The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following final rule on August 20, 2014, and EPA is submitting it for 

publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the 

official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear 

on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686. 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686;_________] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

State of Arizona; Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa Area to 

Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, 

as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan, a 

request from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or “standard”) because the request meets the 

statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air 

Act. EPA is also approving the State’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area for ten years 

beyond redesignation, and the inventories and related motor 

vehicle emissions budgets within the plan, because they meet the 

applicable requirements for such plans and budgets. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2 

DATES: This final rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days 

after the publication date]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket 

ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686. Generally, documents in the docket 

for this action are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 

in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may 

not be publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential 

Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with 

the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning 

Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

(415) 972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” 

or “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

A. Determination that the Area Has Attained the Applicable 

NAAQS 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3 

B. Determination that the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D 

C. Determination that the Improvement in Air Quality in the 

Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the Area Under CAA 

Section 175A 

II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On March 26, 2014 (79 FR 16734), we proposed to take 

several related actions. First, under Clean Air Act (CAA or 

“Act”) section 110(k)(3), EPA proposed to approve a March 23, 

2009 submittal from the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) of the Maricopa Association of Governments’ 

(MAG’s) plan titled “MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area,” 

(February 2009) (“Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan”) as a 

revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP).1

 

1 The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is sometimes referred to 

as the Maricopa nonattainment area. The precise boundaries of the area are 

found at 40 CFR 81.303. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4 

In connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, 

EPA proposed to find that the maintenance demonstration showing 

that the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS2 for 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and 

the contingency provisions meet all applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA 

section 175A. EPA also proposed to find adequate and approve the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan because we found that they meet the applicable 

transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to 

approve ADEQ’s request that accompanied the submittal of the 

maintenance plan to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

We did so based on our proposed approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, and our conclusion that the area has met the 

criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our 

conclusion was based on our determination that the area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that relevant portions of 

the Arizona SIP are fully approved, that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 

 

2 The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged 

over an 8-hour time frame. Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed 

from photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5 

emissions, and that Arizona has met all the section 110 and part 

D requirements of the CAA that are applicable to the PhoenixMesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for purposes of 

redesignation. 

For the purposes of this final rule, we have summarized the 

basis for our findings in connection with the proposed approvals 

of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and redesignation 

request. For a more detailed explanation as well as background 

information concerning the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA 

requirements for redesignation, and the ozone planning history 

of the Phoenix-Mesa area, please see our March 26, 2014, 

proposed rule. 

A. Determination that the Area Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

Prior to redesignating an area to attainment, CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that we determine that the area has 

attained the NAAQS. For our proposed rule, consistent with the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA reviewed the ozone 

ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period from 2010 

through 2012, as recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database, and determined, based on the complete, qualityassured, and certified data for 2010-2012, that the Phoenix-Mesa 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6 

ozone standard because the design value3 is less than 0.084 ppm.4

We also reviewed preliminary data from 2013 and found that it 

was consistent with continued attainment of the standard in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area. See pages 16737-16739 of our March 26, 2014 

proposed rule. 

In the proposed rule, we anticipated that by the time we 

took final action, data for year 2013 would be certified, and 

that preliminary data for a portion of year 2014 would be 

available. In anticipation of the newly certified and available 

data, we also indicated that, in our final action, we would 

update our attainment determination for the Phoenix-Mesa area 

based on complete, certified data for 2011-2013 and would review 

preliminary data for 2014. As expected, the relevant 

certifications have been submitted,5 and based on review of 

complete, certified data for 2011-2013, we find that the 8-hour 

ozone design value for 2011-2013 for the Phoenix-Mesa area is 

0.081 parts per million (ppm) based on the data from the 

 

3 The design value for the 8-hour standard is the three-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the worstcase monitoring site in the area. When the design value is less than or equal 

to 0.084 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I) 

at each monitoring site within the area, the area is meeting the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

4 Our proposed rule also includes a table (at page 16743, table 2) that shows 

that design values have been consistent with attainment of the 1997 ozone 

standard since the 2005-2007 period. 

