Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0821-0076
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Phoenix-Mesa
Posted Date: 2019-11-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60920-60927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23829]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R9-OAR-2018-0821; FRL-10001-65-Region 9]

Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the 2008 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to determine that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area 
(``Phoenix NAA''), which is classified as ``Moderate'' for the 2008 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``standards''), 
attained the NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 
2018. This determination is based on complete, quality-assured, and 
certified data for 2015-2017. This final action is necessary to fulfill 
the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether ozone nonattainment 
areas attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

DATES: This rule will be effective on December 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0821. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for 
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3848 or by 
email at levin.nancy@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 13, 2019 (84 FR 27566), the EPA proposed to determine that 
the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone standard \1\ by the Moderate 
area attainment date of July 20, 2018, based on complete, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 
2015-2017 monitoring period. Based on our proposed finding of 
attainment by the applicable attainment date, we also proposed to 
determine that the CAA requirement for the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) to provide for contingency measures to be implemented in the 
event the area fails to attain (``attainment contingency measures'') 
would no longer apply to the Phoenix NAA. Our proposed action contains 
more information on our determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Since the primary and secondary 2008 ozone standards are 
identical, we hereinafter refer to ``standards'' in the singular. 73 
FR 16436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments from five commenters. We 
summarize the comments and provide our responses below.

Commenter #1: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest

    Comment: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLIPI) 
noted that monitoring data from 2018 and 2019 show multiple exceedances 
of the 2008 ozone standard and concluded that the Phoenix NAA does not 
``actually'' comply with the standard. ACLIPI asserted that `` `paper 
compliance' with the 2008 ozone standard does not solve Phoenix's 
ongoing ozone pollution problem'' and the ``EPA's proposed action 
allows the State to avoid or significantly delay taking meaningful 
action to protect public health [which] contravenes the express policy 
of the Clean Air Act that `protection of public health is the highest 
priority.' ''
    Response: CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to determine 
whether an ozone nonattainment area (NAA) attained the standard by the 
applicable attainment date ``based on the area's design value (as of 
the attainment date).'' \2\ The applicable attainment date for the 
Phoenix NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not later than July 20, 
2018.\3\ Because the design value for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is based on 
the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must 
be evaluated based on 2015-2017 data. Accordingly, we are not permitted 
to consider 2018 or 2019 data in evaluating whether the area attained 
by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.1103; 81 FR 26697, 26698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the more recent monitoring data would be relevant if 
we were making a ``clean data determination'' and suspending 
attainment-related requirements for the Phoenix NAA under 40 CFR 
51.1118. These data would also be relevant if we were redesignating the 
area to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). However, as explained 
in our proposal, we are not taking either of those actions at this 
time. Therefore, the designation and classification of the Phoenix NAA 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will remain Moderate

[[Page 60921]]

nonattainment until such time as the EPA determines that the area meets 
the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. In order to 
redesignate the area to attainment, the EPA will have to determine, 
among other things, that the Phoenix NAA has continued to attain the 
NAAQS at the time of final redesignation, that the air quality 
improvement is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, 
and that the State of Arizona's (``State's'') maintenance plan provides 
for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least ten years beyond 
redesignation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter cited CAA section 319(b)(3)(A), which 
establishes five principles that the EPA must follow in developing 
implementing regulations for exceptional events, including that 
``protection of public health is the highest priority.'' \5\ The 
regulatory provisions implementing this principle are found in 40 CFR 
51.930, which requires air agencies requesting data exclusion to take 
appropriate and reasonable actions to protect public health from 
exceedances or violations of the NAAQS.\6\ Specifically, agencies must 
promptly notify the public when the air quality exceeds or is expected 
to exceed the NAAQS, educate the public regarding steps they can take 
to minimize exposure, and provide for the implementation of appropriate 
measures to protect public health from exceedances or violations of 
ambient air quality standards caused by exceptional events.\7\ The 
commenter has not identified whether or how it believes the State has 
failed to meet these requirements. Accordingly, we do not agree that 
the determination of attainment by the attainment date contravenes the 
principle that protection of public health is the highest priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 319(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \6\ 40 CFR 51.930. See also 81 FR 68216, 68270 (``the regulatory 
requirements implementing [319(b)(3)(A)](i) and (iv) are found in 40 
CFR 51.930, Mitigation of Exceptional Events'').
    \7\ Id. and 40 CFR 50.14(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: ACLIPI noted that, in the proposed determination of 
attainment, the EPA excluded exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard on 
June 20, 2015 and July 7, 2017, based on the EPA's concurrence with the 
State's request to find that these exceedances were due to 
``exceptional events'' under the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule. The 
commenter claimed that the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Protection's (ADEQ's) documentation does not support treating the June 
20, 2015 exceedances as exceptional events because the documentation 
``does not convincingly establish any causal relationship between the 
Lake Fire and the June 2015 exceedances, much less a clear causal 
relationship.''
    Response: As indicated by the commenter, one of the required 
elements of an exceptional events demonstration is a showing that 
``there exists a clear causal relationship between the specific event 
and the monitored exceedance or violation.'' \8\ This showing must be 
supported by analyses comparing the claimed event-influenced 
concentration(s) to concentrations at the same monitoring site at other 
times,\9\ and may also be supported by other types of analyses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(B). See also CAA section 
319(b)(3)(B)(ii)(``a clear causal relationship must exist between 
the measured exceedances of a national ambient air quality standard 
and the exceptional event'').
    \9\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(C).
    \10\ 81 FR 68241, Table 1--Example Clear Causal Relationship 
Evidence and Analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviews the information and analyses in the air agency's 
demonstration package using a weight of evidence approach.\11\ As 
explained in the preamble to revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule 
promulgated in 2016:

