was never considered

necessary to apply ozone precursor

limits to sources on the Reservation. 9

Just as it was clear that it was not

necessary for an attainment plan to be

applic~ible to the Reservation for the

Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,

it is clear to EPA that it will not be

necessary for a maintenance plan to be

applicable to the Reservation for the

Phoenix metropoliian nonattainment

area to maintain attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS.

C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the

Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan

1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

In view of the above considerations,

EPA believes that it is appropriate to

exercise discretionary authority under

section 107(d)(3)(A) and to propose to

revise the boundary of the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation. Geographical

and meteorological factors support the

conclusion that the Reservation is not

significantly affected by emissions

generated in the Phoenix metropolitan

area nor is the Phoenix metropolitan

area affected by emissions generated

within the Reservation. The effect of

EPA could have applied VOC or NOx limits to sources on the Reservation, as it has authority

under CAA 301(d) to promulgate regulations for

Indian country as necessary or appropriate "to

achieve the appropriate purpose" of the Act.

this proposed action would be to attach

the Maricopa County portion of the Gila

River Indian Reservation to the preexisting "unclassifiable/attainment"

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that

consists of all of those portions of the

State of Arizona (including the rest of

the Reservation that lies in Pinal

County) that are not designated as a "nonattainment" area or as an "attainment" area that is subject to a

maintenance plan. Also, this proposed

action would eliminate any remaining

obligations to develop plans or

measures to attain and maintain the 1-

hour oione NAAQS or to implement

nonattainment NSR within the

Maricopa County portion of the Gila

River Indian Reservation.

We note that this proposed action to

revise the boundary of the Phoenix

metropolitan. 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation is consistent

with EPA's 2004 rule establishing an 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area for the

metropolitan Phoenix area, i.e., in both

instances the Gila River Indian

Reservation is excluded from the ozone. nonattainment area. See 69 FR 23858,

23878 (April 30, 2004). Finally, we

propose to interpret ourproposed action

herein to eliminate the requirement to

develop a section 1 10'maintenance plan

that would otherwise have been

required for the Maricopa County

portion of the Gila River Indian

Reservation because of its 1-hour

NAAQS designation (i.e.,

nonattainment) at the time when the 8-

hour ozone designations final rule was

signed by the EPA Administrator (April

15, 2004). See 69 FR 23951, 23999

(April 30, 2004).

VI. Proposed Action

We are soliciting comments on all

aspects of this proposed SIP rulemaking

action. We will consider your comments

in deciding our final action if your

comments are received by April 20,

2005.

We are proposing, under the Clean

Air Act, to fully approve three revisions

to the Arizona SIP submitted to us by

ADEQ and related to the Phoenix

metropolitan nonattainment area for the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. First, under

sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA, or "the Act"), we

are proposing to approve.the State of

Arizona's request to "opt-out" of the

Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) program and to

approve the Cleaner Burning Gasoline

(CBG) program as a substitute measure.

Second, we are proposing to approve,.

under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the

State's submittal of the Final Serious

Area Ozone State Implementation Plan

for Maricopa County as meeting the

applicable requirements for serious 1-

hour ozone nonattainment areas. Third,

under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and

110(k)(3), we are proposing to approve

the State's submittal of the One-Hour

Ozone Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa

County Nonattainment Area as meeting

CAA requirements for redesignation

requests and maintenance plans under

sections 107(d)(3)(E) and-175A.

However, this proposal is contingent

upon final approval by EPA of three

separate proposed rulemakings

involving two Maricopa County rules, a

negative declaration, and a'set of permit

conditions imposing reasonably

available control technology on a

specific stationary source. As part of our

approval of the maintenance plan, we

are proposing to approve the 2006 and

2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets

(MVEBs) for VOC and NOx in the

submitted maintenance plan for

transportation conformity purposes.

In addition, we are proposing, under

section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, to revise

the boundary of the Phoenix

metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila

River Indian Reservation. This proposed

action would add the Maricopa County

portion of the Reservation to the current

unclassifiable/attainment area within

the State of Arizona for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS and would relieve the

Agency and Gila River Indian .

Community from the need to develop

plans and measures that are not

necessary to provide for attainment and

maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a "significant regulatory

action" and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. For this reason, this action is

also not subject to Executive Order

13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This proposed action merely

proposes to approve state law as

meeting Federal requirements, reduce

the size of a nonattainment area, and

redesignate the area (as modified) to

attainment for air quality planning

purposes and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

13441

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13441 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 53 / Monday, March 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U,.SC 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordinati6n with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." "Policies that have tribal

implications" is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes."

Under section 5(b) of Executive Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

tribal officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has tribal implications and that

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency

consults with tribal officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

EPA has concluded that this proposed

rule may have tribal implications. EPA's

action will revise the boundary of. the

Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone

nonattainment maintenance area to

exclude the Gila River Indian

Reservation. However, -it will neither

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on tribal governments, nor

preempt tribal law. Thus, the

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

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA

nonetheless consulted with

representatives of tribal governments

early in the process of developing this

proposal to permit them to have

meaningful and timely input into its

development. Representatives of tribal

governments approached EPA two years

ago and requested that EPA make this

boundary change. We agree with the

technical and policy rationale the tribes

provided, and believe that all tribal

concerns have been met.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and tribal governments, EPA

specifically solicits additional comment

on this proposed rule from tribal

officials.

This action also does not have

Federalism implications because it does

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a Federal standard,

reduce the size of a nonattainment area,

and redesignate the area (as modified) to

attainment for air quality planning

purposes and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This propdM1 tul.6 algad

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

because it is not economically ,,

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions and

redesignation requests, EPA's role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission or

redesignation request for failure to use

VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews

a SIP submission or redesignation

request, to use VCS in place of a SIP

submission that otherwise satisfies the

provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus,

the requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. This proposed

rule does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 14, 2005.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 05-5517 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

13442

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13442 2005