5 See letters from Michael Sundblom, Air Quality Director, Pinal County Air 

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

Quality Division, ADEQ, dated May 30, 2014; and Dennis Dickerson, Acting 

Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, dated June 3, 2014. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7 

monitoring site (North Phoenix) recording the highest design 

value among the various monitoring sites within the 

nonattainment area. Like the design value for 2010-2012 

documented in the proposed rule, the design value for 2011-2013 

is below 0.084 ppm, and is, thus, consistent with attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data for 2014 are also 

consistent with continued attainment. 

B. Determination that the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Meeting 

Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 and Part D 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA require EPA to 

determine that the area has a fully approved applicable SIP 

under section 110(k) that meets all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and part D for the purposes of redesignation. 

For the reasons summarized below, we find that the Phoenix-Mesa 

area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) 

that meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and 

part D for the purposes of redesignation. See pages 16739-16741 

of our March 26, 2014 proposed rule. 

With respect to section 110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements), we conclude that the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the 

approved SIP, which includes rules pertaining to areas and 

sources under the jurisdiction of ADEQ, the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD), and the Pinal County Air Quality 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8 

Control District (PCAQCD), meet all SIP requirements for the 

Phoenix-Mesa area that are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Our conclusion in this regard is based on our 

review of the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona SIP. 

With respect to part D (of title I of the CAA), we reviewed 

the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona SIP for compliance with 

applicable requirements for nonattainment areas under both 

subparts 1 and 2.6 First, we note that EPA previously approved 

the Eight-Hour Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area based 

upon the determination that it met all applicable requirements 

for such plans under subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 35285, June 13, 2012), 

including the requirements for an emissions inventory, for 

contingency measures, and for demonstrations of implementation 

of reasonably available control measures, of reasonable further 

progress, and of attainment by the applicable attainment date. 

As to the other applicable subpart 1 requirements, we find that: 

· Arizona has met the nonattainment applicable New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa eight-hour 

ozone nonattainment area because rules meeting the 

 

6 Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for all 

nonattainment areas of any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. 

Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9 

fundamental nonattainment NSR requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas are approved in the Arizona SIP; and 

· The requirements for transportation conformity SIPs under 

section 176(c) do not apply for the purposes of a 

redesignation request under section 107(d)(3) because state 

conformity rules are still required after redesignation and 

federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved.7

With respect to the requirements associated with subpart 2, 

we noted that the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

was initially designated nonattainment under subpart 1 of the 

CAA, but was classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard under subpart 2 of part D of the CAA in 

May 2012,8 i.e., after Arizona's submittal of the redesignation 

request. Under EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time 

a redesignation request is submitted, and in consideration of 

the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that 

might in the future be applied, we determined that the 

additional requirements for marginal nonattainment areas do not 

apply to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for 

the purposes of redesignation. 

 

7 See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this 

interpretation. 

8 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10 

C. Determination that the Improvement in Air Quality in the Area 

Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment unless EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and enforceable regulations. 

Based on our review of the control measures that provided for 

attainment of the now-revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area and the additional control measures 

adopted and approved for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and based on our consideration of other factors such 

as weather patterns and economic activity,9 we find that the 

improvement in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa area is the 

result of permanent and enforceable emissions reductions from a 

combination of numerous EPA-approved State and local stationary 

source and mobile source control measures, along with federal 

motor vehicle and nonroad control programs. See pages 16741-

16742 of our March 26, 2014 proposed rule. 

 

9 Specifically, we reviewed temperature data to determine if unusual 

meteorological conditions could have played a significant role in attaining 

the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area and determined that 

unusually favorable meteorology did not play a significant role. We also 

discussed the economic slowdown affecting the Phoenix-Mesa area starting in 

2008 but noted that the downward trend in ozone concentrations had already 

been established well before that time. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11 

D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the Area Under CAA 

Section 175A 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) precludes EPA from redesignating 

an area from nonattainment to attainment unless EPA has fully 

approved a plan for maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. The 

required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to attainment are set forth in 

CAA section 175A. As explained in the proposed rule, we 

interpret this section of the Act to require, in general, the 

following core elements: attainment inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued 

attainment, and contingency plan. 

