```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15227-15235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05669]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0657; FRL-9907-00-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Arizona; Payson PM10 Air Quality Planning Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Payson portion 
of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality on January 23, 2012. This revision 
consists of the second ten-year maintenance plan for the Payson air 
quality planning area for the national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 
(PM10). EPA is approving this plan based on the conclusion 
that the plan adequately provides for continued maintenance of the 
PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area through 2022. EPA is taking 
this action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA that obligate the 
Agency to take action on submittals of revisions to SIPs. The effect of 
this action is to make the State's continuing commitments with respect 
to maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area 
federally enforceable for another ten years.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 19, 2014 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 18, 2014. If we receive 
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0657, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and

[[Page 15228]]

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Introduction
    A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air Quality Designations and 
Plans for the Payson Area
    B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10 Maintenance 
Plans
    C. Limited Maintenance Plan Option
III. Review of the Arizona SIP Submittal Addressing These Provisions
    A. Has the State met the procedural requirements for SIP 
revisions?
    B. Has the State demonstrated that the area continues to qualify 
for the Limited Maintenance Plan option?
    C. Is the updated emission inventory acceptable?
    D. Are the plan control measures permanent and enforceable?
    E. Has the State committed to continue to operate an appropriate 
PM10 air quality monitoring network?
    F. Does the plan continue to meet the CAA provisions for 
contingency measures?
    G. How are transportation and general conformity requirements 
being met?
    1. Transportation Conformity
    2. General Conformity
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), we are 
approving the Final Update of the Limited Maintenance Plan for the 
Payson PM 10 Maintenance Area (December 2011) (``Second Ten-
Year Limited Maintenance Plan,'' or ``Second Ten-Year LMP'') submitted 
on January 23, 2012 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ) as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). We 
find that the submittal meets subsequent maintenance plan requirements 
under CAA section 175A(b).

II. Introduction

A. Clean Air Act Requirements and Air Quality Designations and Plans 
for the Payson Area

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA is required to 
establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') for pervasive air pollutants at levels that protect the 
public health and welfare. Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (``microns''), 
or PM10, is one of the air pollutants for which EPA has 
established health-based standards. On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated 
two standards for PM10: a 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms 
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and an annual PM10 standard 
of 50 [micro]g/m\3\. 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). Effective December 18, 
2006, EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard but retained the 
24-hour PM10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). In 
this document, references to the PM10 NAAQS or 
PM10 standard refer to the 24-hour-average standard of 150 
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), unless otherwise noted.
    Under section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA is required to designate areas 
of the country as attainment, unclassifiable, or nonattainment for each 
of the NAAQS depending on whether the NAAQS are being met. Under the 
CAA Amendments of 1990, the Payson area was designated as part of a 
large ``unclassifiable'' area in Arizona for the PM10 NAAQS. 
In 1993 (58 FR 67334, December 21, 1993), in light of PM10 
NAAQS violations monitored in 1989 and 1990, EPA redesignated the 
Payson air quality planning area as a ``moderate'' nonattainment area 
for the PM10 NAAQS.\1\ To meet the SIP planning requirements 
for such areas, State and local agencies adopted and implemented a 
number of control measures to reduce PM10 emissions and 
lower ambient PM10 concentrations in the Payson area, 
including the paving of certain unpaved roads and restrictions on 
residential wood combustion. In 2002 (67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002), 
EPA determined that the Payson area had attained the PM10 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Payson air quality planning area is 144 square miles in 
size, centered around the Town of Payson, Arizona, a community of 
approximately 17,000 persons in the north central portion of Gila 
County, approximately 90 miles northeast of Phoenix. For the precise 
boundaries of this area, please see the entry for Payson in the 
PM10 table in 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later that same year, ADEQ submitted a maintenance plan, titled 
Payson Moderate Area PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 
Redesignation to Attainment Submittal Package (March 2002) (``First 
Ten-Year Limited Maintenance Plan'' or ``First Ten-Year LMP'') to EPA 
as a revision to the Arizona SIP, and requested redesignation of the 
Payson area to attainment. The First Ten-Year LMP was intended to 
provide for maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area 
for ten years after redesignation. In June 2002 (67 FR 43013, June 26, 
2002), EPA approved the First Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area as 
providing for maintenance through 2012, and redesignated the area to 
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.
