# + 2

(,1 1/,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 FDICto address the meaning.of Section 104(d) for a state bank confronting statelaws outside its home state that disadvantage itby 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 ofthe breadth ofthe nondiscrimination requirements stated inSection 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 forany limitation .orrequirement. Any state law that "restricts" but is nondiscriminatory under Section 104(d)(4) is notpreempted under Section 104(d). By the sametoken, 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 ofthe four nondiscrimination provisions in Section 104(d)(4) to confirm that each is

a distinct testand 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 offormal orinformal administrative actions by any state or* local governmental entity, including decisions withrespect to civil enforcement ofstate rules.

* The rule should address Section 104(d)(4)(D)(i) in light ofthe terms used in subparagraph (ii)to specify that subparagraph (i) addresses treatment under state law ofan out-of-state insured state bank, which is plainly an "insured depository institution," that is different from the treatment ofany national bank or in-state statebank and banks, which is an "other person engaged inthe same activity" under these provisions. It should also specify that this discrimination can takevarious 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 inthe same activity that are not depository institutions or affiliates thereof." but not out-of-state state banks insured institutions), by operation oflaw (e.g., when state law is preempted for rational banks orfederal thrifts, and federal creditunions, but notfor out-ofstate state banks), orby 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. ofpolitical subdivisions (including any county, municipality, etc.).

5. TheFDICShouldImplementSection 27oftheFDIActbyAdoptingaRule Parallelto theRulesPromulgated by the OCC andOTS

The scope andimplementation ofthe
express preemption forthe "interest rate" charged in interstate lending transactions by state and national banks under Section 27 ofthe FDI Act and Section 85 ofthe National Bank Act have been authoritatively addressed by the courts29 and in agency interpretations. 30 Nevertheless, both the OCC and OTS have adopted rules codifying the scope ofthe respective statutory provisions. We request that the FDIC adopt parallel provisions byrule

so that state banks will operate ina matching legal framework under these parallel statutes.

The Roundtable appreciates the FDIC's consideration ofthis petition. Werecognize that itis 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 itis attractive to bothlarge and small banks. Such a system is an integral, essential part ofthe framework for banking inthe United States. While we strongly support the development of interstate banking and federal preemption overthe lastdecade, we believe that the modernization of American banking requires a parallel modernization ofthe state halfofthe 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 FDICboth the tools and responsibility to address these needs.

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

29 GreenwoodTrust Co.v. Moss., 971 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1992), Smileyv. Citibank,517 U.S. 735 (1996).

30See FDIC General Counsel Opinions 10 and 11. its staff to achieve these important objectives. Ifyou have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me orJohn Beccia at (202) 289-4322. Sincerely,
Richard M.Whiting, ExecutiveDirector andGeneralCounsel.

cc: Chairman DonaldE.Powell, William F. KroenerIll, Esq. [FRDoc. 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] Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plansand Designation ofAreas for AirQuality 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 ofthe clean fuel fleet programrequirement with the cleaner burning gasoline program, adoption of the serious area 1-hour ozone plan, and adoption ofthe 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Phoenix (Arizona)metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. We are also

- proposingto approve Arizona's request to redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment areafrom nonattainment to attainment. EPA
proposes these actions pursuant to those provisions ofthe Clean Air Actthat obligate the agency to take action on submittals ofrevisions to state implementation plans and requests for redesignation. In addition, under section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act, we are proposing to revise the boundary ofthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. EPA is proposing this last action consistent with the Federal trustresponsibility to the Tribes and for the purpose of relieving the Agency orthe Gila River Indian Community ofthe need to promulgate and implement plans and

measures forthe Community that are notneeded for attainment or maintenance ofthe 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 mustbe received at the address below on or before April 20, 2005. ADDRESSES: Formal written comments should bemailed oremailed to Wienke Tax, Office ofAir 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 RegisterWeb site at http:// www.regulations.gov.We prefer electronic comments.

You can inspect copies ofEPA's Federal Register document atour 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 athttp:// www.epa.gov/region09/air.

You may inspect and copy the rulemaking docket for this notice atthe following location duringbusiness hours. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, AirPlanning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the address listedbelow: Arizona Department ofEnvironmental

Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007, Phone: (602) 771-2217.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of AirPlanning, 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 ofContents
I Summary ofToday's Proposed Action Il.History of1-Hour Ozone Planning inthe Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment Area III. The CAA's Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans IV.EPA'sReview ofthe MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan's Compliance With the CAA's Requirements for Ozone Redesignation Requests andMaintenance Plans A.The Area MustBeAttaining the 1-Hour

Ozone NAAQS 1.Adequate Monitoring Network 2.Attainment ofthe Standard 3.MonitoringResults B.The Area MustHave a Fully-Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) C. The Improvement inAir Quality Must

BeDuetoPermanent and Enforceable

- Reductions in Emissions D. The Area MustHave Met AllApplicable

Requirements UnderSection 110and PartD ofthe CAA 1.Section 110 Requirements 2.PartD: Provisions for Nonattainment

Areas

a. Section 172Requirements b. Section 176 Requirements

c. Section 182Requirements E. The Area Must Have aFully-Approved

Maintenance Plan Meeting the Requirements ofSection 175A 1.Emissions Inventory 2.Maintenance Demonstration 3.Monitoring Network 4. Verification ofContinued Attainment 5.Contingency Plan 6.SubsequentMaintenance Plan Revisions 7.MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets

(MVEBs) 8.Conclusion V.Revision ofBoundary ofthePhoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area A.Background B.EPA Review ofthe Community's

Request C. Conclusion andEffect ofRevisingthe

Boundary ofthePhoenix Metropolitan 1- HourOzone Nonattainment Area VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary ofToday'sProposed Action

We are proposing to approve, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA or "Act"), the State ofArizona's 1998 request to "opt-out" ofthe 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) ofthe Act, the State's 2000 submittal ofthe FinalSeriousArea OzoneStateImplementationPlan for MaricopaCounty ("Serious Area Ozone Plan"), which provides a demonstration ofcompliance 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-HourOzoneRedesignation RequestandMaintenancePlan forthe 'MaricopaCountyNonattainment Area ("Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan"), which was developed and adopted by the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG) as meeting CAArequirements for redesignation requests and maintenance plans. EPA is proposing to determine that the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment areahas fully metthe requirements forredesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment forthe 1- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). However, this proposal is contingent upon final approval byEPA of three separate proposed rulemakings involving two Maricopa County rules, a negative declaration, and a set ofpermit conditions imposing "reasonably available control technology" on a specific stationary source. As part ofour approval ofthe maintenance plan, we
are proposingto approve the 2006 and 2015 motorvehicle 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) ofthe Act, to revise the boundary ofthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. This proposed action would add the Maricopa County portion ofthe Reservation to the current "unclassifiable/attainment" area within the State ofArizona forthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. The effect ofthis action would be to relieve the Agency and the Community oftheneed to develop and implement plans and measures that are notneeded for attainment or maintenance ofthe 1-hour or 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.