Based on our review and evaluation of the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, we conclude that it contains the core elements 

and meets the requirements of CAA section 175A. See pages 16742-

16748 of our proposed rule. Our conclusion was based on the 

following findings: 

· The base year emissions inventory for 2005 is 

comprehensive, the methods and assumptions used by MAG to 

develop the 2005 emission inventory are reasonable, and the 

inventory reasonably estimates actual ozone season 

emissions in an attainment year. Moreover, we found that 

the 2005 emissions inventories reflect the latest planning 

assumptions and emissions models available at the time the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12 

plan was developed, and provide a comprehensive and 

reasonably accurate basis upon which to forecast ozone 

precursor emissions for years 2019 and 2025; 

· MAG’s photochemical modeling adequately demonstrates 

maintenance for at least 10 years after redesignation to 

attainment; 

· The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan indicates that ADEQ 

and MCAQD will continue to operate an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network to verify the continued 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;

· The continued operation of an ozone monitoring network and 

the requirement that MCAQD, with input from ADEQ, Arizona 

DOT, and MAG, must inventory emissions sources and report 

to EPA on a periodic basis10 are sufficient for the purpose 

of verifying continued attainment; and 

· The contingency provisions of the Ozone Maintenance Plan 

identify specific contingency measures,11 contain tracking 

and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency 

measures are needed, contain a sufficient description of 

 

10 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (“Air Emissions Reporting Requirements”). 

11 The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan includes both specific contingency 

measures (such as the Gross Polluter Option for I/M Program Waivers, 

Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options, and Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle 

Emissions Standards, among others) that have already been adopted and are 

being implemented early, and a mechanism to trigger the adoption of 

additional measures as needed. See pages 3-21 and 3-22 of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13 

the process of recommending and implementing contingency 

measures, and contain specific timelines for action, and 

will, therefore, be adequate to ensure prompt correction of 

a violation and comply with the contingency-related 

requirements under CAA section 175A(d). 

Lastly, we find adequate and are approving the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan because we find that they meet the 

transportation conformity adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). Specifically, we find that, among other 

things, the MVEBs, when considered with emissions from all other 

sources, would be consistent with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for ten years beyond 

redesignation. 

II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule 

EPA’s March 26, 2014 proposed rule provided a 30-day public 

comment period. During this period, we received two comment 

letters. One comment letter was from a member of the public who 

supports EPA’s proposed actions. The other letter, from Sierra 

Club, opposes the proposed actions. A summary of Sierra Club’s 

comments and EPA’s responses are provided below. 

Comment: The Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove 

the State of Arizona’s redesignation request for the PhoenixMesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area because the inclusion 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14 

of State and Maricopa County rules in the Arizona SIP that 

provide an affirmative defense potentially applicable to 

violations due to excess emissions that occur during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (“SSM events”) prevents EPA from 

determining that all applicable Clean Air Act requirements under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations have been met. 

Specifically, Sierra Club contends that the affirmative defense 

provisions in the Arizona SIP prevent EPA from determining: 

· that the improvement in air quality is due to enforceable 

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

because the affirmative defense provisions applicable 

during SSM events make emission reductions unenforceable; 

· that the maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS as required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 

175A(a) when emissions can increase above the emission 

inventory and allowable levels during SSM events; and 

· that the State has met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D as required under 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(a)(2)(A) because the 

emission limits in the SIP, at least during SSM events, are 

not enforceable because of the affirmative defense 

provisions. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15 

In support of this claim, the Sierra Club notes that EPA 

has found in other actions12 that illegal SSM provisions related 

to emissions during SSM events constituted grounds for denying 

redesignation requests. Moreover, the Sierra Club notes that EPA 

has proposed a SIP call for both the State and Maricopa County 

affirmative defense provisions applicable during startup and 

shutdown events based on a finding that such provisions are 

inconsistent with the CAA. Sierra Club also cites a recent D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir, Apr. 18, 2014 – “Cement 

Kiln Decision”),13 as standing for the principle that affirmative 

defense provisions, even those applicable only during 

malfunctions, are inconsistent with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act because such provisions purport to alter or 

eliminate the jurisdiction of federal courts to assess penalties 

for violation in contravention of sections 113 and 304. Lastly, 

Sierra Club includes a recent District Court opinion as an 

example of a citizen enforcement action undermined by the 

 

12 The commenter cites two Federal Register documents: a proposed disapproval 

of redesignation requests and maintenance plans for Salt Lake County, Utah 

County, and Ogden City, Utah PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717, December 

1, 2009), and a final rule requiring Utah to revise SSM provisions in its SIP 

(76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011). 