    Under CAA section 175A(b), former nonattainment areas that are 
redesignated to attainment and subject to a maintenance plan must 
develop, adopt, and submit a subsequent maintenance plan that provides 
for continued maintenance of the NAAQS for a second ten-year period 
following the end of the first ten-year period. On January 23, 2012, 
ADEQ submitted the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area to meet the 
requirement for a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section 
175A(b). The Second Ten-Year LMP is intended to provide for continued 
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS for the ten-year period 
following the end of the first ten-year period, i.e., through year 
2022.
    Consistent with requirements at the time, the First Ten-Year LMP 
provided for maintenance of both the 24-hour average and annual average 
PM10 NAAQS. However, as noted above, since then, EPA has 
revoked the annual average PM10 NAAQS, and thus, the Second 
Ten-Year LMP, which is the subject to today's action, addresses only 
maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

[[Page 15229]]

B. Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10 Maintenance Plans

    CAA section 175A provides the general framework for maintenance 
plans. The maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS 
for at least 10 years after redesignation, and must include any 
additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure such 
maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain such 
contingency provisions as we deem necessary to assure the prompt 
correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 
The contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that 
the State will implement all control measures contained in the 
nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation. Beyond these provisions, 
however, CAA section 175A does not define the contents of a maintenance 
plan.
    With respect to subsequent maintenance plans, CAA section 175A(b) 
requires States to submit an additional SIP revision to maintain the 
NAAQS for ten years after the expiration of the ten-year period covered 
by the initial maintenance plan approved in connection with 
redesignation of the area from nonattainment to attainment. Our primary 
guidance on maintenance plans is a September 4, 1992 memo from John 
Calcagni, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 
Directors of EPA Regional Air Programs, entitled ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (``Calcagni 
memo''). In addition, we have relied upon guidance discussed in the 
next subsection of this document.

C. Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option

    On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance 
plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memorandum from Lydia 
Wegman, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 
Directors of EPA Regional Air Programs entitled ``Limited Maintenance 
Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' or ``LMP 
policy''). Herein, the option set forth in the LMP policy is referred 
to as the ``LMP option.''
    The LMP policy contains a statistical demonstration that areas 
meeting certain air quality criteria will, with a high degree of 
probability, maintain the standard ten years into the future. Thus, EPA 
provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria 
outlined in the memo. It follows that future year emission inventories 
for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine 
transportation conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP option, the State must demonstrate that the 
area meets the criteria described below. First, the area should be 
attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the average 
PM10 design value for the area, based upon the most recent 5 
years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or 
below 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the PM10 NAAQS, with no 
violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area. (See section IV of 
the LMP policy.) The 98 [micro]g/m\3\ criterion provides a margin of 
safety for the PM10 NAAQS, which is 150 [micro]g/m\3\. If an 
area cannot meet this test, it may still be able to qualify for the LMP 
option if the average design values of the site are less than their 
respective site-specific critical design values. Third, the area should 
expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 
emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor 
vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the LMP policy 
identifies core provisions that must be included in all LMPs. These 
provisions include an attainment-year emissions inventory, assurance of 
continued operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, 
and contingency provisions.
    The LMP policy also states that once the LMP option is in effect, 
the State must verify in each subsequent year that the area still 
qualifies for the LMP option by recalculating the area's average design 
value annually and determining that the LMP criteria are met for that 
year. If they are not met, the State should act to reduce emissions 
enough to requalify for the LMP option, for example, by using a 
contingency measure or other SIP-approved measure. If the attempt to 
reduce PM10 concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but in 
the future it becomes necessary to reduce PM10 
concentrations again, the area no longer qualifies for an LMP and a 
full maintenance plan would need to be developed.
    The LMP policy was written to address the maintenance plan 
requirements under section 175A for certain moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment. However, we 
believe the principles set forth therein are also appropriate for 
former moderate PM10 nonattainment areas that have been 
redesignated to attainment and are subject to an approved maintenance 
plan, but must develop and submit a subsequent maintenance plan to 
comply with CAA section 175A(b).