    \11\ 81 FR 68242 (``. . . the EPA will use a weight of evidence 
approach in reviewing submitted demonstrations and will consider the 
`clear causal relationship' information, including the comparison to 
historical concentrations showing, along with evidence supporting 
the other Exceptional Events Rule criteria.'') See also ``Technical 
Support Document for EPA Concurrence On O3 Exceedances 
Measured In The Phoenix-Mesa 2008 8-Hour O3 Nonattainment 
Area on June 20, 2015 as Exceptional Events,'' (hereinafter 
``TSD''), 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    . . . in applying a ``weight of evidence'' approach to reviewing 
individual exceptional events demonstrations, the EPA believes it is 
appropriate to consider all relevant evidence and qualitatively 
``weigh'' this evidence based on its relevance to the Exceptional 
Events Rule criterion being addressed, the degree of certainty, its 
persuasiveness, and other considerations appropriate to the 
individual pollutant and the nature and type of event.

    Therefore, the EPA considers a variety of evidence when evaluating 
whether there is a clear causal relationship between a specific event 
and the monitored exceedance or violation, and weighs the available 
evidence based on its relevance, degree of certainty, persuasiveness, 
and other appropriate considerations.
    The EPA's ``Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events 
Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May Influence Ozone 
Concentrations'' (September 2016) (hereinafter ``Wildfire Ozone 
Guidance'' or ``Guidance'') recommends a tiered approach for addressing 
the clear causal relationship element:

    Tier 1 clear causal analyses should be used for wildfire events 
that cause clear O3 impacts in areas or during times of 
year that typically experience lower O3 concentrations, 
and are thus simpler and less resource intensive than analyses for 
other events. Tier 2 clear causal analyses are likely appropriate 
when the impacts of the wildfire on O3 levels are less 
clear and require more supportive documentation than Tier 1 
analyses. Tier 3 clear causal analyses should be used for events in 
which the relationship between the wildfire and the O3 
exceedance or violation is more complicated than the relationship in 
a Tier 2 analysis, and thus would require more supportive 
documentation than Tier 2 analyses.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance, 4. This guidance uses ``O3'' to refer 
to ``ozone.''

    The Guidance describes the ``key factors'' and specific types of 
technical analyses that can be used to evaluate these factors in order 
to determine which tier a particular demonstration falls into and 
whether it meets the clear causal criterion.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 9-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, as part of the discussions between the EPA and ADEQ 
after the initial notification and during the air agency's 
demonstration development, the EPA found that the June 20, 2015 event 
did not meet all the key factors for a wildfire ozone Tier 1 or Tier 2 
analysis. Therefore, the EPA and ADEQ agreed that additional evidence 
to support the clear causal demonstration (i.e., a Tier 3 analysis) was 
appropriate.\14\ In accordance with this finding, ADEQ's documentation 
for the June 20, 2015 exceedances included additional evidence to 
support that (1) wildfire emissions were transported from the wildfire 
to the monitors; (2) wildfire emissions affected the monitors; and (3) 
wildfire emissions caused the ozone exceedances.\15\ As described in 
further detail below, the EPA evaluated the relevance, persuasiveness, 
and certainty of this evidence and found that the weight of

[[Page 60922]]