13 The Cement Kiln Decision involved a challenge to EPA’s National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 

(February 12, 2013), in which EPA included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emissions standards that result from unavoidable 

malfunctions. In the Cement Kiln Decision, the Court vacated the portion of 

the 2013 rule pertaining to the affirmative defense.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16 

presence in a SIP of affirmative defense provisions applicable 

during malfunction events.14 

Response: EPA does not agree that the affirmative defense 

provisions in the State and Maricopa County portions of the 

Arizona SIP provide a basis for disapproving the redesignation 

request for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard for the reasons set forth below. 

The CAA sets forth the general criteria for redesignation 

of an area from nonattainment to attainment in section 

107(d)(3)(E). These criteria include a determination by EPA that 

the area has attained the relevant standard [section 

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

implementation plan for the area for purposes of redesignation 

[section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)]. EPA must also determine that 

the improvement in air quality is due to reductions that are 

permanent and enforceable [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)], and that 

the EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under 

section 175A [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. EPA addressed all these 

criteria in the proposal to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone area. The commenter alleges 

that EPA’s analysis is flawed because inclusion of the 

affirmative defense in the SIP makes the Agency’s determination 

 

14 Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. W-12-cv-108, W.D. Tex., 

memorandum opinion and order filed March 28, 2014. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17 

under redesignation criteria at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), 

(iv), and (v) invalid. 

As EPA stated in its proposed rule, CAA SIP requirements 

that are not linked with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification, including certain section 110 

requirements, are not “applicable” for purposes of evaluating 

compliance with the specific redesignation criteria in CAA 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 76 FR at 16739, FN 22. EPA 

maintains this interpretation because these requirements remain 

applicable after an area is redesignated to attainment. For at 

least the past 15 years, EPA has applied this interpretation 

with respect to requirements to which a state will be subject 

after the area is redesignated. See, e.g., 73 FR 22307, 22312-

22313 (April 25, 2008) (proposed redesignation of San Joaquin 

Valley; EPA concluded that section 110(a)(2)(D) transport 

requirements are not applicable under section 110(d)(3)(E)(v) 

because they “continue to apply to a state regardless of the 

designation of any one particular area in the state”); 62 FR 

24826, 24829-24830 (May 7, 1997) (redesignation of Reading, 

Pennsylvania, Area; EPA concluded that the additional controls 

required by section 184 were not “applicable” for purposes of 

section 107(d)(3)(E) because “they remain in force regardless of 

the area’s redesignation status”). Courts reviewing EPA’s 

interpretation of “applicable” in the context of requirements 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18 

applicable for redesignation have agreed with the Agency. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001). With respect to the 

affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP, redesignation 

of the area to attainment will in no way relieve the State and 

Maricopa County of their responsibilities to remove the 

affirmative defense provisions from the SIP, if EPA later takes 

action to require correction of the Arizona SIP with respect to 

the affirmative defense provisions.15 Because we conclude that 

the affirmative defense provisions are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of this redesignation action, the 

existence of the affirmative defense provisions in the SIP does 

not undermine our conclusion that the redesignation criteria 

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

The affirmative defense provisions at issue provide an 

affirmative defense to monetary penalties for violations due to 

excess emissions for certain categories of stationary sources 

during qualifying SSM events.16 The Sierra Club maintains that 

 

15 EPA has proposed, under CAA section 110(k)(5), to find a number of SIPs, 

including the Arizona SIP, substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

because the SIP provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions during 

certain SSM events. See 78 FR 12460, at 12533-12536 (February 22, 2013). 