III. Review of the Arizona SIP Submittal Addressing These Provisions 
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Our evaluation of the Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan for 
the Payson area is presented in this section of the document. 
Further details on such issues as data completeness, calculation of 
five-year design values, residential wood combustion emissions 
estimates, industrial source emissions estimates, control measures, 
and the motor vehicle regional analysis are presented in our 
Technical Support Document titled ``Ten-year Update for Limited 
Maintenance Plan for PM-10; State of Arizona; Payson,'' dated 
January 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Has the State met the procedural requirements for SIP revisions?

    Section 110(l) of the Act requires States to provide reasonable 
notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Documents 
in ADEQ's submittal describe the public review process followed by ADEQ 
for the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area prior to adoption and 
submittal to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The documentation 
provides evidence that reasonable notice of a public hearing was 
provided to the public and a public hearing was conducted prior to 
adoption.
    The documentation is found in enclosure 4 of the January 23, 2012 
submittal. Enclosure 4 includes evidence that reasonable notice of a 
public hearing was provided to the public and that a public hearing was 
conducted prior to adoption. Specifically, the affidavit of publication 
included in enclosure 4 shows that notice of a public hearing and the 
availability of, and opening of a 30-day comment period on, the Second 
Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area was published on September 30, 2011, 
in a newspaper of general circulation within the Payson area. The 
public hearing was held on November 2, 2011. No comments were received 
during the public comment period or at the public hearing. ADEQ adopted 
the plan and submitted it to EPA for approval on January 23, 2012.
    Based on the documentation provided in enclosure 4 that was 
submitted by ADEQ with the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, we 
find that the submittal of the plan as a SIP revision satisfies the 
procedural requirements of section 110(l) of the Act.

B. Has the State demonstrated that the area continues to qualify for 
the Limited Maintenance Plan option?

    Payson originally qualified for the LMP Option in 2002. In order to 
continue to qualify, the State must demonstrate that the area continues 
to meet the requirements of the LMP policy for the following ten-year 
period.

[[Page 15230]]

For the reasons given below, we conclude that the Payson area continues 
to qualify for the LMP option and that the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 
Payson area meets all applicable requirements for subsequent 
maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).
Continued Attainment of the NAAQS
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the first criterion is that the area 
is attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Generally, EPA determines 
whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM10 NAAQS 
based upon complete,\3\ quality-assured, and certified data gathered at 
established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the 
nonattainment area, and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 
database. Data from air monitors operated by State, local, or Tribal 
agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be 
submitted to AQS. These monitoring agencies certify annually that these 
data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA 
relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status 
of an area. All valid data are reviewed to determine the area's air 
quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For PM10, a ``complete'' set of data includes a 
minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10 samples per 
quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attainment of the PM10 standard is determined by 
calculating the expected number of exceedances of the standard in a 
year. The PM10 standard is attained when the expected number 
of exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal 
to one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. See 40 
CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Generally, three consecutive 
years of air quality data are required to show attainment of the 
PM10 standard. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
    ADEQ is responsible for monitoring ambient air quality outside the 
metropolitan areas in Arizona and is responsible for monitoring ambient 
air quality in the Payson area. Annually, ADEQ submits monitoring 
network plan reports to EPA. These reports discuss the status of the 
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews 
these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. EPA also conducts periodic technical 
system audits of state and local monitoring programs.
    In our most recent technical system audit of ADEQ's monitoring 
program, we concluded, generally, that ADEQ's ambient air monitoring 
network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum 
number of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS for all of the criteria 
pollutants.\4\ Also, ADEQ annually certifies that the data it submits 
to AQS are quality-assured.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See EPA's final report titled, ``Technical System Audit, 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Ambient Air Monitoring 
Program, April 9-April 13, 2012,'' dated January 2013.
    \5\ See, e.g., the letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air 
Quality Division, ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, 
EPA Region IX, dated May 16, 2013, certifying the ambient air 
quality data collected at the Payson site for year 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ has operated a SLAMS PM10 monitor in the Town of 
Payson for more than 20 years. ADEQ's Payson monitor has been relocated 
a number of times, but, since 1999, has been located on West Aero Drive 
in Payson, and is referred to as the Payson Wells Site. This monitor 
was sited to provide PM10 concentration data at a 
neighborhood scale \6\ to provide data for comparison with the NAAQS. 