II. History of1-Hour Ozone Planning in the Phoenix Metropolitan NonattainmentArea

Under s'ection 107(d) ofthe CAA, as amended in 1977, Maricopa County was designated as a 1-hour oxidant (later ozone) nonattainment area inMarch 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 ofthe Maricopa Association ofGovernments' (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" orthe "Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area," and

we note that the boundary ofthis nonattainment area has remained defined byreference tothe MAG urban planning area from 1979 through the presenttime. However, we are proposing today torevise the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment areaboundary to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation (see Section V ofthis proposed rule).

OnNovember 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of1990 were enacted. 

### 13426

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13426 2005

### Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

Underthe Act, as amended in 1990, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area remained nonattainment by operation oflaw, and under section 107(d)(4)(A) ofthe amended Act, the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area was further classified as a "moderate" ozone nonattainment areabased 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 wasreclassified 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 ofthe requirements for "moderate" ozone nonattainment areas, the State of • Arizona submitted the initial 15 percent Rate ofProgress plan (15 percent ROP plan) forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area via the Maricopa AssociationofGovernments1993 Ozone Plan fortheMaricopaCountyArea (November 1993) onNovember 15, 1993, and anAddendum (March 1994)
to that plan on April 8, 1994. OnApril 13, 1994, EPA found the initial plan (includingtheAddendum)incomplete because it failed to include infully adopted and enforceable form all ofthe

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) coveringthe 15 percent ROP requirement. Subsequently inNovember 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 offthe 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 bythe American Lung Association ofArizona,
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, aconsent decree was filed with the U.S. District Courtfor the District ofArizona 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 finalrule that the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area had inplace or would have inplace sufficient control measures to meet the 15percent ROP requirement for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), aprecursor emission to ozone, under CAA section 182(b)(1)(A) as soon aspracticable. See 63 FR 28898 (May 27, 1998), as amended at64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).

In February 2000, the State ofArizona requested that EPA make afinding 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. InMay of2000,

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 ofthe requirements for "serious" ozone nonattainment areas, the State submitted to EPA a SIP revision opting out ofthe Clean Fuel Fleet program requirement and requesting EPA approval ofits interim Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program as a substitute program. On, June 7, 1999, the revision was found to be complete by operation oflaw pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria setforth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Intoday's notice, we are proposed to approve this request.

On December 14, 2000, the State submitted theFinalSeriousArea Ozone StateImplementationPlan forMaricopa County("Serious Area Ozone Plan") to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. This plan was found to be complete by operation oflaw onJune 14, 2001. Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ)prepared the Serious Area Ozone Plan, and in doing so, anticipated apositive 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 foryear 1996, and describes the State's compliance with CAA requirements for "serious" ozone nonattainment areas, including the requirements for enhanced monitoring. Intoday's notice, we are proposing to approve,the SeriousArea Ozone.Plan, forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area.

Inearlier actions, we have already approved revisions to Arizona's Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program (69FR 10161, March 4, 2004) and to Arizona's Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI) Program (68 FR 2912, January 22, 2003)

as well as many ofMaricopa County's VOC RACT rules. (TheFederal 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 onin the Serious Area Ozone Plan.

OnApril 21, 2004, the State submitted the One-HourOzone Redesignation Request and MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa CountyNonattainment Area (Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan)to EPA as arevision
to the Arizona SIP. This plan was found
to be complete by operation oflaw on October 21, 2004. The Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG) prepared theRedesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, which relies on continuation ofthe control measures cited above in connection with the Serious Area Ozone Plan butalso includes additional control measures including coordination oftraffic signal systems, tougher enforcement ofvehicle registration and emission test compliance, development ofintelligent transportation systems, and anew Maricopa County rule governing VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework operations. The plan includes contingency

measures to remedy any future violations ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and NOx MVEBs for 2006 and 2015 forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. In today's notice, we are proposing to approve the Redesignation Requestand Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area.

Our proposed approvals ofthe Serious Area Ozone Plan and the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan are contingent upon final EPA approval of certain otherrulemakings described inmore detail later inthis notice. EPA notes that the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area hasbeen designated nonattainment forthe 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and is subject to additional requirements as aresult. See 69 FR 23858, 23879 (April30, 2004). Final approval ofthis proposal would change the official designation-for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFRpart 81 for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area from nonattainment
to attainment but would hot affect the 

### 413427

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13427 2005Federal. 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 forredesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows forredesignation 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 ofthe 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 ofsection 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 inthe General Preamble forthe Implementation ofTitle I ofthe CAAAmendments of 1990,,onApril 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 ofOzone and Carbon Monoxide NonattainmentAreas", 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 (Helmsmemo 1992b);

* "Procedures forProcessing 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 forRedesignation to Attainment-ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On orAfter November 15, 1992", Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memo);

* "Part DNew Source Review (partD NSR) Requirements forAreas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment", Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 (Nichols memo); and

e "Reasonable FurtherProgress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard", Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz memo).

IV. EPA's Review ofthe MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan's Compliance With the CAA's Requirements for Ozone Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans

EPAbelieves the State ofArizona has demonstrated that the area meets all of the applicable criteria forredesignation
to attainment as specified in Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA.

A. TheAreaMustBeAttainingthe 1- HourOzoneNAAQS

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA
states that for an areato 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 CAArequires 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) oftheAct. Our regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish specific regulatory requirements for operating air quality surveillance networks to measure ambient concentrations ofozone, including
measurement method requirements, network design, quality assurance procedures, and inthe case oflarge urban areas, the minimum number of monitoring sites designated as National AirMonitoring Stations (NAMS).

For this 'projposed action, we are discussing the adequacy ofthe 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 inthe 2000 to 2002 period, the ozone ambient air monitoring network consisted offour '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 ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ). Figure 2-1 onpage 2-6 in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan lists the names ofthe sites and their locations inthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. Since the 2000-2002 period, the ozone networkhas changed, e.g., certain sites have been discontinued while new sites have been added. Inthe 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 'toour regulations, meet the applicable monitoring objectives in our regulations, and are operated according
to our regulations. Wetherefore 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 ofthe Standard

For ozone, an area maybe considered to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ifthere are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years ofqualityassured ambient monitoring data. A violation ofthe 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 inthe area or its downwind environs, using conventional rounding techniques.