16 EPA approved the State’s SSM affirmative defense rules prior to 

designating the Phoenix-Mesa Area non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. See [Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-310 (“Affirmative 

Defenses for Excess Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown”)] 

at 66 FR 48087 (September 18, 2001) and Maricopa County’s SSM affirmative 

defense rule [Maricopa County Rule 140 (“Excess Emissions”) at 67 FR 54957 

(August 27, 2002). At the time EPA approved the affirmative defense 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19 

the inclusion of these provisions in the SIP renders the 

emissions limits in the nonattainment SIP and maintenance plan 

that are subject to the affirmative defense provision 

unenforceable, thus undermining the Agency’s conclusion that the 

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions as required under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), and the conclusion that the maintenance plan 

will ensure maintenance of the NAAQS prospectively as required 

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

the precise basis for its claim that potential assertion of the 

affirmative defenses at issue would render the existing EPA 

approved SIP inconsistent with the criteria under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv), and thus, in effect, invites EPA to 

determine that the existence in the SIP of affirmative defense 

provisions, without regard to the types of sources relied upon 

for attainment and maintenance, per se means that EPA may not 

make a positive determination with respect to the redesignation 

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

not believe that the redesignation criteria must be interpreted 

so narrowly, but may be interpreted to account for the larger 

planning context in a given area. 

 

provisions as a part of the SIP, the Agency believed them to be consistent 

with CAA requirements. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20 

 As noted above, the affirmative defense provisions in the 

Arizona SIP purport to allow sources to avoid monetary penalties 

for violations of an applicable emissions limit under certain 

limited circumstances, but those provisions do not prohibit the 

state, EPA or citizens from seeking injunctive relief to force a 

source that is violating the applicable SIP emission limitations 

to take steps to address the non-compliance. Penalties are not 

the only means to address exceedances of a SIP emission 

limitation, even though the possibility or threat of penalties 

provides deterrence against violations and may cause a source to 

agree more readily to correct a problem prospectively. The 

continued availability of injunctive relief supports EPA’s 

contention that the emissions limits in the SIP are sufficiently 

enforceable for purposes of redesignation, even though EPA now 

believes that such affirmative defense provisions in SIPs are 

not consistent with the CAA and must be revised. 

Second, attainment of the 1997 ozone standard in the 

Phoenix-Mesa area and maintenance of the standard through 2025 

primarily rely upon emission limits on mobile and area sources 

to which the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP 

do not apply. For example, all of the specific control measures 

relied upon by the state for numeric credit for attainment and 

maintenance planning purposes, with very minor exceptions, apply 

to mobile and area sources. See figures ES-3 and ES-4 on pages 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21 

ES-4 and ES-5 in the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the 

Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2007); and figures ES-2 and 

ES-3 on pages ES-5 and ES-6 in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan. These control measures relate to nonroad equipment 

standards, fuel formulations, and inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) requirements rather than stationary source controls. 

This is not to say that controls on stationary source are 

not an important part of the overall ozone control strategy in 

the Phoenix-Mesa area. Rather, the point is that the extent to 

which individual stationary sources, which might assert an 

affirmative defense for an SSM event that would likely have 

occurred even in the absence of an affirmative defense, can 

affect regional ozone concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa area is 

likely limited. For instance, based on the emissions inventory 

for this area, the highest-emitting individual stationary 

sources in the Phoenix-Mesa area emit approximately 0.80 metric 

tons per day (mtpd) of VOC and 2.55 mtpd of NOx based on the 

individual facility data for 2005 compiled in appendix A, 

exhibit 1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. Such 

emissions constitute approximately 0.12% and 0.94% of the 

overall regional inventory for VOC and NOx, respectively. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22 

Moreover, overall point source17 emissions in the PhoenixMesa area constitute only 1.7% and 4.0% of VOC and NOx emissions, 

respectively, based on the 2005 inventories presented on pages 

ES-8 and ES-9 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. These 

values underscore the importance of mobile and area (and 

biogenic) sources, to which the affirmative defense provisions 

do not apply, to the regional inventory, and by extension, to 

regional ozone concentrations. The current design value for the 

Phoenix-Mesa area, meanwhile, which is equal to the projected 

design value, is 0.081 ppm, five percent below the applicable 

NAAQS. Thus, the hypothetical potential for any one individual 

point source, or even small subset of such sources, to cause a 

violation of the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area 

due to higher emissions that would likely have occurred in the 

absence of the affirmative defense provisions, is quite low. For 

these reasons, we conclude that the affirmative defense 

provisions in the Arizona SIP do not make the emission limits 

relied upon for attainment and maintenance unenforceable for the 

purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv) or otherwise 

undermine EPA’s approval, finalized herein, of the Eight-Hour 

 

17 The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan defines “point sources” as stationary 

sources that emit 25 (English) tons per year or more of carbon monoxide, 10 

tons per year or more of ozone precursors, or 5 tons or more of PM10 or 

ammonia compounds. See page 11 of appendix A, exhibit 1 of the Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23 

Ozone Maintenance Plan and related grant of ADEQ’s redesignation 

request for the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997 ozone standard. 