ADEQ operates a partisol sampler at the Payson site, and, in 2009, 
added a second collocated partisol sampler for quality assurance 
purposes. Both collocated monitors run on a one-day-in-six monitoring 
schedule. EPA's most recent audit of ADEQ's monitoring program includes 
a number of findings in areas where ADEQ's monitoring program should be 
strengthened, but none of these findings cast significant doubt on the 
reliability of the data collected at the Payson site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this context, ``neighborhood scale'' refers to conditions 
throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with 
dimensions of a few kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 
section 4.6. Specific information about the Payson Wells Site in 
this paragraph comes from an ADEQ report titled ``State of Arizona 
Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2013,'' dated October 29, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the PM10 concentration data collected 
at the Payson monitor over the past 12 years, but for the purposes of 
determining current attainment of the NAAQS, we have focused our review 
on the data for the most recent three-year period (2010-2012). As shown 
in Table 1, the PM10 data from the Payson monitor represents 
a complete data set for the 2010-2012 period. Furthermore, this data 
set has been quality-assured and certified by ADEQ. No exceedances were 
recorded at the Payson monitor over the 2010-2012 period, and the 
maximum PM10 concentration measured over that period was 44 
[micro]g/m\3\, which is less than one-third of the 150 [micro]g/m\3\ 
standard.
    Thus, the expected number of exceedances per year for the Payson 
monitor for the most recent three-year period (i.e., 2010 to 2012) was 
0.0 days per year. As such, based on complete, quality-assured and 
certified data for the 2010-2012 period, we conclude that the Payson 
area is attaining the standard, and thereby meets the first criterion 
for the LMP option. Data from 2013, while incomplete and preliminary, 
are also consistent with this finding of attainment.

                                           Table 1--Summary of 2002-2013 PM10 Monitoring Data for Payson Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           5-year design
                                                                                             Expected      Monitored 5-     value with       Critical
                          Year                             Maximum level   Percent valid    exceedances     year design    motor vehicle   design value
                                                           ([mu]g/m\3\)       samples        per year      value ([mu]g/  growth ([mu]g/   ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                                                                               m\3\)           m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................................              45              87             0.0              88              88              NA
2003....................................................              98              90             0.0              98              99             127
2004....................................................              52              93             0.0              98             100             131
2005....................................................              80              80             0.0              98             100             134
2006....................................................              66              95             0.0              98             101             127
2007....................................................              61              97             0.0              98             102             129
2008....................................................              42              97             0.0              80              85              NA
2009....................................................              40              95             0.0              80              85              NA
2010....................................................              42              98             0.0              66              72              NA
2011....................................................              39              97             0.0              61              68              NA
2012....................................................              44              98             0.0              44              52              NA

[[Page 15231]]

 
2013....................................................              58              --              --              --              --              --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: (1) AQS QuickLook report dated January 24, 2014. Data is from ADEQ's monitor located on West Aero Drive in Payson, Arizona. (2) The growth
  increment from motor vehicles was based on an estimated overall motor vehicle growth increment of 7.7 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2002 to 2012 (see 67 FR at
  43017, June 26, 2002), which was interpolated to add 0.77 [mu]g/m\3\ per year during that period. (3) Critical Design Values were calculated by ADEQ
  in their annual LMP eligibility reports for the Payson PM10 area, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking.
Notes:
For the purposes of comparison, the PM10 NAAQS is 150 ug/m\3\.
NA = Not applicable. Critical Design Value is not applicable when the Design Value (including motor vehicle growth) is at or below 98 [mu]g/m\3\.
-- AQS only includes data from the first two quarters of 2013.