The calculation ofthe estimated exceedances takes into account not only the number of exceedances during a given ozone season, but also "completeness ofdata, anddaily peak

ozone concentrations on days inthe

ozone season that can be assumed to be less thanthe level ofthe 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 agiven 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 CFRpart 58, and recorded inEPA's AirQuality System (AQS) database. 3.Monitoring Results

MCESD and ADEQ submitted qualityassured ozone monitoring data to EPA forthe 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 FR29230 (May 30, 2001). Since then, thePhoenix metropolitan nonattainment area has continued to meetthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as shown inTable 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

.................................................................................................................................. NAMS 0 0.106 South Scottsdale

............................................................................................................................. NAM S 0 0.099 Tempe ............................................................................................................................................ SPM 0 0.098 Falcon Field

.................................................................................................................................... SLAM S 0 0.104 Rio Verde

..................................................................................... ...... SLAMS 0 0.101 Dysart**

....................................................................................... ".

................................................ SLAM S 0 0.085 South Phoenix

................................................................................................................................. SLAM S 0 0.091 West Phoenix

.................................................................................................................................. SLAM S

. 0 0.097 Pinnacle Peak

................................................................................................................................. SLAMS 0 0.101 North Phoenix

................................................................................................................................. SLAM S 0 0.105 Glendale

......................................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.099 West Chandler

.......................... :..................................................................................................... SLAM S 0 0.099 Cave Creek

..................................................................................................................................... SPM 0 0.099 Humboldt Mountain

........................................................................................................................ SLAM S 0 0.099 JLG Supersite*

............................................................................................................................... SLAMS 0 0.086 Palo Verde*.

.................................................................................................................................... SLAMS 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 ata given site.Design values provide onebasis ofcomparison between different parts ofagiven nonattainment areawith respect to peak

ozone exposure; as such, the design values are provided herein for information purposes only. Attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS relies on the
average number of exceedances per year (the design value is used under the CAA ifan area is found to have missed its attainment deadline and must be reclassified).

Based on the monitoring data summarized inTable 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) ofthe Act. B. TheAreaMustHaveaFully ApprovedSIP UnderSection 110(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 fora periodic inventory for 1996 and enhanced monitoring.

CAA requirements for ozone nonattaininent areas are cumulative in that "serious" areas must also meetthe applicable requirements for thetwo lesser classifications: "marginal" and "moderate". Most ofthe applicable requirements forthe 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 ofthe Serious Area Ozone Plan will accomplish the

same for the 1996 periodic inventory requirement and the enhanced monitoring requirement.

We recognize that thereremain 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 RACTfor W.R. Meadows, the MCrule establishing the emissions statements requirement, and a negative declaration. If, and-once, we finalize our approvals ofthese separate proposed actions and finalize our proposed approval ofthe Serious Area OzonePlan, then we willhave fully approved the applicable implementation plan forthe area under section 110(k) and satisfied the criterion forredesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) ofthe CAA.

C. TheImprovementinAirQualityMust Be DuetoPermanentandEnforceable ReductionsinEmissions

The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and enforceable 

### 13429

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

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe 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 ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions through the implementation ofemission controls contained in the Arizona SIP and Federal measures. Subsequentto the 1990 CAA amendments, Arizona implemented a number ofemission controls. The area has complied with all ofthe emission requirements for a

.. serious ozone nonattainment area as required by the CAA. Some ofthe emission reductions were achieved through the implementation of the use oflowvolatility cleaner burning gasoline, more stringent Tier I motor vehicle emission standards, implementation ofan enhanced vehicle I/M program, controls on area sources, and the adoption oftighter emissions limits on existing stationary sources. All ofthe emission control measures contained inthe 15 percent ROP plan, serious area ozone plan, and redesignation request and maintendnce plan have been fully adopted, have been implemented, and are enforceable inthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area. Maricopa County has adopted and implemented emission control rules requiring existing sources ofVOC 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 Area 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

Biogenics

......................................................................................... ............................... 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-HourOzone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.

It can be seen that overall, bothVOC emissions andNOx emissions decreased inthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area between 1990 and 1999. Increases in emissions ofVOC in the nonroad mobile source category and biogenics were offset by larger decreases inemissions from other source categories. Increases in emissions of NOx from area sources were offset by larger decreases in other source categories. Wepropose to find that the improvement in ozone air quality in the Phoenix metropolitan-area is due to emissions reductions from implementation ofpermanent and enforceable measures and that the area thereby meets the redesignation criterion under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

D. TheAreaMustHaveMetAll ApplicableRequirementsUnderSection 110 andPart D oftheCAA

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). Anumber ofthe requirements did not change in substance, and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment EPA-approved SIPmet these requirements. As to those requirements that were amended, (see 57FR 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1993), many are duplicative ofother requirements ofthe 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 ofambient air quality data, requires preconstruction review ofnew major stationary sources and major modifications to existing
ones, provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary .toimplement 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 ofthe Revised Serious Area CarbonMonoxide Plan ("Revised 1999 CO Plan"). EPA approved this plan in afinal rule on March 9, 2005 (see70FR 11553). In orderto comply with these CAA sections, a State law was passed in 1992 which provides an approach for

assurances that State and local committed measures willbe adequately implemented (seeArizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Sections 49-406 I. and J.) A.R.S. Section 49-406 G. (passedby the Arizona Legislature in 1992) requires that each agency which commits to implement any control measure contained inthe SIPmust describe the commitment in a resolution. The resolution mustbe adopted bythe appropriate governing body ofthe 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 ofthe limitation or measure; and (3) the level ofpersonnel and funding allocated
to the implementation ofthe measure.

Chapter 11 ofthe 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 ofthe cities and townsto implement the types of

measures that they have committed to in their respective rdsolutions areprovided under A.R.S. section 9-240 Powers of Common Council. The general authorities ofthe 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 ofthe Revised 1999 CO Plan. 

### 13430

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13430 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

Ifany State, County, local government, regional agency, or other entity failed to implement acommitted
measure, the County would file an action in Superior Court fo have the Court orderthat the measure be implemented. Likewise, theDirector of ADEQ willbackstop the County ifit fails to implement a committed measure
or ifthe County fails to backstop the local governments and regional agencies (seeAppendix C, Exhibit 2, Revised 1999 COPlan).

2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment Areas

Before an area may be redesignated to attainment, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements ofpart D. Under part D oftitle I ofthe CAA, an area's ozone classification determines the requirements to which itis subject. Subpart 1 ofpart Dspecifies the basic requirements applicable to all nonaftainment areas. Subpart 2 ofpart D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas classified under table 1of section 181(a) ofthe CAA.

As described in the General Preamble for Implementation ofTitle I ofthe CAA, specific requirements ofsubpart 2 may override or modify general provisions in subpart 1 (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). Therefore, in orderto be redesignated, the States must meet the applicable requirements ofsubpart 1 of partD-specifically sections 172(c) and 176, as well asthe applicable requirements ofsubpart 2 ofpart D.