the evidence established the existence of a clear causal relationship 
between the Lake Fire and the June 20, 2015 exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ TSD, 8.
    \15\ Id. ADEQ's documentation for the June 20, 2015 exceedances 
consisted of three separate submittals: ``State of Arizona 
Exceptional Event Documentation for Wildfire-Caused Ozone 
Exceedances on June 20, 2015 in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area,'' 
(September 2016) (``initial submittal''); ``Addendum to: State of 
Arizona Exceptional Event Documentation for Wildfire-Caused 
Exceedances on June 20, 2015 in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area--
September 2016; Additional Evidence that Ozone and Ozone Precursor 
Emissions From the Lake Fire Reached and Affected Ozone Monitors 
Within the Maricopa Nonattainment Area'' (May 2018) (``first 
addendum''); and ``Addendum to: State of Arizona Exceptional Event 
Documentation for Wildfire-Caused Exceedances on June 20, 2015 in 
the Maricopa Nonattainment Area--September 2016; Expanded Conceptual 
Model Linking Ozone and Ozone Precursors From the Lake Fire with the 
Ozone Exceedances in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area,'' (March 2019) 
(``second addendum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to demonstrate that wildfire emissions were transported to 
the monitor, ADEQ's initial submittal presented a trajectory analysis 
using the HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model 
(HYSPLIT) and satellite imagery of smoke and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) smoke contours for light, medium, and 
heavy smoke.\16\ The EPA found that these initial analyses ``provided 
evidence that smoke was present over the nonattainment area on June 19, 
2015, but did not provide evidence that the smoke was at ground level, 
nor that smoke was present over the nonattainment area on June 20, 
2015.'' \17\ However, the second addendum to the demonstration included 
additional analyses to clarify transport of wildfire emissions and 
mechanisms for mixing to ground level along ``upper-air'' and ``lower-
air'' pathways, including updated HYSPLIT analyses, satellite imagery 
and data, water vapor and dew point analysis, and meteorological data 
regarding boundary layer depths in the nonattainment area on June 20, 
2015.\18\ The EPA evaluated these analyses and determined that, 
collectively, they adequately established that ``emissions from the 
Lake Fire in California were transported to the nonattainment area and 
the affected monitoring sites and reached ground level on June 20, 
2015.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id. at 9.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to demonstrate that the wildfire emissions affected the 
monitors, the initial submittal provided maps of daily maximum 8-hour 
average ozone concentrations from June 17 through June 21, 2015.\20\ 
These maps showed a regional rise in ozone concentrations across much 
of Arizona on June 19 and 20, 2015, suggesting that factors affecting 
elevated ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area were 
regional in nature. The initial submittal also provided ozone diurnal 
profiles of the exceeding monitors on June 20, 2015. The first addendum 
supplemented this analysis by providing an expanded analysis of ozone 
diurnal hourly concentrations at the exceeding monitors for June 19 
through 21, 2015, along with comparisons to historical hourly 
concentrations, which showed that ozone concentrations were at or above 
the 95th percentile values for several hours on June 20, 2015.\21\ The 
initial submittal also provided an analysis of diurnal nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) concentrations, which the first addendum supplemented 
with an expanded statistical analysis of NO2 similar to the 
expanded ozone analysis. In addition, the initial submittal also 
evaluated particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 
equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), which is much 
more commonly associated with fire emissions than NO2, but 
found that PM2.5 was not elevated within the nonattainment 
area prior to or during the exceedance day. To address the lack of 
elevated PM2.5 observed in the nonattainment area, the 
initial submittal and first addendum examined speciation data for 
elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC).\22\ After examining 
these analyses, we concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ PM2.5 is made of many different chemical 
species, including EC and OC. Elevated OC concentrations and low EC/
OC ratios are generally associated with biomass smoke and therefore 
indicate the presence of wildfire emissions. See first addendum, 10.

    Overall, the lack of elevated PM2.5 in the 
nonattainment area raises questions about the extent to which 
wildfire emissions reached the ground and affected the monitor. 
However, the supplemental analyses showing elevated OC and 
relatively low EC/OC concentrations, and unusually elevated 
NO2 and O3 concentrations observed on a 
Saturday, along with the robust analysis of transport and mixing 
mechanisms described earlier in this document, ultimately support 
the conclusion that wildfire emissions reached the ground and 
affected measurements at the exceeding monitors on June 20, 
2015.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 13.

    The initial submittal and addenda also provided additional evidence 
to demonstrate that the wildfire emissions caused the ozone exceedances 
observed on June 20, 2015, including three ``matching day'' analyses 
that (1) compared days in 2010 through 2015 during the month of June 
with similar meteorological conditions to June 20, 2015; (2) compared 
the conditions of all exceedance days in 2010 through 2015 during the 
month of June in comparison to June 20, 2015; and (3) discussed the 
characteristics of June 20, 2015, as a rare Saturday exceedance.\24\ We 
found that these analyses demonstrated the unusual nature of the June 
20, 2015 event. We also found that, along with the previously described 
analyses, the matching day analyses sufficiently demonstrated a clear 
causal relationship between the emissions generated by the Lake Fire 
and the exceedances measured at the Phoenix area monitors.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 13-14.
    \25\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in further detail in response to other comments 
elsewhere in this document, the commenter has not provided any evidence 
that undermines this finding that the weight of the evidence supports a 
clear causal relationship between the Lake Fire and the exceedances. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the weight of the evidence establishes 
that the clear causal criterion has been met for the June 20, 2015 
event.
    Comment: ACLIPI claimed that ``there is nothing `exceptional' about 
exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard at the monitors at issue'' since 
``these monitors routinely register some of the highest ozone 
concentrations in the Phoenix NAA.''
    Response: The term ``exceptional'' in the context of exceptional 
events does not require that the concentrations be the highest observed 
at the monitoring sites. CAA section 319(b)(1)(A) defines an 
``exceptional event'' as an event that:

    (i) affects air quality;
    (ii) is not reasonably controllable or preventable;
    (iii) is an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to 
recur at a particular location or a natural event; and
    (iv) is determined by the Administrator through the process 
established in the [Exceptional Events Rule] to be an exceptional 
event.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See also 40 CFR 50.1(j).