Five-Year Average Design Values
    The second criterion for the LMP option is that the average 24-hour 
PM10 design value, based on the most recent 5 years of data 
at all monitors in the area, be at or below 98 ug/m\3\ with no 
violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area. If an area cannot 
meet this test, it may still qualify for the LMP option using the site-
specific critical design value (CDV), which is an indicator of the 
likelihood of future violations at that site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the LMP Policy, pp. 2-3 and attachment A to the LMP 
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Payson area, because there is only one monitoring site and 
given the frequency of monitoring (one day every six days), the 
``average design value'' is simply the highest PM10 
concentration measured at the Payson Wells Site over the most recent 
five calendar years. The Second Ten-Year LMP indicates that the design 
value for the Payson area based on data from 2006 through 2010 is 66 
[mu]g/m\3\, which is well below the criterion of 98 ug/m\3\. Based on 
more recent ambient monitoring data (2008 through 2012) than was 
available when the Second Ten-Year LMP was being prepared, the design 
value is 44 [mu]g/m\3\, which is also well below the criterion of 98 
[mu]g/m\3\. Thus, the second criterion has been met.
Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Test
    The third criterion is referred to as the motor vehicle regional 
emissions analysis test. The methodology for this test is found in 
attachment B to the LMP policy. As a general matter, for this test, the 
monitor-based design value is increased based on the expected growth in 
motor vehicle traffic over the maintenance period. Specifically, the 
motor vehicle fraction of the design value concentration is assumed to 
equal the motor vehicle fraction of the overall emissions inventory. 
The motor vehicle fraction of the design value is then multiplied by 
the projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 
the area over the next 10 years. The product of this calculation is 
then added to the monitor-based design value and compared with the 
applicable criterion, in this case, 98 [mu]g/m\3\. If the sum is less 
than or equal to 98 [mu]g/m\3\, then the criterion is met.
    In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, ADEQ used the 
updated inventory (see Table 2, below) to estimate that motor vehicles 
contribute approximately 62%, or 41 [mu]g/m\3\, to the design value of 
66 [mu]g/m\3\ (based on 2006-2010 data). ADEQ then multiplied 41 [mu]g/
m\3\ by 0.24, based on the projected 10-year increase in traffic in the 
Payson area of approximately 24% to estimate the traffic growth 
increment of approximately 10 [mu]g/m\3\. ADEQ then concluded that 
motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test was met because the sum 
of the motor vehicle growth increment (approximately 10 [mu]g/m\3\) and 
the design value (66 [mu]g/m\3\), or 76 [mu]g/m\3\, is less than the 
criterion of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. We have reviewed ADEQ's methods and 
calculations and find them acceptable. If the calculation were to be 
re-done using the most recent monitored 5-year design value (which is 
44 [mu]g/m\3\ based on 2008-2012 data), the test would be met by an 
even larger margin. Therefore, the third criterion for eligibility for 
the LMP option for the second 10-year period of maintenance is met.
Conclusion and Maintenance Demonstration
    For the reasons given above, we conclude that the Payson area 
remains eligible for the LMP option. Under the LMP policy, the 
maintenance demonstration requirement under CAA section 175A is 
considered satisfied for areas meeting the LMP criteria discussed 
above, and because the Payson area continues to meet the LMP criteria, 
we conclude that no further demonstration of maintenance through the 
second 10-year period is necessary.

C. Is the updated emission inventory acceptable?

    For LMPs, a State's submission should include an emissions 
inventory which can be used to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by 
meeting the LMP eligibility criteria. The inventory should represent 
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality 
data used to determine whether the area meets the LMP applicability 
requirements.
    As part of the Second Ten-Year LMP, ADEQ prepared a PM10 
emissions inventory for 2008 for the Payson area. Year 2008 is one of 
the years within the five-year period over which the PM10 
design value for the Payson area is calculated and thus is an 
acceptable inventory year. Based on ADEQ's estimates, shown in Table 2 
below, on-road motor vehicles (including fugitive dust from entrainment 
of PM10 from travel on paved and unpaved roads, as well as 
exhaust, brake and tire wear) contribute approximately 62% to the total 
PM10 inventory, while construction and residential wood 
combustion contribute 32.6% and 4.6%, respectively. Industrial sources 
contribute less than 1%.

[[Page 15232]]

     Table 2--Payson PM10 Maintenance Area--2008 Emission Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                                              Payson        total PM10
                                            Maintenance    emissions in
             Source category                 Area PM10        Payson
                                             emissions      Maintenance
                                          (tons per day)       Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpaved Roads--Fugitive Dust............            0.29            30.4
Paved Roads--Fugitive Dust..............            0.27            28.8
Paved and Unpaved Roads--Exhaust, Tire,             0.03             2.8
 and Brake Wear.........................
                                         -------------------------------
    Subtotal--Motor Vehicles............            0.59            62.0
Construction............................            0.31            32.6
Residential Wood Combustion.............            0.04             4.6
Industrial Sources......................            0.01             0.8
                                         -------------------------------
        Total...........................            0.92           100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Derived from Table 3.5 (page 17) of the Second Ten-Year LMP for
  the Payson area.

    Section 3.2 of the Second Ten-Year LMP describes the methodology 
used to develop the attainment inventory. The emission inventory 
categories are the same as those identified in the First Ten-Year LMP, 
and the methodology used to determine the contribution of sources is 
largely the same as was used in the First Ten-Year LMP. ADEQ updated 
emissions for each source category based on current emissions models, 
vehicle activity, population and employment figures.
    For instance, ADEQ updated motor vehicle emissions estimates using 
EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) to develop emission 
factors for motor vehicle exhaust, tire, and brake wear for motor 
vehicles. NMIM uses EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factors, which were the 
most current factors at the time that development of the Second Ten-
Year LMP was initiated. ADEQ used updated emission factors in EPA's 
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) to estimate 
PM10 entrained by vehicle movement over paved roads. ADEQ 
also updated the non-mobile source inventory with 2008 National 
Emission Inventory (NEI) data, primarily by adjusting county-specific 
estimates by the ratio of population in the Payson area to the 
population in Gila County. For point sources in Payson, ADEQ used 
industrial source data collected in an annual survey of permitted 
facilities.
    ADEQ compared the 2008 emissions estimates with those prepared for 
the First Ten-Year LMP and provided a sufficient explanation for those 
source categories that differed significantly in the updated inventory 
relative to the previous inventory. ADEQ explained that the emissions 
from residential wood combustion decreased significantly due to the 
implementation of EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 
residential wood heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) and that the 
emissions associated with fugitive dust from vehicle travel over 
unpaved roads increased significantly due to higher estimates of 
unpaved road VMT in the Payson air quality planning area.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The First Ten-Year LMP relied on annual estimate of unpaved 
road VMT of 75,000 (see page 23 of the First Ten-Year LMP) whereas 
the corresponding estimate in the Second Ten-Year LMP is 
approximately 510,000 miles (see page 16 of the Second Ten-Year 
LMP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period in which the draft Second Ten-Year LMP was being 
developed, EPA replaced MOBILE6.2 with a new motor vehicle emission 
factor model, known as Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (or ``MOVES''). 
In response to EPA's request to consider the impact on the inventory 
due to the release of MOVES, ADEQ re-calculated the motor vehicle 
emissions estimates using MOVES and projected a 0.006 ton per day 
increase in emissions from motor vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear 
relative to the estimate made using MOBILE6.2.\9\ This incremental 
increase corresponds to a 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ increase in the estimate of 
the motor vehicle fraction of the design value. As such, use of MOVES, 
rather MOBILE6.2, has no effect on the continued eligibility of the 
Payson area for the LMP option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality 
Division, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region IX, dated February 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by 
ADEQ to develop the PM10 emission inventory, we find that 
the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area includes a comprehensive 
inventory of PM10 emissions and conclude that the plan's 
inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance 
plan, in this case, a subsequent LMP, under CAA section 175A(b).

D. Are the plan control measures permanent and enforceable?

    As discussed in our 2002 approval of the First Ten-Year LMP for the 
Payson area, the measures that brought the area into attainment are 
permanent and enforceable (67 FR 43013, at 43018, June 26, 2002). The 
Second Ten-Year LMP relies on the same control measures to continue to 
maintain the NAAQS for PM10 through 2022. The Second Ten-
Year LMP has not revised these measures, which continue to be permanent 
and enforceable.

E. Has the State committed to continue to operate an appropriate 
PM10 air quality monitoring network?

    ADEQ currently operates a single PM10 monitoring site in 
the Payson area. Operating a single monitor in this area is consistent 
with EPA's monitoring requirements. ADEQ has committed to continue to 
operate an appropriate PM10 air quality monitoring network 
to verify the attainment status of the Payson area in accordance with 
40 CFR part 58. See section 6.0 of the Second Ten-Year LMP. In October 
2013, ADEQ requested EPA approval of relocation of the Payson monitor 
to another location on the same property.\10\ EPA has not taken action 
yet on this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality 
Division, ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region 
IX, dated October 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Does the plan continue to meet the CAA provisions for contingency 
measures?

    Section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of 
any violation of the NAAQS which may

[[Page 15233]]

occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. These contingency 
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. 
However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part 
of the SIP and the State should ensure that the contingency measures 
are adopted as soon as possible once they are triggered by a specific 
event. The contingency plan should identify the measure to be adopted, 
and provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of 
the measure if they are required.
    In the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, ADEQ has, in most 
respects, carried forward the contingency plan adopted in the First 
Ten-Year LMP, which was approved by EPA in 2002. First, ADEQ commits to 
continue to submit annual reports to EPA that will include calculation 
of the Payson area PM10 design value to verify continued 
attainment and continued eligibility for the LMP option. See section 
6.0 of the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area.
    ADEQ made a similar commitment in the approved First Ten-Year LMP 
and has met its commitment through submittal of annual reports to EPA. 
We note that the annual reports did not address the motor vehicle 
regional emissions analysis test although we acknowledge that doing so 
would not have changed the status of the Payson area with respect to 
eligibility for the LMP option. ADEQ should address the motor vehicle 
regional emissions analysis test in annual reports submitted to EPA 
under the Second Ten-Year LMP.
    Second, as part of the contingency plan, ADEQ has committed to 
determine whether or not PM10 NAAQS violations have been 
recorded within six months of the close of each calendar year, and to 
review and determine the appropriate contingency measure(s) by the end 
of the same calendar year. See section 5.3 of the Second Ten-Year LMP. 
Table 3 below lists the measures that ADEQ commits to consider for 
implementation in the event of a violation of the PM10 NAAQS 
or in the event the annual recalculation of the area's design value 
exceeds the applicable LMP option criteria. The cause of the violation 
or exceedance of the LMP option criteria will help to determine the 
appropriate contingency measure(s) to be implemented.

                Table 3--Payson Area Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contingency measures                 Implementing entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any PM10 industrial source operating  ADEQ.
 within the maintenance area is found
 to be contributing to monitored
 readings above the LMP allowable
 limits, ADEQ will review existing air
 quality permit(s) to identify
 additional PM10 control measures which
 may be needed. If the PM10 source does
 not have a permit, the permitting
 authority will determine if an air
 quality permit and PM10 controls are
 needed.
If wood burning sources are found to be  ADEQ.
 contributing to monitored readings
 above the LMP allowable limits, ADEQ
 will review State regulations and
 programs to determine appropriate
 action.
Pave or stabilize public unpaved roads,  Town of Payson and/or Gila
 vacant lots, or unpaved parking lots     County.
 located in the PM10 maintenance area
 subject to limits of statutory
 authority.
Continuation of Smoke Management Plan--  U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
 State and Federal land managers          Bureau of Land Management,
 conducting prescribed burning must       Arizona State Land Department,
 register with ADEQ for proposed          ADEQ.
 burning activities under Arizona
 Administrative Code title 18, chapter
 2, article 15 (Forest & Range
 Management Burns). ADEQ maintains the
 ability to deny permission for burning
 on certain high risk days (dependent
 on meteorological conditions) and may
 increase outreach and enforcement
 resources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the State has committed to implement the selected 
contingency measure(s) within one year of determining that a 
PM10 NAAQS violation has occurred. Lastly, should the levels 
rise above the limits qualifying the area for the LMP option despite 
implementation of contingency measures, ADEQ has committed to develop 
and submit a full maintenance plan to EPA. We conclude that these 
measures and commitments meet the requirements of CAA section 175A(d).

G. How are transportation and general conformity requirements being 
met?

    Section 176(c) of the Act requires that all Federal actions conform 
to an applicable SIP. Conformity is defined in section 176(c) of the 
Act as conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the 
severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving 
expeditious attainment of such standards, and that such activities will 
not: (1) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in 
any area; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing 
violation of any standard in any area; or (3) delay timely attainment 
of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other 
milestones in any area.
    EPA has established criteria and procedures for Federal agencies to 
follow in determining conformity of their actions. EPA's rule governing 
transportation plans, programs, and projects approved or funded by the 
Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration is 
referred to as the ``transportation conformity'' rule (see 40 CFR part 
93, subpart A), and EPA's rule governing all other types of Federal 
agency actions is referred to as the ``general conformity'' rule (see 
40 CFR part 93, subpart B).
    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas. Both rules provide that 
conformity can be demonstrated by showing that the expected emissions 
from planned actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the 
area. While EPA's LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to 
affirm conformity, the LMP policy explains that the area may 
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget.
Transportation Conformity
    Under the LMP option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially 
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is

[[Page 15234]]

unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much 
growth in that period that a violation of the NAAQS would result. 
Therefore, in areas with approved LMPs, Federal actions requiring 
conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are 
considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' required in 40 CFR 93.118.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP option 
are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other 
transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. 
Thus, the applicable metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the 
area or the State will still need to document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments 
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the 
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments 
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    Upon approval of the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area, the 
State (in this case, the Arizona Department of Transportation) will 
continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, 
but must continue to meet project-level analyses as well as the 
transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
    We posted notice of receipt of the Second Ten-Year LMP for the 
Payson area on EPA's adequacy review Web site on January 23, 2014, and 
took comments until February 24, 2014. See EPA's conformity Web site: 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. Once 
there, click on the link for the Payson LMP. Because LMPs do not 
contain budgets, the adequacy review period for this maintenance plan 
serves to allow the public to comment on whether the LMP option is 
appropriate for this area. We did not receive any comments during the 
adequacy review comment period.
    Lastly, if during the course of the second ten-year maintenance 
period, the LMP criteria are no longer satisfied and a full maintenance 
plan must be developed to meet CAA requirements, the approval of the 
LMP would remain applicable for transportation conformity purposes only 
until the full maintenance plan is submitted and EPA has found its 
motor vehicle emissions budgets adequate for conformity purposes under 
40 CFR 93.118.
General Conformity
    For Federal actions that are required to address the specific 
requirements of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements 
applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from a federal action 
will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 
current violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this 
requirement can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and 
indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined 
and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the 
applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with 
all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the 
emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP.'' 40 CFR 
93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources (``emissions budgets'') is one 
made by the State and local air quality agencies. Such emissions 
budgets are unlike and not to be confused with those used in 
transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation 
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions 
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to 
specified levels.
    ADEQ has chosen not to include any specific emissions allocations 
for Federal projects that would be subject to the provisions of general 
conformity in the Second Ten-Year LMP for the Payson area. Similar to 
transportation conformity, in LMP areas, Federal actions subject to the 
general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget 
test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule, for the same 
reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

IV. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is approving the second ten-year 
limited maintenance plan for the Payson air quality planning area for 
the PM10 NAAQS that was submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 
2012 as a revision to the Arizona SIP. EPA is approving this plan based 
on the conclusion that the plan adequately provides for continued 
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area through 
2022 and thereby meets the requirements for subsequent maintenance 
plans under section 175A of the Act. The effect of this action is to 
make the State's continuing commitments with respect to maintenance of 
the PM10 NAAQS in the Payson area federally enforceable for 
another ten years. These commitments include continued monitoring; 
continued implementation of control measures that were responsible for 
bringing the area into attainment; preparation and submittal of annual 
reports; consideration and implementation of contingency measures, if 
necessary; and submittal of a full maintenance plan if contingency 
measures fail to provide the necessary remedy.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the Payson Second Ten-Year LMP if 
relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 
19, 2014, without further notice unless relevant adverse comments are 
received by April 18, 2014. If we receive such comments, this direct 
final action will be withdrawn before the effective date. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed action. We will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective May 19, 2014.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.

[[Page 15235]]

Accordingly, this action merely approves a State plan as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 19, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed 
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(159) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (159) The following plan was submitted on January 23, 2012 by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
    (1) Final Update of the Limited Maintenance Plan for the Payson 
PM10 Maintenance Area (December 2011), adopted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on January 23, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2014-05669 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```