EPA believes that Arizona has metthe requirements of subpart I ofpartDspecifically'sections 172(c) and 176, insofar as applicable, as well as the applicable requirements ofsubpart 2 of part D ofthe CAA for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, as described below.

a. Section 172Requirements.This section contains general requirements for nonattainment area SIPs. Athorough discussion ofthe requirements contained in section 172(c) may be found inthe General Preamble for Implementation oftitle 1(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).

EPA has interpreted therequirements 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 ofApril 16, 1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum. Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options that would trigger sections 172(c)(4) (identification ofcertain emissions increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these provisions are also notrelevant 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 ofRACT forstationary

sources. These requirements are discussed below under Section 182 Requirements.

. EmissionsInventories.The plan needs

to include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources ofthe relevant " pollutant as determined necessary by the Administrator to assure that the requirements ofpart D ofthe CAA are met. These requirements are discussed below under Section 182 Requirements.

Permits forNew andModifiedMajor StationarySources.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 ageneral offset rule.

We have determined that areas being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment do notneed to comply with the requirement that an NSR programbe approved priorto redesignation provided that the area demonstrates maintenance ofthe standard without part D nonattainment NSR ineffect. The rationale for this decision is described in the Nichols memo.1

The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forthe 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 nothave a fully-approved nonattainment NSR program prior to approval ofthe redesignation request.

Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) is the replacement
program for NSR, and part ofthe obligation under PSD is fora new

source to review increment consumption and maintenance ofthe air quality standards. The PSD program requires stationary sources to undergo preconstruction review before facilities

are constructed or modified, and to

I "Part DNew Source Review (partDNSR) Requirements forAreas RequestingRedesignation to Attainment", Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, AssistantAdministrator forAirand Radiation, October 14, 1994. apply BestAvailable Control Technology (BACT). This program will apply to any major source wishing to locate inthe Phoenix metropolitan area
once the area is redesignated to attainment. Effective November 22, 1993, we delegated PSD authority to Maricopa County viaa PSDDelegation Agreement (59 FR 1730, January 12, 1994).

ComplianceWith Section 11O(a)(2). The plan must contain provisions to meetthe requirements of section 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA (see the discussion ofsection 110 requirements above).

b. Section 176Rqquirements.Section 176(c) ofthe CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to

ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goalsin 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. ofthe 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 mustbe consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPAto promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for
purposes ofevaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d). The rationale forthis isbased on a combination oftwo factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions ofthe CAA continues to apply to areas afterredesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, the EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performanqe ofconformity analyses in the absence ofFederally approved State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless ofwhether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal -rulesif State rules are notyet approved, EPAbelieves itis reasonable to view these requirements asnot applying for purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request. See Wallv. EPA,265 F. 3d 426, 439 (6thCir. 2001) upholding this interpretation.

The State ofArizona 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 notyet 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 forredesignation. Federal transportation conformity rules continue to apply.

c. Section.182Requirements.For purposes ofthis redesignation, the part D, subpart 2, section 182(a), (b) and (c) requirements fora nonattainment area apply to the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. EPA has interpreted the requirements ofsections 182(c)(2) (attainment and RFP demonstrations), 182(c)(5) (transportation control), and 182(c)(9) (contingency measures) as being irrelevant to aredesignation request because they only have meaning for an

area that is not attainingthe standard. See the General Preamble ofApril 16, 1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum. The other planprovisions under section 182 are discussed below.

1990Base YearInvientoryand Periodic EmissionsInventory 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 ofactual emissions from all sources in the ozone nonattainment area and to submit updates ofthose inventories every three years until redesignation.

Arizona submitted acomplete and
accurate 1990-emissions inventory for VOC andNOx for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area as noted inEPA's final approval ofthe emissions inventory onMay 27, 1998 (63 FR 28898). Arizona submitted updated periodic emissions inventories for 1993, 1996, and 1999. The final 1993

ozone SIPinventory was submitted to

uson 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 ofthe Serious Area Ozone Plan. The 1999 periodic ozone emissions inventory for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area was originally submitted to EPA inAugust 2002 and thenre-submitted to EPA aspart ofthe Redesignation' Request and Maintenance Plan, inAppendix A,Exhibit 1.The Appendix contains a complete description ofthe sources and

2ADEQ held apublic hearing forthe Serious Area Ozone Plan on April 26, 2000. ADEQ adopted the Serious Area Ozone Planon December 14, 2000and submitted itto us on the same date. We find that ADEQ thereby satisfied therequirements for notice and public hearing onall SIP revisions under section 110(1) ofthe Act. methodologies used to calculate ozone emissions.

The 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan also contains a description ofthe 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 oftrucks, and buses. Collectively, these

sources contributed atotal of 256metric
tons per day ofNOx and 360 metric tons per day ofVOC in 1999.

We propose to approve the 1996 and 1999 periodic emissions inventories and findthat the State has complied with the inventory requirements ofsection 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). We also propose to approve the 1998 and 1999 baseyear inventories, the interim year 2006 inventory, and maintenance year 2015 inventory in connection with the maintenance demonstration discussed elsewhere in this notice.

EmissionsStatementRequirements. Section 182(a)(3)(B) ofthe Act requires States to submit a SIP revision requiring

owners or operators ofstationary

sources ofVOC orNOx to provide the State with estimates ofactual 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 ruleby directfinal action published

on February 10, 2005. See 70 FR 7038 (February 10, 2005). Assuming no adverse comments are submitted in connection with this direct finalrule,

our final rule published on February 10, 2005 willbe effective onApril 11, 2005. Ifadverse comments are timely submitted, then wewill withdraw 4he direct final rule and consider those
comments prior to taking afinal action. See our proposed rule (70 FR 7069) also published onFebruary 10, 2005. We will finalize our action-on MC Rule 100.503 prior to taking final,action on this proposal. 15PercentROPPlanRequirements. Section 182(b)(1) ofthe CAA requires the submission ofa 15 percent ROP plan. Thisplan is to provide for VOC emission reductions in the nonattainmentarea ofat least 15 percent, from the 1990 baseline emissions levels, by no laterthan 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 ofthe 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) forEPAto 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 andthe attainment plan complete, turning off the sanctions clock; however, under section 110(c), the FIP clock continued until EPA approved the 15 percent plan. InAugust 1996, we were sued by the American Lung Association ofArizona and others, AmericanLungAssociation of

Arizona, Inc. etal.v. Browner,No. CIV 96 1856,PHX ROS (D. Arizona) to enforce EPA's obligation under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate aFIP 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 forpromulgating 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 rulethat the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area had in place or would have in place sufficient control

measures to meet the 15percent ROP requirement forvolatile 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).

VOCRACTRequirements.Section 172(c)(1) ofthe CAA specifies that SIPs
must provide forthe 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 ornegative 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 RACTrequirement for the minimum, the SIPs mustrequire the submitted on April 21, 2004, describes few remaining CTG source categories implementation ofRACT fortwo classes how the State ofArizona has metthe and VOC major sources. EPA, thrdugh a ofVOC sources. The VOC source classes VOC RACT requirements under sections number ofrulemakings, has approved

are: (a) All sources covered by a Control 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) ofthe Act for these RACTrules and negative Techniques Guideline (CTG) document nearly all ofthe CTG source categories declarations as revisions to the Arizona issued by the Administrator by the date and VOC major sources eitherthrough SEP as documented in Table 3. ofattainment ofthe ozone standard; and adoption ofMaricopa County air

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

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

Control Techniques Guidelines

Gasoline Loading Terminals

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

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 Wire

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

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

Leaks from Petroleum Refineries

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

Miscellaneous Metal Parts Surface Coating

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

Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

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

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

Rubber Tire Manufacture

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

External Floating Roof Petroleum Tanks

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

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

............................................................ GasolineTruck 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). Wood 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 Subjectto 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 aVOC 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
metfor the vast majority ofCTG source categories and major sources either through establishment ofMaricopa County (MC) regulations orby submittal ofnegative declarations. At thistime,

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 majorVOC source), and (3) the negative declaration for the onemajor VOC source inthe emissions source category ofFiberglass Boat Manufacturing. The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 signed rules in early March 2005 proposing approval ofMC Rule 358 and W.R. Meadows' permit conditions asmeeting 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 forthe one major VOC source inthe emissions

source category ofFiberglass Boat Manufacturing on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7038) by direct final action. Ifno adverse comments are received on that directfinal action by March 14, 2005, then the approval ofthe negative declaration willbecome effective April 11, 2005, but ifsuch comments are received then the direct final rule will be withdrawn and EPA will taken final action after consideration ofthe
comments.

StageIIVaporRecovery Requirements.Section 182(b)(3) ofthe CAA requires States to submit Stage II vapor recovery rules. The Stage II vapor recovery regulations forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment areawere submitted to us on May 27, 1994 by the State. These rules hadbeen adopted by the Arizona Department ofWeights and Measures (ADWM) onAugust 27, 1993. We approved the program on November 1, 1994, effective January 3, 1995 (see59 FR 54521). Subsequent State legislation (House Bill (HB) 2001, in 1997) required the ADWM to adopt rules to enhance enforcement ofthe program. These rules

can be found at A.R.S. 41-2134. The regulations in the Arizona SIP fully adopt and implement the Stage 11vapor recovery requirements inArizona.

. Vehicle 11MRequirements.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 forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area as part ofthe Arizona SIP on January 22, 2003 (see 69 FR 2912). ADEQ implements an enhanced I/M
program inArea 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 ofthe Section 182(c)(3) requirements ofthe CAA. CleanFuelVehiclePrograms. Sections 182(c)(4)(A) ofthe CAA requires States to submit aSIP revision for each serious 1-hournonattainment

areathat includes such measures necessary to ensure the effectiveness of clean-fuel vehicle program prescribed under part C oftitleII ofthe Act. In particular, SIPs for serious ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of250,000 ormore must establish a clean-fuel vehicle program forcentrally 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 beclean-fuel vehicles and shall use clean alternative fuels when operating in the covered

area. Section 182(c)(4)(B) ofthe Act allows States such asArizona to "optout" ofall or a portion ofthe clean-fuel vehicle program including the CFF program by submitting for EPA approval

a SIP revision consisting ofaprogram or programs not otherwise required by the Act that willresult in at least equivalent long term reductions in ozoneproducing and toxic air emissions.

OnDecember 7, 1998, Arizona submitted to EPA a SIP revision opting
out ofthe CFF program. The opt-out SIP requested EPA approval ofits interim Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program, whichEPA had already approved into the SIP (see63FR 6653, February 10, 1998), as asubstitute program. 3 OnJune 7, 1999, the revision

was found to be complete by operation of law pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria setforth in 40 CFRpart 51, appendix V. In the 1998 opt-out SIP submittal, ADEQhad estimated that the CBG program would provide 9 metric tons per day (mtpd) ofVOC reductions in 2010compared to 0.5 to 1.8 mtpd in that same year that would have been achieved by aCFF program.4 ADEQ also

EPA has sinceapprovedadditional revisions to the Arizona CBGprogram.

4ADEQnoted thatits estimates ofthe emissions reductions benefit froma CFFprogram were likely estimated that the CBG program would provide 5.0 mtpd ofNOx reductions in 2010 compared to 0.6 to 2.5 mtpdin that same year that would have been achieved by aCFF program. See also, Arizona's modeled emission reductions from the four controlprograms, the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, CBG, Tier 2 and the CFF Program, in 2015 inMetropolitan Phoenix. 5

TABLE 4.-EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM FOUR CONTROL PROGRAMS IN2015 INMETROPOLITAN 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 inthe Phoenix metropolitan ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, the resulting reductions of ozone-producing emissions from this
program (VOCsand NOx) meet or exceed the emissions reductions that would have occurred ifthe 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 thereduction in VOC emissions, any substitute plan whichreduces VOCs will also reduce toxic air emissions in the sameproportion. Therefore, Arizona's substitute plan willmeet the CFF programrequirement for air toxics emissions.

Based on the above evaluation, we propose to approve, under section 182(c)(4)(B) ofthe Act, ADEQ's submittal ofthe CBGprogram as a substitute measure achieving equivalent long-term emissions reductions of ozone-producing and toxic air pollutants as would have been achieved by implementation ofa CFFprogram. In

overstated because the estimates did not account for the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)
program, whichwas expected to be implemented in Arizona and to leadto the availability ofloweremitting (conventional) light duty vehicles beginning with the 2001 model year.

5EPApromulgated theNLEV program onJune 6, 1997 underwhich vehicle manufacturers voluntarily agreed to market light duty gasoline vehicles with emissions substantially lowerthan Tier 1 vehicles. (62 FR 31193, (June 6, 1997)). On February 10, 2000, EPApromulgated the Tier 2/ gasoline sulfur standards that established more stringent exhuastemissions standards for light and medium duty gasoline vehicles. (65FR 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) ofthe Act (seeExhibit 4 ofthe State's December 7, 1998 SIP revision submittal).

NOx Emission ControlRequirements. Section 182(f) establishes NOx requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas which require the same provisions formajor stationary sources ofNOx as apply to major stationary sources of VOCs. However, section 182(f) also provides that these requirements do not apply to an area ifthe Administrator determines that NOx reductions would
notcontribute to attainment.

For the Phoenix metropolitan ozone nonattainment area, EPA granted a waiver from the section 182(f) requirements for NOx. The basis forthe waiver wasthat Arizona demonstrated using UAM that additional NOx emission controls in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area would
not contribute to the attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard inthe area. See 60 FR 19510 (April 19, 1995).

EnhancedMonitoring.As a result of the reclassification ofthe 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 ofthe Serious Area Ozone Plan). Inthe Serious Area Ozone Plan, ADEQ indicated that,in 1999, the PAMS network was notyet fully implemented but that it was being phased-in over a" five year period in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.44 and 40 CFRpart 58. We propose to find that the State has met therequirements for enhanced monitoring under section 182(c)(1).

When EPA finalizes today's proposal forthe serious area plan revision to the Arizona SIP as well asthe three separate rulemakings previously discussed, the Arizona ozone SIPwill meet the applicable requirements ofsection 110 and part D.

E. TheAreaMustHaveaFullyApprovedMaintenancePlan Meeting theRequirementsofSection 175A

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) ofthe CAA requires, as apre-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 ofthe Act. Section 175A ofthe CAA sets forth the elements ofa maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides formaintenance ofthe relevant NAAQS inthe area for at least 10years after redesignation. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the required content of amaintenance plan.

A 1-hour ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification ofcontinued 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 whichhad no monitored violations. To demonstrate maintenance ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the results from UAM modeling analyses should not show predicted 1-hourmaximum ozone concentrations equivalent to or greater than 0.125 ppm anywhere inthe modeling domain forthe episode modeled. Provisions for continued operation ofan appropriate air quality monitoring network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The State must show how it will track and verifythe progress ofthe maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance planmust include a list ofpotential contingency

measures which ensure lrompt correction ofany violation ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS.

1.Emissions Inventory

MAG selected 1999 asthe attainment
year forpurposes ofdemonstrating attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Modeling episodes in both 1998 and 1999 were used; therefore, MAG developed modeling inventories for both ofthe 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 fora 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 atthat 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 VIofMAG's Technical SupportDocument forOzoneModeling in Supportofthe One-HourOzone Redesignation Requestand MaintenancePlan forthe.PhOenix metropolitanNonattainment Area, November2003 (included as Exhibit 2 ofAppendix A ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan) describe 'the inventories in moretechnical detail. Emissions for point, area, and nonroad mobile sources were developed for abase year and then projected to 2006 and 2015 using appropriate growth factors..The growth factors werebased

on the 2015 population projections approved by the MAG Regional Council inJune 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 ofEconomic Security (DES) inAugust 1997. Growth factors based on 2000 Census Datawere 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 ofexpected increases inpopulation and employment projections forPhoenix metropolitan.

Inthe 1998 and 1999 base cases, onroad mobile sources contribute 28 to 30 percent ofVOC emissiofis and 51 to 52 percent ofNOx emissions and represent the largest emissions source category for bothNOx and VOC. Withthe implementation ofthe measures in the maintenance plan and stricter federal controls onvehicles 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 forNOx 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 aresult ofexpected 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

ahigher emission factor forbiogenic VOC than agricultural land, while the opposite is true forbiogenic NOx emissions. Since itis anticipated that the residential land area willcontinue
to increase as thePhoenix 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 3percent between 1999 and 2006, and about 15 percent between 1999 and 2015. By implementing the emissions control measures in the maintenance plan, totalNOx 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 ofthe 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 amidpoint inthe ten-year maintenance period. This interimyear 2006 was developed for the
purposes oftransportation conformity.

Table 5 summarizes the VOC and NOx emissions estimates for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

areafor 1999, 2006, and 2015.

Comparison ofbase 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 duringthis same timeperiod.

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. ModelingProcedure. In developing the maintenance demonstration, MAG followed EPA's Guideline forRegulatory Applicationofthe UrbanAirshedModel (EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991; available athttp://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 bebelow 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 ofthe One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forthe Phoenix metropolitan Nonattainment Area" (hereafter "MAG TSD"). Development ofthe application of UAM followed a protocol, per GRAUAM (the EPA guideline), whichis included in the Appendix Iofthe MAG TSD. Thisprotocol describes procedures
to be followed in developing model inputs and injudgingmodel performance, as well as the size ofthe modeling domain and the particular

ozone episodes to bemodeled. The protocol was reviewed and agreed to by both EPA and ADEQprior to submission ofthe maintenance plan.

c.ModelInputs.The modeling domain used byMAG for the maintenance modeling demonstration

was larger than inearlier UAM applications for the Phoenix metropolitan area. It was extended to include some largepoint sources to the
west (andgenerally upwind) ofthe main metropolitan area, and also to the east to include more ofthe ozone plume that had been seen in previous simulations

as well asurban 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 of32 high ozone days spread among 21 episodes, two ozone episodes were chosen formodeling: July 16-17, 1998 and August 23-24, 1999. Whilethere have been no recent NAAQS exceedances, these episodes have among the highest ozone concentrations observed; theirpeak concentrations are 118 ppb and 124 ppb, respectively (the NAAQS is 0.12
ppm, or 120 ppb, but valuesbelow 125 ppb are rounded down and not considered exceedances). These episodes are representative ofthe 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 lowpressure center over southwestern Arizona, with relatively.high temperatures and low wind speeds. Butthe regime type ofthe July 1998 episode tends tp have high

ozone inthe metropolitan center and extending northwest. The regime type of the August 1999 episode is less
common, but has adifferent spatial pattern; high ozonetends to occurmore to the east. It also tends to have longer

### 13437

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13437 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 53/Monday, March 21, 2005/Proposed Rules

lasting southwesterly winds during the daythan 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 foruse with UAM. MIXEMUP inputs were upper air temperature soundings from Tucson (theonly ones available) combined with Sky Harbor (Phoenix)Airport surface temperatures; also, localtemperature and wind data from monitoring sites

were used to generate a spatiallyvarying mixingheight 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 MAGtraffic 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 TestingandPerformance. A number ofsensitivity and diagnostic,
tests were carried out to test the effect ofalternative 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 ofemissions for variousbroad emissions categories, doubling on-ioad emissions, and reducing wind speeds by 20 percent.This set ofsimulations is comparable to the recommendations in EPA guidelines, and helped elucidate the functioning ofthe 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 ofthe central business district rather than to the east-northeast as indicated by monitored observations. The explanation forthis discrepancy appears to be that the wind field used in the modelmay be shifted slightlyrelative to the actual winds, so that the ozone plume was shifted relative to the monitors. The model still predicts a comparable ozone peak, both intiming and in concentration, but itjust does not happen to be at the monitor locations. This conclusion is supported by the sensitivity simulations with reduced wind speed, since the modelresponded

as expected to this change, and also has

a fairly large sensitivity to this as opposed to other variables.

A second anomaly ofthe August 1999 episode was apersistent moderately high ozone level south ofthe central business district that was not apparent inthe 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 ofthe model at all, and appeared to be a localized effect that mighthave been caused by the proximity ofSouth Mountain, which blocks transport toward the south and southeast, and by alternation ofmorning and afternoon slope flows that .cause recirculation ofpollutants in the area. Despite these issues,both episodes meet EPA performance criteria and provide

an acceptable basis for a maintenance demonstration.

e.MaintenanceDemonstrated. The maintenance demonstration itself involves projecting emissions to 2015, including the effect ofcontrols, using similar procedures asfor the base case episodes. The modelis then re-run on the two episodes with the new emissions to test whether the future controlled emissions are stillconsistent with NAAQS attainment. As shown in Tables 3-3 though and 3-6 ofthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (pages3-9 through 3-12),point and area source emissions increase over the 1998-2015 period, but this is more than made up forby emissiona decreases innonroad 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 ofthe 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 ofthe monitors in the area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. See also section IV.A.1 and IV.A.2 ofthis proposed rule for more detail onArizona's monitoring network for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour

ozone nonattainment area.
4. Verification of ContinuedAttainment

ADEQ,MAG, Maricopa County, and the localjurisdictions have the legal authority to implement and enforce the requirements ofthe 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, asnoted above, ADEQ and MCESD will continue to monitor ozone levels in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. To track progress on the Maintenance Plan, Maricopa Countyhas also committed to update the emissions inventory forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area every three years for the duration ofthe 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 ofthe 1-hour ozone standard.

5. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) ofthe CAA requires maintenance plans to contain contingency provisions. EPA guidance

onthe requirements forthe contingency plan is provided in the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memo (Calcagni 1992a). As setforth in the Calcagni memo, we interpret section 175A(d) ofthe 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 whichwill be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The contingency plan portion ofthe State's maintenance plans delineate the State's planned actions in the event ofincreasing ozone levels threatening a subsequent violation of the ozone standard.

MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA guidance memorandum entitled "Early Implementation ofContingency 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 PolluterOption for I/M Program Waivers, and Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options. Emissions reduction credit for.these measures was not taken inthe maintenance demonstration.

MAG defines the trigger for the implementation ofthe contingency plan

as when the fourth highest daily maximum hourly measurement over the past threeyears exceeds 0.120 ppm at any ozone monitor.Ifthis occurs, additional measures will be considered, which may include the strengthening of existing contingency measures. When the trigger is activated, additional control measures willbe considered according to the following schedule: (a) Verification ofthe monitoring data to be completed three months after activation ofthe 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 continueto implement all control measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation consistent with section 175A(d) ofthe CAA.

MAG's Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan adequately addresses the fivebasic components which comprise a maintenance plan (attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification ofcontinued attainment, and acontingency plan) and, therefore, satisfies the maintenance plan requirement.

6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

Section 175A(b) ofthe CAA requires States to submit a subsequent maintenance planrevision 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 ofthe 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. AnMVEB is the total allowable VOC and NOx emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicle

use during the maintenance period (highwayand transit vehicle use emissions impacted by transportation plans areprojected 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 mustbe 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
meetthe adequacy criteria ofthe transportation conformity ruleunder 40 CFR 93.118(e).

The MVEBs forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area were developed using emission factors generated usingEPA's MOBILE6 model. Arizona developed MVEBs for the maintenance plan years of2006 and 2015. The MVEBs are for both VOC and NOx, as precursors to ozone formation, and were applicable forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area upon the effective date ofthe MVEB adequacy finding.*

We found the budgetsin the Redesignation Request and Maintenanco Plan adequate in aletter to Nancy Wrona, AirDivision Director, ADEQ and Dennis Smith, Executive Director of MAG, dated August 3,2004. (Seealso 69 FR 51079, August 17, 2004,) The adequacy finding onthe maintenance planbudgets was effective as of September 1, 2004.

EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs included in Arizona's maintenance plans forconformity purposes. EPAbelieves 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 motorvehicle emission budgets included in theMAG maintenance plan

are summarized in Table 6 below. TABLE 6.-PHOENIX METROPOLITAN NONATAINMENT AREA 2006 AND 2015 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS [Emissions inmetric 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 (datedApril 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 ofcompliance with the notice and hearing requirements for SIPrevisions under section 110(1) ofthe Act.6

V. Revision ofBoundary ofthe Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

At the request ofthe GilaRiver Indian Community and based on the evaluation provided below, EPA is proposing to change the boundary ofthe 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 ofthe country were originally designated as attainment, nonattainment

orunclassifiable 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 ofMaricopa County as a nonattainment area forthe photochemical oxidant NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, 8968 (March 3, 1978). The following year, EPA approved a request by the State ofArizona to reduce the size ofthis nonattainment area to include only the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG) Urban Planning Area (see44 FR 16388, March 19, 1979), which included the Phoenix metropoliian area and also the northern quarter ofthe GilaRiver Indian Reservation (mostofthe reservation lies

6MAG and ADEQheld ajoint public hearing for theRedesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

on March 1,2004. The MAGRegional Council adopted the Redesignation and Maintenance Plan

on March 25, 2004 andADEQ adopted the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan on April 21, 2004. 

### 13439

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

within Pinal County). Werefer to this

area in this notice asthe Phoenix metropolitain 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Also in 1979, we established a new ozone NAAQS to replace the photochemical oxidant NAAQS (see44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979) butretained the designation of "nonattainment" for the new ozone NAAQS for the Phoenix metropolitan 1- hournonattainment area.

Under the 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments, the designation of "nonattainment" forthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was carried forward by operation oflaw, 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

areaboundary 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, eitherby request ofa state, by operation oflaw, or by EPA initiative. For the State ofArizona, 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 requestto EPA to correct the boundary of thePhoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment areato exclude the Reservation.8 The Community's request included background information andanalysis ofair quality data existing at the time ofand subsequent to the designation in 1978 as well asthe
nature ofthe ozone sources on the Reservation demonstrated that the Reservation has not had a monitored or predicted violation ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS since, and that no significant

sources ofozone precursor emissions exist on the Reservation. The

7See 67 FR 46328, 46329 (July 12, 2002). 8As noted previously, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area includes the portion ofthe Reservation that lies withinMaricopa 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.EPAReview ofthe Community's Request

1.EPA's Authorityto Change Boundaries

The Community requested that EPA
act under section 110(k)(6) to correct thE boundary ofthe 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 ofthe area under section 107(d)(3)(A) ofthe Act rather thanto correct the boundary under section 110(k)(6). Under section 107(d)(3)(A), EPA has the authority to revise the boundary ofa 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 ofapproximately 374,000 acres in south central Arizona, south ofthe Phoenix metropolitan area. Currently, the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area includes the northern 92,000 acres ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe northern border of the Reservation adjacent to Chandler does nothave 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 ofthe Reservation, the Santan Mountain Range separates the Reservation from Gilbert and Apache Junction.

The Reservation has apopulation of approximately 11,250 people, with a population density ofapproximately 20 people per square mile. There are no majorpopulation centers within the Reservation. By comparison, Maricopa County (including vastrural areas west ofthe urban area, which are not part of the nonattainment area) has a population of over 3 million,with a population density ofover 230 people per square mile.

3.Ozone and the Reservation

Ingeneral, 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 ofmobile source emissions, often the largest part ofthe inventory ina major metropolitan area,
can be generally correlated to population density and land use patterns. The Community population density of 20 peopleper square mile is minor compared to all ofMaricopa County, which has a density ofover 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 largelyrural and agricultural. The Community plans to expand its agricultural base .b 3 investing millions ofdollars 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 ofVOCs and 1,900 tons of NOx forthe entire Community. For the purposes ofcomparison with the other emissions estimates cited in this notice, total Community emissions are approximately 2.5 metric tons per day (mtpd) ofVOCs and 4.7 mtpd ofNOx on

an annual average basis. Inthat part of the Community that is within the Phoenix nonattainment area, the Community estimates that there are 250
tons ofVOC and 490 tons ofNOx per year (equivalentto 0.6 mtpd ofVOC and 1.2 mtpd ofNOx). Emissions of VOCs from the Community portion ofthe nonattainment area represent less than 0.002% and 0.006% ofVOC and NOx emissions, respectively, oftotal estimated emissions generated within the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. Thus, total emissions from the Community are not sufficient to cause or contribute to violations ofthe 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 ofthe 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 appliedto the metropolitan

area and resulted in attainment ofthe NAAQS did notapply to the Reservation. Furthermore, due to the Reservation's lack ofozone precursor sources, it was never considered necessary to apply ozone precursor limits to sources on the Reservation. 9

Just as it was clearthat it was not necessary foran attainment plan to be applic~ible to the Reservation forthe Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment

area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it is clear to EPA that it will notbe
necessary for amaintenance plan to be applicable to the Reservation for the Phoenix metropoliian nonattainment

area to maintain attainment ofthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS.

C. ConclusionandEffect of Revisingthe BoundaryofthePhoenixMetropolitan 1-HourOzoneNonattainment Area
In view ofthe above considerations, EPA believes that itis appropriate to exercise discretionary authority under section 107(d)(3)(A) and to propose to revise the boundary ofthe 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 affectedby emissions generated within the Reservation. The effect of

EPA could have appliedVOC orNOx limits to

sources on theReservation, as ithas authority under CAA 301(d)to promulgate regulations for Indian country as necessary or appropriate "to achieve theappropriate purpose" oftheAct. thisproposed action would be to attach the Maricopa County portion ofthe Gila River Indian Reservation to the preexisting "unclassifiable/attainment"

area forthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS that consists ofall ofthoseportions ofthe State ofArizona (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 orto implement nonattainment NSR within the Maricopa County portion ofthe Gila River Indian Reservation.

We note that this proposed action to revise the boundary ofthe 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., inboth 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 110'maintenance plan that would otherwise have been required forthe Maricopa County portion ofthe Gila River Indian Reservation because ofits 1-hour NAAQS designation (i.e., nonattainment) atthe time when the 8- hour ozone designations final rulewas signed by the EPA Administrator (April 15, 2004). See 69 FR 23951, 23999 (April 30, 2004).

VI. ProposedAction

We are soliciting comments on all aspects ofthis proposed SIP rulemaking action. We will consider your comments in deciding our final action ifyour comments are received by April 20, 2005.

We are proposing, under the Clean Air Act, to fully approve three revisions
to theArizona 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) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA, or "the Act"), we

are proposing to approve.the State of Arizona's request to "opt-out" ofthe Clean FuelFleet (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 theAct, the State's submittal ofthe FinalSerious Area Ozone StateImplementationPlan forMaricopaCountyasmeeting the applicable requirements forserious 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 ofthe One-Hour OzoneRedesignation Request and MaintenancePlan fortheMaricopa CountyNonattainment Areaas meeting CAArequirements for redesignation requests and maintenance plans under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and-175A. However, thisproposal is contingent upon final approval by EPA ofthree separate proposed rulemakings involvingtwo Maricopa County rules, a negative declaration, and a'set ofpermit conditions imposing reasonably available control technology on a specific stationary source. As part ofour approval ofthe maintenance plan, we

areproposing to approve the 2006 and 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) forVOC and NOxin the submitted maintenance plan for transportation conformity purposes.

In addition, we are proposing, under section 107(d)(3)(A) ofthe Act, to revise the boundary ofthe Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. This proposed action would add the Maricopa County portion ofthe Reservation to the current unclassifiable/attainment area within the State ofArizona 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 ofthe 1-hour or 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.

VII. Statutory andExecutive 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 ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements, reduce the size ofa nonattainment area, and redesignate the area (asmodified) to attainment forair quality planning purposes and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rulewill nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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
etseq.). Because thisrule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does notimpose
any additional enforceable dutybeyond that required by statelaw, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (PublicLaw 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 ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes."

Under section 5(b) ofExecutive Order 13175, EPA may not issue aregulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is notrequired by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, orEPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) ofExecutive Order 13175, EPA may not issue aregulation that has tribal implications andthat preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the
process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation.

EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal implications. EPA's action willrevise the boundary of.the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment maintenance area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. However, -itwill neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, the requirements ofsections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do notapply to this rule.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives oftribalgovernments early inthe process ofdeveloping this proposal to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Representatives oftribal governments approached EPA two years ago and requested that EPA make this boundary change. We agree with the technical andpolicy rationale the tribes provided, and believe that all tribal

concerns have beenmet.

In the spirit ofExecutive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribalgovernments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment

on thisproposed 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 ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, reduce the size ofa nonattainment area, and redesignate the area (asmodified) to attainment for air quality planning purposes and doesnot alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe Clean Air Act. This propdM1 tul.6 algad is not subjectto Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is noteconomically

,, significant.

Inreviewing SIP submissions and redesignation requests, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove aSIP submission or redesignation request forfailure 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 inplace of aSIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthe Clean AirAct. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do notapply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List ofSubjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 14, 2005. Wayne Nastri, RegionalAdministrator, Region9.
[FRDoc. 05-5517 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 13442

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 13442 2005