    A previous version of the Exceptional Events Rule required that, in 
addition to meeting these statutory elements criteria, states also 
submit evidence that the event was associated with a measured 
concentration in excess of normal historical fluctuations, including 
background.\27\ However, in the 2016 revisions to the Rule, the EPA 
removed this requirement and replaced it with a requirement for states 
to provide analyses comparing the claimed event-influenced 
concentration(s) to concentrations at the same monitoring site at other 
times in support of the clear causal criterion.\28\ The revised rule 
also provides that states are not required to prove a specific 
percentile point in the distribution of data.\29\ In other words, 
``[t]here is no pass or fail threshold for the historical 
concentrations data presentation.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(C) (2007 version).
    \28\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(C) (2017 version). See also 81 FR 
68241-68245.
    \29\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(C).
    \30\ Wildfire Ozone Guidance, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, to facilitate development and evaluation of 
demonstrations for

[[Page 60923]]

wildfire-influenced ozone exceedances, the EPA has suggested 
statistical benchmarks for comparing the event-related ozone 
concentration with non-event-related high ozone concentrations as part 
of ``Tier 2 key factor 2.'' \31\ Specifically, for key factor 2, a 
state would show that the exceedance is either (1) in the 99th or 
higher percentile of the 5-year distribution of ozone monitoring data, 
or (2) one of the four highest ozone concentrations within 1 year 
(among those concentrations that have not already been excluded under 
the Exceptional Events Rule, if any).\32\ If either of these two 
criteria is met, then the event-influenced data are generally 
considered to be high compared to other data at the monitoring 
site.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 21.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, as part of the Tier 2 key factor 2 analyses,\34\ ADEQ 
demonstrated that five of the six monitors had daily maximum 8-hour 
average ozone concentrations during the event at or above the 99th 
percentile for the 5-year period, while one monitor (Pinnacle Peak) did 
not. However, the event ozone concentration at Pinnacle Peak was the 
third highest ozone concentration measured at the site in 2015.\35\ 
Based on the concentrations observed at these monitors, the event 
exceedances meet Tier 2 key factor 2, and are therefore high relative 
to other data at the monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The June 20, 2015 event did not qualify for a Tier 2 
analysis because it did not meet Tier 2 Factor 1. TSD, 8. However, 
the EPA recommends that, as part of a Tier 3 analysis, that states 
``explain how the events, monitor and exceedance compare'' with the 
Tier 2 key factors. Guidance, 26.
    \35\ TSD, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter asserted that the exceedances were caused by 
local conditions and that ``if a wildfire smoke plume had transported 
to the Phoenix NAA and uniformly influenced its monitors, it would have 
caused abnormally high concentrations across the nonattainment area, or 
at least an atypical pattern of such concentrations,'' but ``[i]nstead 
the monitors that recorded the highest ozone concentrations were 
predictably located in the upslope/northeastern upslope portion.''
    Response: As noted in the Wildfire Ozone Guidance, ozone production 
is non-linear and therefore impacts of wildfire emissions on ozone can 
be difficult to predict. While an atypical pattern of exceedances could 
provide additional evidence to support that wildfire emissions affected 
ozone concentrations, the lack of such a pattern does not preclude a 
finding that wildfire emissions influenced a monitor. Similarly, an 
area-wide increase is not a necessary factor to demonstrate a clear 
causal relationship between the wildfire emissions and observed 
exceedances. The EPA evaluated other analyses and evidence provided in 
the demonstration and addenda and concluded that the weight of the 
evidence established a clear causal relationship between the Lake Fire 
and the June 20, 2015 exceedances.
    Comment: The commenter claimed that ``[t]here is nothing unusual 
about the fact that the June 2015 exceedances occurred on a Saturday'' 
and that ``[n]either ADEQ nor EPA has presented any support for the 