Sierra Club also contends that EPA has previously found in 

other actions that illegal SSM provisions constitute grounds for 

denying redesignation requests and references EPA’s December 1, 

2009 proposed disapproval of Utah’s redesignation requests for 

Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment 

areas (74 FR 62717). However, this aspect of the proposed 

disapproval, which was one of many deficiencies identified by 

EPA, was based on the state’s inclusion in the submittal of new 

SIP revisions that would provide blanket exemptions from 

compliance with emission standards during SSM events. In the 

redesignation at issue here, the state did not seek to create 

new SIP provisions that are inconsistent with CAA requirements 

as part of its redesignation request or maintenance plan, and 

the already existing affirmative defense provisions do not 

purport to preclude all potential forms of enforcement, or to 

provide a blanket exemption from compliance. 

A more analogous action by EPA is the Agency’s final 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland (OHWV-KY) nonattainment area to attainment for the fine particulate 

matter standard (PM2.5) standard. See 77 FR 76883 (December 31, 

2012). In response to comments challenging the proposed 

redesignation due to the presence of certain SSM provisions in 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24 

the Ohio SIP, EPA concluded that the SSM provisions in the Ohio 

SIP did not provide a basis for disapproving the redesignation 

request. Id., at 76891, 76892. In so concluding, EPA noted that 

the SSM provisions and related SIP limits at issue in that state 

were approved into the SIP and thus were permanent and 

enforceable for the purposes of meeting the criteria for 

redesignation, and that EPA had other statutory mechanisms for 

addressing any problems associated with the SSM measures. EPA 

emphasizes that the redesignation of the area to attainment does 

not relieve Arizona of the responsibility to remove legally 

deficient SIP provisions either independently or pursuant to a 

SIP call. To the contrary, EPA maintains that it may determine 

that the affirmative defense provisions are contrary to CAA 

requirements and take action to require correction of those 

provisions even after the area has been redesignated to 

attainment. This interpretation is consistent with prior 

redesignation actions. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. EPA, 114 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998)(Redesignation of 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area determined valid even though the 

Agency subsequently proposed a SIP call to require Ohio and 

other states to revise their SIPs to mitigate ozone transport to 

other states). 

As of this time, the State’s and Maricopa County’s 

affirmative defense provisions are part of the approved SIP, and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25 

EPA is not required to re-evaluate the validity of previously 

approved SIP provisions as part of this redesignation.18 If 

approved SIP provisions are separately determined to be 

deficient, EPA is able to evaluate those concerns in the 

appropriate context, and can, if necessary, issue a “SIP call,” 

which triggers a requirement for states to submit a corrective 

SIP revision. 

EPA acknowledges that we are currently evaluating a 

petition that pertains to EPA’s SSM Policy that interprets the 

requirements of the CAA with respect to the proper treatment of 

excess emissions during SSM events in SIP provisions. As part of 

that process, EPA is separately evaluating the issue of whether 

states have authority to create, and EPA has authority to 

approve, any affirmative defense provisions in SIPs. On June 30, 

2011, Sierra Club filed a “Petition to Find Inadequate and 

Correct Several State Implementation Plans under Section 110 of 

the Clean Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and/or 

Maintenance Provisions.” The petition includes interrelated 

requests concerning the treatment of excess emissions in state 

rules by sources during periods of SSM. On February 22, 2013, 

 

18 See September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled “Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, at page 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 

144 F.3d, 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001); 68 FR 254183, 25426, May 12, 2003.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

26 

EPA proposed to grant in part and deny in part the request in 

the petition to rescind its policy interpreting the CAA to allow 

states to have appropriately drawn SIP provisions that provide 

affirmative defenses to monetary penalties for violations during 

periods of SSM (78 FR 12460). EPA also proposed either to grant 

or to deny the petition with respect to the specific existing 

SIP provisions related to SSM events in each of the 39 states 

identified by the Sierra Club as inconsistent with the CAA. In 

this context, EPA has proposed to grant the petition with 

respect to both the State’s and Maricopa County’s affirmative 

defense provisions for startup and shutdown periods, and to deny 

the petition with respect to the arguments concerning the 

agencies’ affirmative defense provisions for periods of 

malfunction. Under EPA’s February 2013 proposal, a schedule has 

been proposed for states to submit corrective SIP revisions. 