notion that high ozone concentrations on the weekend must have been 
affected by wildfire emissions, and that EPA cannot simply assume this 
to be true.''
    Response: ADEQ provided evidence that the characteristics of the 
June 20, 2015 Saturday exceedances were unique. ADEQ reviewed all 
Saturday exceedances at the six monitors during the month of June from 
2010 to 2015 and found that there were only two other Saturdays where 
exceedances were measured. These two other Saturday exceedance days 
were preceded by higher exceedances on the day prior (Friday) as part 
of a multi-day event from the weekday. The June 20, 2015 exceedance, 
however, ``is not a part of a prior episode event, and shows an 
increase of ozone from a Friday to Saturday,'' and ``the event is 
unique when compared to the prior six years of exceedance data and 
strongly suggests that an outside source of ozone or ozone precursor 
emissions caused the exceedances.'' \36\ The EPA agreed that the 
exceedances were unusual, which points to a unique emissions source 
contributing to the exceedances, but did not claim that the unusual 
nature of these Saturday exceedances alone specifically identified 
wildfire emissions as the cause. Rather, the EPA considered the 
information indicating that the exceedances were unusual as part of the 
weight of evidence approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ First addendum, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter claimed that while the ``EPA correctly found 
that PM2.5 concentrations were not elevated in the 
nonattainment area and therefore did not demonstrate wildfire 
influence, [the] EPA erroneously concluded this could be overcome by 
speciated carbon concentration data obtained from the Phoenix JLG 
Supersite (`Supersite') monitor.'' The commenter noted that ``the 
Supersite [monitor] did not exceed the 2008 standard on June 20, 2015; 
showed no signs of being significantly influenced by wildfire smoke on 
that day; and is located a minimum of 15 miles away from the nearest 
`exceptional events' monitor.''
    Response: Speciated carbon concentration data (i.e., EC and OC 
data) are relevant in evaluating the existence of clear causal 
relationship between fire emissions and ozone exceedances because 
elevated OC concentrations and low EC/OC ratios are generally 
associated with biomass smoke and therefore indicative of the presence 
of wildfire emissions.\37\ In this case, the Supersite monitor is the 
only location within the Phoenix NAA that measures EC and OC and is 
therefore the appropriate source of such data.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., J.L. Hand, et al. ``Spatial and Temporal Trends 
in PM2.5 Organic and Elemental Carbon across the United 
States,'' Advances in Meteorology, Article ID 367674 (2013); Dan 
Jaffe, et al. ``Interannual Variations in PM2.5 due to 
Wildfires in the Western United States'' Environmental Science and 
Technology, 42, 2812-2818 (2008); Dominic Spracklen., et al. 
``Wildfires drive interannual variability of organic carbon in the 
western U.S. in summer,'' Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16816 
(2007).
    \38\ See Wildfire Ozone Guidance, 22 (supporting analyses of 
pollutants associated with wildfire emissions can be ``co-located or 
nearby'' the exceeding monitoring site(s) and ``in the same airshed 
(or nonattainment/near nonattainment area).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The speciated carbon analysis at Supersite indicated elevated OC 
concentrations and relatively low EC/OC ratios, suggesting that 
wildfire emissions were present in the area. The fact that the 
Supersite monitor did not exceed the ozone standard on June 20, 2015, 
does not undermine the relevance of these data. Ozone is a secondary 
pollutant formed through photochemical production in a non-linear 
fashion. While precursors to ozone may be present in one location, 
ozone formation may occur on different spatial and temporal scales. In 
this instance the Supersite monitor showed elevated OC concentrations, 
relatively low EC/OC ratios, and elevated levels of NO2, an 
ozone precursor emitted by wildfires; these indicate the presence of 
wildfire emissions in the area. While the Supersite monitor did not 
itself experience exceedances of the ozone NAAQS during the event, 
other monitors in the vicinity did. In addition, two other monitors 
besides the Supersite monitor showed elevated levels of 
NO2.\39\ This pattern is

[[Page 60924]]

consistent with the presence of wildfire emissions in the area 
contributing to the formation of ozone at the affected monitoring sites 
and thus supports the existence of a clear causal relationship between 
the wildfire emissions and the exceedances on June 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As noted in response to the next comment, these were the 
only two other sites with NO2 data determined to be 
relevant for this analysis. In addition, none of the other sites in 
the Phoenix NAA measure EC and OC, so those sites may have also had 
elevated OC concentrations and low EC/OC ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter claimed that ``ADEQ's reliance on 
NO2 concentration data is . . . misplaced'' due to the EPA 
statement that ``NO2 is a poor tracer for fire because it is 
not specific to fire emissions and is emitted in large amounts by 
several anthropogenic sources (e.g., cars, power plants)'' and that the 
West Phoenix, Central Phoenix, and Supersite monitors ``did not record 
abnormally high ozone concentrations on June 20, 2015'' and ``they are 
too far away from the `exceptional events' monitors to provide relevant 
data.'' The commenter also stated that ADEQ ``should include data for 
all monitors in the NAA and not cherry-pick the data that arguably 
support its conclusion.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that NO2 is a poor tracer for 
isolating wildfire emissions because NO2 is emitted by both 
anthropogenic sources and wildfires. However, given that NO2 
is emitted by wildfires and is a precursor to ozone, evidence of the 
presence or absence of elevated NO2 concentrations in the 
nonattainment area around the time of the exceedances is relevant to 
review as part of the weight of evidence for determining whether a 
clear causal relationship between the wildfire emissions and the 
exceedances exists. Accordingly, in reviewing ADEQ's demonstration, we 
found that evidence concerning elevated NO2 concentrations 
provided some additional support to the conclusion that the wildfire 
emissions affected the monitors.\40\ Specifically, ADEQ's analysis 
revealed that ``several of the recorded hourly NO2 
concentrations were at or above the 95th percentile on [Saturday] June 
20, 2015'' at West Phoenix, Central Phoenix, and Supersite, whereas 
daily NO2 concentrations are typically lowest on weekend 
days.\41\ Accordingly, we agreed with ADEQ's conclusion that 
concentrations of NO2 at these monitors were unusual. 
However, we did not claim that the elevated concentrations alone were 
sufficient to demonstrate a clear causal relationship between wildfire 
emissions and the monitored exceedances. Instead, the EPA considered 
the unusual NO2 concentrations as one of several pieces of 
evidence that supported the existence of a clear causal relationship 
using the weight of evidence approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ TSD, 13.
    \41\ First Addendum, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the monitors chosen for this analysis, we believe that ADEQ 
provided an adequate rationale for focusing on West Phoenix, Central 
Phoenix, and Supersite monitoring sites: NO2 is only 
monitored at six sites in the area, and the remaining three that were 
not included in this analysis were either outside of the Phoenix NAA 
(Buckeye) or serve as mobile source-oriented near-road monitors (Diablo 
and Thirty-Third Avenue).
    Comment: The commenter claimed that, while ``ADEQ argues based on 
regression analysis that it is unusual for ozone concentrations to be 
so high at exceeding monitors under prevailing weather conditions,'' 
this analysis ``mainly proved that the regression equation it used 
consistently failed to predict high real-world ozone concentrations 
unaffected by wildfire.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that the regression analysis consistently 
underpredicted ozone at high concentrations, including for non-event 
exceedances. As noted in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for our 
concurrence on the June 20, 2015 event, the regression analysis also 
did not meet metrics described in the Wildfire Ozone Guidance.\42\ In 
evaluating the weight of the evidence, the EPA did not rely on the 
regression analysis to support the clear causal determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ TSD, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter stated that the ``matching day analysis did 
not bolster the case for an `exceptional event' '' as ``[t]he most this 
analysis could show was that the meteorological conditions that existed 
on June 20, 2015, would not normally be enough to be the sole cause of 
an exceedance of the 2008 ozone standard at the monitors that recorded 
exceedances.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that the matching day analysis does not 
specifically implicate wildfire emissions. The EPA considered the 
matching day analysis as one of several pieces of evidence that 
supported the existence of a clear causal relationship using the weight 
of evidence approach. As explained in the TSD and elsewhere in this 
document, other pieces of evidence provided by ADEQ do implicate 
wildfire emissions. The commenter has not suggested an alternative 
cause for the unusually elevated levels of ozone on June 20, 2015, 
other than wildfire emissions, and we are not aware of any such cause.
    Comment: ACLIPI claimed that satellite images of smoke over the 
Phoenix NAA are inconsistent with such smoke originating from the Lake 
Fire due to the shape and location of the smoke, and the ``upper air'' 
and ``lower air'' pathways in the conceptual model are ``difficult to 
conceive.''
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions that the 
observed smoke is unlikely to be from the Lake Fire and that the 
transport pathways within the conceptual model are unlikely. The 
observed smoke covers a large area and is both visible in the satellite 
imagery and identified as smoke as part of the NOAA smoke maps 
discussed further in a subsequent response. The satellite imagery also 
shows the smoke only at a snapshot in time; the shape and location of 
the smoke at a single point in time is inadequate to judge whether the 
smoke was transported from the Lake Fire (as opposed to fires in 
Mexico). The HYSPLIT trajectory analyses presented in the demonstration 
and addenda are consistent with this smoke originating from the Lake 
Fire. The size of the Lake Fire, relative to the fires in Mexico, also 
supports that the smoke originated from the Lake Fire.
    As for the ``upper air'' and ``lower air'' pathways, ADEQ clearly 
described these in the second addendum and supported them with evidence 
including multiple HYSPLIT trajectories from different locations and at 
different times, a multi-dimensional dew point and water vapor 
analysis, and meteorological data from within the Phoenix NAA regarding 
boundary layer depths. The EPA found that these technical analyses 
supported the pathways identified in the conceptual model. The 
commenters did not provide any technical evidence to contradict these 
analyses or support their claim that the pathways are questionable.
    Comment: The commenter stated that ``[t]he NOAA smoke maps tend to 
show that any transported Lake Fire smoke (as opposed [to] smoke from 
other sources) bypassed the Phoenix NAA completely'' and ``are 
inconclusive at best.''
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's claims that the NOAA 
smoke maps show that transported Lake Fire smoke bypassed the Phoenix 
NAA completely. Multiple NOAA smoke maps show light and moderate levels 
of smoke over the nonattainment area. As described in the response to a 
previous comment regarding satellite imagery of smoke, this smoke was 
consistent with HYSPLIT trajectories showing transport from the Lake 
Fire. Additionally, the maps show smoke at a single point in time 
(i.e., when a satellite passes overhead); smoke that is near the 
Phoenix NAA at the time corresponding to the smoke map may pass through 
the

[[Page 60925]]

Phoenix NAA at another time. The maps cannot be used to show that smoke 
``bypassed the [area] completely'' since they do not represent all 
points in time.
    Comment: The commenter claimed that the estimated emissions 
quantity over distance (Q/D) ratio of 54 tons per day/kilometers (tpd/
km) is ``well below the value of 100 tpd/km that EPA recommends as 
indicating clear causality.''
    Response: The commenter has mischaracterized the nature of the 100 
Q/D threshold in the Wildfire Ozone Guidance. A Q/D value of 100 or 
more does not by itself indicate clear causality, nor does a Q/D value 
less than 100 indicate the absence of clear causality. Rather, the Q/D 
ratio is one of two factors that the EPA uses to evaluate whether a 
Tier 2 or Tier 3 clear causal analysis is appropriate for a particular 
exceptional events demonstration.\43\ The Guidance explains that the 
EPA selected 100 tpd/km ``as a conservative indicator'' of ozone 
impacts.\44\ The EPA has concurred on a number of fire-related 
exceptional events demonstrations with Q/D values well below 100 tpd/
km.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Guidance, 16-22.
    \44\ Guidance, 17.
    \45\ See, e.g., ``Technical Support Document for EPA Concurrence 
on Ozone Exceedances Measured in Connecticut on May 25 and 26, 2016 
as Exceptional Events'' (attachment to letter dated July 31, 2017), 
7; ``Technical Support Document for EPA Concurrence on Ozone 
Exceedances Measured in Massachusetts on May 25 and 26, 2016 as 
Exceptional Events'' (attachment to letter dated September 19, 
2017), 7;``Technical Support Document for EPA Concurrence on Ozone 
Exceedances Measured in Rhode Island on May 25 and 26, 2016 as 
Exceptional Events'' (attachment to letter dated September 19, 
2017), 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the ratio for the June 20, 2015 event did not meet the 100 
Q/D threshold for a Tier 2 analysis, we determined that a Tier 3 
analysis, involving additional supportive documentation, was 
appropriate for this event. As described elsewhere in this document, 
ADEQ provided such additional documentation in the form of several 
different technical analyses. Collectively, the weight of this evidence 
establishes a causal relationship between the Lake Fire and the June 
20, 2015 exceedances for the June 20, 2015 event.
    Comment: ACLIPI asserted that it is unclear whether ADEQ provided 
adequate notice regarding the opportunity to comment on its exceptional 
events documentation. Specifically, ACLIPI asserted that ``ADEQ 
maintains email lists of parties interested in air quality actions to 
which the agency regularly distributes notices regarding upcoming 
rulemakings. If ADEQ sent notice to any stakeholders concerning its 
proposed exceptional events demonstration, it should explain how and to 
whom it sent notice.''
    Response: The Exceptional Events Rule requires that, as part of the 
submission of an exceptional events demonstration, a state must (1) 
document that it followed a public comment process, including a comment 
period of at least 30 days; (2) submit any public comments received; 
and (3) address any comments disputing or contradicting factual 
evidence provided in the demonstration.\46\ Although emailing 
stakeholders is one means of providing public notice of draft 
exceptional events demonstration,\47\ nothing in the Exceptional Events 
Rule or the Clean Air Act requires states to take this approach. 
Rather, ``[p]roviding sufficient opportunity for public comment for a 
demonstration is case-by-case and depends on the circumstances and 
intended audience.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(v).
    \47\ See ``2016 Revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule: Update 
to Frequently Asked Questions,'' July 2019, 26.
    \48\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, for each of the submissions, ADEQ provided public 
notice by posting the draft demonstration submissions on its website 
and publishing a notice in the Arizona Republic at the start of the 30-
day public comment period.\49\ The EPA considers this to be adequate 
public notice under 40 CFR 51.14(c)(3)(v). Therefore, ADEQ is not 
required to explain whether or not it sent notice to any stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ May 18, 2018 submittal Section I, 4 and Appendix D; letter 
dated July 17, 2018, from Timothy Franquist, ADEQ, to Michael 
Stoker, EPA Region 9,; Demonstration, 4, Appendix E; First addendum, 
2, Appendix B; letter dated July 17, 2018, from Timothy Franquist, 
ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, EPA Region 9; Second addendum, 1, Appendix 
C; letter dated April 26, 2019, from Timothy Franquist, ADEQ, to 
Michael Stoker, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: ACLIPI asserted that, for the reasons previously cited in 
its comment letter, the EPA's invitation to the State to withdraw its 
contingency measure is unwarranted and should be revoked.
    Response: In conjunction with our proposed finding of attainment by 
the applicable attainment date, we also proposed to determine that the 
CAA requirement for the State to submit a SIP revision to provide for 
contingency measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to 
attain by its attainment date (``attainment contingency measures'') 
will no longer apply for the Phoenix NAA. The State has already 
submitted a SIP revision providing for attainment contingency measures, 
so we also noted that the State could elect to withdraw the attainment 
contingency measures to lift the obligation on the EPA under section 
110(k) to act on these measures.
    For the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this 
document, we are finalizing our determination that the Phoenix NAA 
attained the 2008 ozone standard by its Moderate area attainment date 
of July 20, 2018, and our determination that there is no existing 
requirement for attainment contingency measures for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in the Phoenix NAA.
    Comment: ACLIPI argued that the EPA was incorrect that its proposed 
rulemaking ``does not directly affect the level of protection provided 
for human health or the environment'' and ``does not concern an 
environmental health risk'' to children. The commenter asserted that, 
if the EPA makes a determination of attainment by the attainment date, 
the Phoenix NAA would not be reclassified (``bumped up'') to a 
``Serious'' classification, and the State would be ``excused from 
having to adopt and implement additional or more effective control 
measures, at least until the Phoenix NAA is inevitably reclassified to 
``[M]oderate'' for the 2015 ozone standard.'' The commenter concluded 
that this delay poses a significant risk to human health, particularly 
for children, the elderly, and people with preexisting lung and 
cardiovascular diseases.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. As explained in a previous 
response, we are required to determine whether the Phoenix NAA attained 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its Moderate area date of July 20, 2018, based 
on 2015-2017 data, which show that the area attained the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS during that period. This determination does not in and of itself 
affect the level of protection provided for human health, children's 
health, or the environment.
    As alluded to by the commenter, if we had determined the Phoenix 
NAA had not attained the 2008 NAAQS by the attainment date, we would 
have reclassified the area to Serious nonattainment, which would have 
triggered additional planning and implementation requirements. However, 
this would not have directly altered the level of protection for human 
health or the environment within the area since the area would 
ultimately have been obligated to meet the same NAAQS.
    In addition, the Phoenix area is currently designated and 
classified as a ``Marginal'' nonattainment area for the

[[Page 60926]]

2015 ozone NAAQS.\50\ The EPA will determine whether the area has met 
the August 3, 2020 Marginal attainment date for the 2015 standard based 
on 2017-2019 monitoring data. While the commenter appears to assume 
that the area will not attain by the Marginal attainment date, and will 
therefore be bumped up to Moderate, the data are not yet available to 
make this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter #2: Public Comment (No Name)

    Comment: The commenter argued that the EPA cannot make a 
determination of attainment because the ozone data being used is old 
(2015-2017). The commenter suggested that the EPA must have 2018 data, 
but that it has not provided updated design values on our public 
website. The commenter further noted that ADEQ has made 2018 data 
publicly available, and that these data show more than 26 days in 2018 
when the 2008 NAAQS was exceeded. The commenter asserted that, with 
this number of exceedances, the EPA cannot make a determination of 
attainment and has a statutory obligation to bump up the area and 
require the State to comply with Serious area requirements.
    Response: As explained above in response to a similar comment from 
ACLIPI, we are not permitted to consider 2018 or 2019 data in 
evaluating whether the area attained by the applicable attainment date 
of July 20, 2018. Our statutory obligation under CAA section 
181(b)(2)(A) is to determine whether the Phoenix NAA attained the 
standard by the applicable attainment date based on the design value as 
of the attainment date. We are fulfilling that obligation with today's 
final action.
    We also note that agency air data submitted to the EPA's Air 
Quality System (AQS) database is considered preliminary until such data 
are certified. Agencies are required to certify the data annually by 
May 1 of the following year. For example, the deadline for agencies to 
certify data collected during calendar year 2018 was May 1, 2019. After 
the certification deadline, the design values are reviewed by EPA staff 
before they are posted to the EPA website, which generally occurs 
within a few months of the certification deadline. The 2018 design 
values were posted to the EPA's website on July 23, 2019. The EPA makes 
both preliminary data submitted to the AQS database and data submitted 
to AirNow for public notification purposes available on the EPA's Air 
Data web page prior to data certification.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter #3: Arizona Chamber of Commerce

    Comment: The commenter expressed support for the proposed 
determination and argued that it is proper to exclude the ``Qualifying 
Exceptional Events.''
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for this 
action.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the main cause of ozone is 
emissions from road and non-road engines, additional restrictions on 
major sources will not have a measurable impact on ozone levels, the 
Phoenix NAA has high background ozone and transport, and that the most 
effective way to reduce emissions in the area is to reduce emissions 
from on road and non-road engines through an emissions reduction credit 
(ERC) program for non-traditional ERCs. The commenter urged the EPA to 
help ADEQ and Maricopa County to establish an ERC framework for 
nontraditional sources so that the area can reduce emissions from 
vehicle emissions for 2015 NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment but notes that it is not 
relevant to this action.

Commenter #4: Maricopa County

    Comment: The commenter expressed support for the proposed 
determination of attainment by the attainment date.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for this 
action.

Commenter #5: ADEQ

    Comment: The commenter expressed support for the proposed 
determination of attainment by the attainment date.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for this 
action.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 
determinations as described in our proposed action. Therefore, the EPA 
is finalizing our determination that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 
ozone standard by the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018. 
We are also finalizing our determination that attainment contingency 
measures for this NAAQS no longer apply to the Phoenix NAA.
    This action does not suspend the attainment-related requirements 
for the Phoenix NAA under 40 CFR 51.1118. We also note that this 
determination that the Phoenix ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment for 
the 2008 ozone standard. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), redesignations 
to attainment require states to meet additional statutory criteria, 
including the EPA's approval of a SIP revision demonstrating 
maintenance of the standard for 10 years after redesignation. The 
designation status of the Phoenix area will remain Moderate 
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA 
determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation 
to attainment.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that this action will not have disproportionately 
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-
income, or indigenous populations. The purpose of this rule is to 
determine whether the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone standard by 
the Moderate area attainment date, which is required under the CAA for 
purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone standard. As such, this action 
does not directly affect the level of protection provided for human 
health or the environment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA not already approved by the OMB.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in

[[Page 60927]]

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any 
state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship 
between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Four tribes have areas of 
Indian country within or directly adjacent to the Phoenix NAA: Fort 
McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, and the Tohono 
O'odham Nation of Arizona. The EPA sent letters to potentially affected 
tribes located within or directly adjacent to the boundaries of the 
Phoenix NAA informing them of our proposed action and offering 
consultation.\52\ We did not receive any requests for consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See letters from Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region IX Air and 
Radiation Division Director, to tribal officials, dated June 13, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, 
or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained 
in the section of the preamble titled ``Environmental Justice 
Considerations.''

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The CRA, 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. 
The 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).

M. Judicial Review

    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 January 13, 2020. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 21, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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. Add Sec.  52.153 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.153  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

    (a) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. Effective 
December 12, 2019 the EPA has determined that the Phoenix-Mesa Moderate 
nonattainment area in Arizona attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date 
of July 20, 2018, based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified 
data for the calendar years 2015-2017. The EPA has also determined that 
the requirement of section 172(c)(9) to provide for contingency 
measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to attain by its 
attainment date for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS does not apply to the area.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2019-23829 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P