The Sierra Club also argues that the Cement Kiln Decision, 

issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18, 2014, 

prevents EPA from approving any affirmative defense provisions 

in SIPs because they are inconsistent with CAA provisions 

relevant to citizen enforcement under sections 113 and 304. In 

the decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated affirmative defense 

provisions applicable to violations due to unavoidable 

malfunctions provided in EPA’s standard for emissions from 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

27 

Portland cement plants.19 The court concluded that sections 113 

and 304 preclude EPA from creating such affirmative defense 

provision in its own regulations because it would purport to 

alter or eliminate the jurisdiction of federal courts to assess 

civil penalties for violations of CAA requirements. EPA is 

currently analyzing this opinion and is evaluating its impact on 

our interpretation of the CAA regarding the permissibility of 

affirmative defenses in SIP provisions, including those 

applicable to malfunctions. In the event that EPA determines 

that no affirmative defense provisions are permissible in SIPs, 

the Agency will have the authority and discretion to require the 

states to remove deficient provisions from the SIPs pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5). EPA maintains that this concern is better 

addressed through the exercise of that authority, than through 

its authority to redesignate areas that otherwise attain the 

NAAQS and meet the requirements of section 107(d)(3), consistent 

with EPA’s long standing approach to evaluating requests for 

redesignation to attainment. 

In conclusion, with regard to the redesignation of the 

Phoenix-Mesa area, Arizona has a fully approved SIP. The 

provisions that the Sierra Club objects to do not preclude EPA’s 

determination that the emissions reductions that have provided 

 

19 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland 

Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

28 

for attainment and that will provide for maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area are permanent and 

enforceable, as those terms are meant in section 107(d)(3) of 

the CAA, or that the state has met all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and part D for the purposes of redesignation. 

In addition, the area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard since 2007, and has demonstrated it can maintain 

compliance with the standard for at least 10 years after 

redesignation to attainment. EPA notes, moreover, that it is 

approving contingency provisions under section 175A(d) as part 

of the area’s maintenance plan. The contingency element of the 

maintenance plan provides assurance that the area can promptly 

correct a violation that might occur after redesignation. 

Finally, EPA is addressing the affirmative defense provisions in 

the Arizona SIP in separate action or actions, and redesignation 

of the area to attainment will in no way relieve the State and 

Maricopa County of their responsibilities to remove the 

affirmative defense provisions from the SIP, if EPA later takes 

final action to require such revisions to the Arizona SIP. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons provided 

above and in the proposed rule, EPA is approving ADEQ’s 

submittal dated March 23, 2009 of the MAG Eight-Hour Ozone 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

29 

Nonattainment Area (February 2009) (“Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan”) as a revision to the Arizona SIP. In 

connection with the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan, EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how 

the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the 

contingency provisions meet all applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA 

section 175A. 

EPA is also finding adequate and approving the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) from the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan for transportation conformity purposes because 

we find that they meet the applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). The MVEBs are 43.8 metric 

tons per day (mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOx. They include a 

10% safety margin, and correspond to the peak episode day 

(Thursday) in June 2025 that was used to model maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area in the 

Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

These new MVEBs become effective on the date of publication 

of this final rule in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 

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

Transportation and the Maricopa Association of Governments for 

future transportation conformity analyses for the Phoenix-Mesa 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

30 

area with applicable horizon years after 2024. The existing 2008 

VOC and NOX MVEBs established in MAG’s approved Eight-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan also remain in effect. On-road motor vehicle 

emissions in any required analysis years up to and including 

2024 cannot exceed levels established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs. 

Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving 

ADEQ’s request, which accompanied the submittal of the 

maintenance plan, to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.20 We are doing so based on our conclusion that the area 

has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this regard is in turn based on 

our determination that the area has attained the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS; that relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are fully 

approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; that Arizona 

has met all requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa area 

with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and that the 

area has a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the 

 

20 As noted in our proposed rule at 79 FR 16736, EPA has lowered the 8-hour 

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

designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-

hour ozone standard. Today’s action redesignates the Phoenix-Mesa area as 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard only. The Phoenix-Mesa area 

remains nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard until 

redesignated for that standard. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

31 

requirements of CAA section 175A (i.e., the Eight-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan approved herein). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan as a SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) are 

actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond 

those imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not 

in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results 

in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the 

Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that 

complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal 

regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State 

choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, these actions merely approve a State plan and 

redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 

law. For these reasons, these actions: 

· Are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

32 

· Do not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

· Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

· Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); 

· Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

· Are not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

· Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

· Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

· Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

33 

permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. Nonetheless, in accordance with EPA’s 2011 Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with Tribes, EPA has discussed the 

actions with the three Tribes located within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area: the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, 

the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this action and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

34 

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 [Insert 

date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the 

Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of 

this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 

be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

35 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National 

parks, Wilderness areas. 

 

8/20/14 _________ ____________/s/________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

 Regional Administrator, 

Region IX. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

36 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52--[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart D — Arizona 

2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(163) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(163) The following plan was submitted on March 23, 2009, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

(1) MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009), 

adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on 

March 23, 2009, excluding the appendices. 

* * * * * 

PART 81--[AMENDED] 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

37 

3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

4. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for “Arizona--1997 8-

Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” by revising the entry 

for “Phoenix-Mesa, AZ” to read as follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 
38

Arizona--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary) 

Designated area Designationa

Category/class

ification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ2 [Insert date 

30 days from 

the date of 

publication in 

the Federal 

Register]

Attainment 

Maricopa County (part) 

T1N, R1E (except that portion in 

Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N, R3E; 

T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, 

R7E; T1N, R1W; T1N, R2W; T1N, R3W; 

T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T2N, 

R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E; 

T2N, R5E, T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, 

R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N, R10E; T2N, R11E; 

T2N, R12E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T2N, R13E (except that 

portion in Gila County); T2N, R1W; 

T2N, R2W; T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, 

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

T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E; T3N, 

R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; 

T3N, R9E; T3N, R10E (except that 

portion in Gila County); T3N, R11E 

(except that portion in Gila County); 

T3N, R12E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T3N, R1W; T3N, R2W; 

T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N, R5W; T3N, 

 
39

R6W; T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; 

T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E; T4N, R6E; T4N, 

R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E 

(except that portion in Gila County); 

T4N, R11E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T4N, R12E (except that 

portion in Gila County); T4N, R1W; 

T4N, R2W; T4N, R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, 

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

T5N, R3E; T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, 

R6E; T5N, R7E; T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E 

(except that portion in Gila County); 

T5N, R10E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; 

T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W; T6N, 

R1E (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N, 

R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E; 

T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that 

portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E 

(except that portion in Gila County); 

T6N, R1W (except that portion in 

Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W; 

T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, R1E (except 

that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, 

R2E; (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, 

R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E; 

T7N, R9E (except that portion in Gila 

County); T7N, R1W (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R2W 

(except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T8N, R2E (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R3E 
40

(except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T8N, R4E (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R5E 

(except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T8N, R6E (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E 

(except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T8N, R8E (except that 

portion in Yavapai and Gila 

Counties); T8N, R9E (except that 

portion in Yavapai and Gila 

Counties); T1S, R1E (except that 

portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E 

(except that portion in Pinal County 

and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; 

T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, R6E; T1S, 

R7E; T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; 

T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, 

R1E (except that portion in Indian 

Country); T2S, R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, 

R7E; T2S, R1W; T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; 

T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, 

R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; 

T3S, R5W; T4S, 1E; T4S, R1W; T4S, 

R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S, R5W. 

Pinal County (part) 

Apache Junction: T1N, R8E; T1S, R8E 

(Sections 1 through 12) 

 

 * * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * *