Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans-Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard, 7118-7126 [2014-02574]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7118-7126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02574]



[[Page 7118]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0762; FRL-9906-04-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans--Maricopa 
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of 
the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Arizona to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements applicable to 
the Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area. The Maricopa 
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area is located in the eastern portion of 
Maricopa County and encompasses the cities of Phoenix, Mesa, 
Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, several other smaller 
jurisdictions, unincorporated County lands, as well as the town of 
Apache Junction in Pinal County. The Maricopa County PM-10 
Nonattainment Area is designated as a serious nonattainment area for 
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate 
matter of ten microns or less (PM-10). The submitted SIP revision is 
the Maricopa Association of Governments Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for 
the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (2012 Five Percent Plan). 
Arizona's obligation to submit the 2012 Five Percent Plan was triggered 
by EPA's June 6, 2007 finding that the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area had failed to meet its December 31, 2006 deadline to attain the 
PM-10 NAAQS. The CAA requires a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that 
fails to meet its attainment deadline to submit a plan providing for 
attainment of the PM-10.
    NAAQS and for an annual emission reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 
precursors of not less than five percent until attainment. EPA is 
proposing to approve the 2012 Five Percent Plan as meeting all relevant 
statutory and regulatory requirements.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0762, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: nudd.gregory@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or Deliver: Gregory Nudd (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is 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 in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415-
947-4107, nudd.gregory@epa.gov or www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,'' 
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment 
Area
II. Overview of Applicable CAA Requirements
III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan's Compliance with CAA 
Requirements
IV. Summary of Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment Area

    The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by 
EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient 
air pollutants for which EPA has established health-based standards. 
PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the lungs, 
aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and 
people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the health-based national ambient air 
quality standards, replacing the standards for total suspended 
particulates with new standards applying only to particulate matter up 
to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672. At that time, EPA 
established two PM-10 standards, annual and 24-hour. Effective December 
18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM-10 standard but retained the 24-
hour PM-10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM-10 
standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) is attained 
when the expected number of days with a 24-hour average concentration 
above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ per calendar year averaged over a three year 
period, as determined in accordance with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, 
is equal to or less than one. 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix 
K.
    On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA 
or the Act), many areas, including the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area, meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended 
Act were designated nonattainment by operation of law. 56 FR 11101 
(March 15, 1991). The Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area is located in 
the eastern portion of Maricopa County and encompasses the cities of 
Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, as well as 15 
other jurisdictions, four tribes and unincorporated County lands. The 
nonattainment area also includes the town of Apache Junction in Pinal 
County. EPA codified the boundaries of the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area at 40 CFR 81.303.
    Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of 
the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area as moderate or 
serious and establishes the area's attainment deadline. In accordance 
with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-10 
nonattainment areas, including the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area, 
were initially classified as moderate.
    A moderate PM-10 nonattainment area must be reclassified to serious 
PM-10 nonattainment by operation of law if EPA determines after the 
applicable attainment date that, based on air quality, the area failed 
to attain by that date. CAA sections 179(c) and

[[Page 7119]]

188(b)(2). On May 10, 1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa PM-10 
Nonattainment Area as a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. 61 FR 21372.
    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the area acquired a new 
attainment deadline of no later than December 31, 2001. CAA section 
188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) authorizes EPA to grant up to a 
5-year extension of that attainment deadline if certain conditions are 
met by the state. In order to obtain the extension, the state must make 
a SIP submission showing that: (1) Attainment by the applicable 
attainment date would be impracticable; (2) the state complied with all 
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 
implementation plan for the area; and (3) the plan for the area 
includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that are included in the 
implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any 
state, and can feasibly be implemented in the specific area. Arizona 
requested an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e) for the 
Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area from December 31, 2001 to December 
31, 2006.
    On July 25, 2002, EPA approved the serious area PM-10 plan for the 
Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area as meeting the requirements for such 
areas in CAA sections 189(b) and (c), including the requirements for 
implementation of best available control measures (BACM) in section 
189(b)(1)(B) and MSM in section 188(e). In the same action, EPA 
approved the submission with respect to the requirements of section 
188(e) and granted Arizona's request to extend the attainment date for 
the area to December 31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. This final action, as well 
as the two proposals preceding it, provide a more detailed discussion 
of the history of PM-10 planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area. See 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000); 
and 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001).
    On June 6, 2007, EPA found that the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area failed to attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date of December 31, 2006 (72 FR 31183). Accordingly, the 
state was required to submit a new plan meeting the requirements of 
section 189(d) by December 31, 2007.
    On December 19, 2007, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 
adopted the ``MAG 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Nonattainment Area'' (2007 Five Percent Plan).\1\ On December 
21, 2007 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 
submitted the 2007 Five Percent Plan and two Pinal County resolutions. 
EPA proposed to partially disapprove this plan on September 9, 2010. 75 
FR 54806. On January 25, 2011, prior to EPA's final action on the 2007 
Five Percent Plan, Arizona withdrew the plan from the Agency's 
consideration. As a result of the withdrawal of the 2007 Five Percent 
Plan, on February 14, 2011, EPA made a finding of failure to make a 
required SIP submittal. 76 FR 8300. This finding of failure to submit 
obligated EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within 
two years after that date, unless the state submits and EPA approves a 
SIP submission meeting the requirements of section 189(d) by such date. 
CAA section 110(c). Because EPA's evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent 
Plan indicates that it meets the requirements of section 189(d), EPA is 
proposing to approve the submission in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MAG has responsibility for air quality and transportation 
planning in the metropolitan Phoenix region. MAG develops air 
quality plans in coordination with ADEQ, the Arizona Department of 
Transportation, and the Maricopa County Air Quality Department. See 
2012 Five Percent Plan at ES-1; Appendix E., Exh. 2 (Resolution to 
Adopt the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa 
County Nonattainment Area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 Five Percent Plan was adopted by MAG on May 23, 2012 and 
submitted to EPA by ADEQ on May 25, 2012.\2\ MAG adopted and ADEQ 
submitted the 2012 Five Percent Plan specifically to address the CAA 
requirements in section 189(d) for the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area. EPA reviewed the submission and found it to be complete on July 
20, 2012.\3\ EPA is proposing approval of the submission as meeting the 
requirements of section 189(d) in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Also on May 25, 2012, Arizona submitted several Arizona 
statutes, Maricopa County rules, a Maricopa County ordinance, and 
related appendices for approval into the Arizona SIP. By letter 
dated May 21, 2013, Arizona submitted redacted materials to clarify 
its May 25, 2012 submittal. By letter dated September 26, 2013, 
Arizona withdrew its May 21, 2013 submittal and submitted a table 
and redacted materials as a supplement to the May 25, 2012 submittal 
to clarify the materials it is requesting EPA to approve into the 
Arizona SIP.
    \3\ Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA 
Region 9 to Henry Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality dated July 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of Applicable CAA Requirements

    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that failed to meet its 
applicable attainment date, December 31, 2006, the Maricopa PM-10 
Nonattainment Area is subject to CAA section 189(d). Section 189(d) 
provides that the state shall ``submit within 12 months after the 
applicable attainment date, plan revisions which provide for attainment 
of the PM-10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission 
until attainment, for an annual reduction of PM-10 or PM-10 precursor 
emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of 
such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for 
the area.''
    The general planning and control requirements for all nonattainment 
plans are found in CAA sections 110 and 172. More specific planning and 
control requirements relevant to the PM-10 NAAQS are found in Part D, 
Subpart 4, in CAA sections 188 and 189. EPA has issued a General 
Preamble \4\ and Addendum to the General Preamble \5\ to provide 
guidance to states for meeting the CAA's requirements for the PM-10 
NAAQS. The General Preamble mainly addresses the requirements for 
moderate nonattainment areas and the Addendum addresses the 
requirements for serious nonattainment areas. EPA has also issued other 
guidance documents related to PM-10 plans which are discussed and cited 
below. The specific PM-10 plan requirements addressed by this proposed 
action are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) and 57 FR 18070 
(April 28, 1992).
    \5\ ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment 
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas 
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 
(August 16, 1994) (Addendum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Emissions Inventories

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an attainment plan include a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources of the relevant pollutants.

B. Section 189(d) Attainment Demonstration and Five Percent Requirement

    For serious PM-10 nonattainment areas that do not attain the PM-10 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 189(d) requires 
the state to submit plan revisions that provide for attainment of the 
NAAQS (i.e., an attainment demonstration) and provide for an annual 
five percent reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions for each 
year from the date of

[[Page 7120]]

submission until attainment.\6\ Section 189(d) specifies that the state 
must submit these plan revisions within 12 months of the applicable 
attainment date that the area failed to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA has previously determined that PM-10 precursors are not 
significant contributors to PM-10 levels in the Maricopa County PM-
10 Nonattainment Area. See 65 FR 19971 (April 13, 2000); 67 FR 48718 
(July 25, 2002). In those rulemaking notices, EPA specifically 
determined that the contribution from major stationary sources of 
PM-10 precursors was less than 0.5 percent of the annual PM-10 
NAAQS. See e.g., 65 FR 19971. Subsequent technical studies confirm 
that ambient PM-10 levels in the nonattainment area are primarily 
from crustal material and are not derived from organic compounds, 
nitrates or sulfates. See e.g., ``PM-10 Source Attribution and 
Deposition Study,'' prepared by Sierra Research, Inc. for Maricopa 
Association of Governments (March 2008) at pg. 2 (``Local monitoring 
by co-located PM-10 and PM-2.5 monitors confirms that PM-2.5 on high 
PM-10 days is a small fraction of the PM-10 concentrations. 
Therefore, the PM-10 problem in the Maricopa County nonattainment 
area is largely attributable to coarse particles, comprised 
primarily of geologic material.''); see also, id. at Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that implementation plans 
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) as defined in section 
171(1). Section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual incremental 
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required 
by this part [part D of title I] or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable 
national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' The 
general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) applies to SIP submissions 
necessary to meet CAA section 189(d) for the PM-10 NAAQS.
    In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1) specifically applicable to the 
PM-10 NAAQS requires that an implementation plan contain quantitative 
milestones which will be achieved every 3 years and which will 
demonstrate that RFP is being met.

D. Contingency Measures

    CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that implementation plans provide 
for ``the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the 
area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the NAAQS 
by the attainment date applicable under this part [part D of title I]. 
Such measures are to take effect in any such case without further 
action by the State or the Administrator.'' The contingency measure 
requirement of CAA section 179(c)(9) applies to the SIP submissions 
necessary to meet CAA section 189(d) for the PM-10 NAAQS.

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our 
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that 
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air 
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a 
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air 
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestone. Once a SIP that 
contains motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) has been submitted to 
EPA, and EPA has found them adequate, these budgets are used for 
determining conformity: Emissions from planned transportation 
activities must be less than or equal to the budgets.

F. Adequate Authority

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that implementation plans 
provide necessary assurances that the state (or the general purpose 
local government or regional agency designated by the state for this 
purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding and authority under 
state law to carry out the requirements of such plan. Requirements for 
legal authority are further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart L 
(51.230-51.232) and for resources in 40 CFR 51.280. States and 
responsible local agencies must also demonstrate that they have the 
legal authority to adopt and enforce provisions of the SIP and to 
obtain information necessary to determine compliance.

III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan's Compliance With CAA 
Requirements

A. Emissions Inventories

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires all nonattainment area plans to 
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual 
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in 
the area at issue. Our policies require that the inventory be fully 
documented. The 2012 Five Percent Plan uses the comprehensive ``2008 
PM-10 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Maricopa County, Revised 2011'' 
(2008 PM-10 Inventory) as a starting point in the analysis.\7\ The 2008 
PM-10 Inventory was developed by the Maricopa County Air Quality 
Department (MCAQD) and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)--
MCAQD prepared emission estimates for point sources and most area and 
nonroad mobile sources, and MAG prepared emission estimates for onroad 
mobile, biogenic and certain area and nonroad mobile sources. 2012 Five 
Percent Plan, Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory was 
adjusted by MAG for economic and population changes to provide 
projected emissions inventories for 2007 through 2012. 2012 Five 
Percent Plan at p. 3-2; Appendix B, Exh. 1, Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory is included as Appendix A, Exhibit 
1 to the 2012 Five Percent Plan. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory includes 
revisions made by MAG in 2011 to incorporate more recent vehicle 
registration data, and updated models and planning assumptions. See 
2012 Five Percent Plan, Appendix B, Exh. 1, at II-10 to II-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 PM-10 Inventory describes annual emissions from point, 
area, nonroad, on-road, and nonanthropogenic sources in the Maricopa 
County and the Pinal County portion of the nonattainment 
area.8 9 The 2008 PM-10 Inventory shows that the most 
significant sources of emissions in the Maricopa County Nonattainment 
Area are unpaved roads and alleys (21 percent), construction-related 
fugitive dust (17 percent), paved road dust (17 percent) and windblown 
dust (9 percent). 2012 Five Percent Plan, Table 5-3. The 2008 PM-10 
Inventory and related inventories for 2007 through 2012 are well 
documented by documentation meeting our guidance criteria. See 
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations'', EPA, August 2005 (2005 EI Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory notes that Maricopa County is 
approximately 9,223 square miles, whereas the Maricopa County PM-10 
Nonattainment Area is approximately 2,888 square miles. See 2012 
Five Percent Plan at p. 3-2.
    \9\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory also references ``typical daily 
emissions.'' The 2012 Five Percent Plan does not rely on ``typical 
daily emissions'' for the attainment demonstration or the five 
percent reduction in annual emissions; therefore, we did not 
comprehensively analyze these values in connection with today's 
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The base year, 2008, is a reasonably current year, considering the 
length of time needed to develop an inventory, perform the modeling, 
develop and adopt control measures, and hold public hearings on such a 
large and technically-complex plan.
    The MAG plan inventories are sufficiently comprehensive, covering 
all sources of PM-10 that have been found to be important sources of 
relevant emissions in this and other PM-10 nonattainment areas. The 
2008 PM-10 Inventory includes emissions for certain PM-10 precursors 
(nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia). The

[[Page 7121]]

2007-2012 projected inventories based on the 2008 PM-10 Inventory do 
not include emissions of PM-10 precursors; however, EPA has previously 
determined that these precursors do not play a significant part in the 
PM-10 problems in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. See 65 
FR 19971 (April 13, 2000); see also, note 6. EPA proposes to find again 
that precursors still do not play a significant part in PM-10 problems 
in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
    In developing the inventory, MAG and MCAQD followed EPA's 2005 
guidance and recommendations regarding the use of emission factors, 
activity estimates, and control factors, and the other source specific 
emission estimation methodologies. The relative accuracy of each 
estimate underwent the prescribed quality assurance procedures, 
documented in the 2008 PM-10 Inventory, Sections 2.7, 3.7, 4.14 and 
5.5, to minimize possible errors. MCAQD used reasonable and accurate 
methods to calculate rule effectiveness.
    Rule effectiveness is the estimate of the extent to which a state 
rule in the SIP is achieving the intended reductions. A rule is 100 
percent effective only if every impacted source is in compliance at all 
times. Often, rules are not 100 percent effective, and this aspect must 
be considered when calculating the emissions reductions from the rule. 
The 2008 PM-10 Inventory generally complies with EPA's guidance on 
calculating rule effectiveness found in Appendix B of EPA's 2005 EI 
Guidance.
    EPA's analysis indicates the inventory is sufficiently accurate for 
the purposes of the 2012 Five Percent Plan. Because we find that the 
inventory is current, comprehensive, and accurate, we propose to 
approve the 2008 PM-10 Inventory and the adjusted inventories for 2007, 
2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 under CAA section 172(c)(3).

B. Attainment Demonstration

    EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM-10 
NAAQS based on complete, quality assured, and certified data collected 
at state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment 
area. Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by 
calculating the average number of expected exceedances of the standard 
over a three-year period. Specifically, the 24-hour PM-10 standard is 
attained when the expected number of exceedances averaged over a three-
year period is less than or equal to one at each monitoring site within 
the nonattainment area.\10\ In the case of a monitor that collects 
daily data, and has a full three years worth of adequate data, that 
monitor should show no more than one exceedance of the standard in a 
three year period. If all of the monitors in the nonattainment area 
meet the standard for the requisite period reflecting the form of the 
24 hour PM-10 NAAQS, then the area has attained the standard. This 
point is discussed in more detail in our technical support document 
(TSD).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 50.6(a); 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.
    \11\ Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on the 2012 
Five Percent Plan, U.S. EPA Region 9, January 14, 2014, Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Attainment Deadline
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan predicts attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS 
by December 31, 2012. For an area determined by EPA to have failed to 
attain by the applicable attainment date for a serious PM-10 
nonattainment area, CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3) specify that 
the new attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 
years from the date of publication of the nonattainment finding in the 
Federal Register. Pursuant to these provisions, the attainment date for 
the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area would be as expeditiously as 
practicable, but not later than June 6, 2012.\12\ CAA section 
172(a)(2), however, authorizes EPA to extend the attainment deadline to 
the extent it deems appropriate for a period no greater than 10 years 
from the publication of the nonattainment finding, ``considering the 
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 
pollution control measures.'' EPA believes such an extension to 
December 31, 2012, is warranted, based on various factors, including 
the following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, EPA notes that the PM-10 NAAQS is an calendar-based 
standard, which makes setting a mid-year attainment deadline (such as 
June 6) less appropriate than setting an end of calendar year date that 
would include the entire year of monitored data for comparison against 
the NAAQS. In addition, the 2012 Five Percent Plan explains that an 
extension is reasonable because modeled attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS 
requires implementation of a new measure, the Dust Action General 
Permit. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 6-45 through 6-47. The Dust 
Action General Permit is a new measure developed by ADEQ and MAG 
following EPA's identification of approvability issues in the 2007 Five 
Percent Plan, including flaws in the emissions inventory. These flaws 
required Arizona and MAG to develop a new emissions inventory and new 
attainment demonstration and to convene technical and stakeholder 
groups for appropriate input. One result of these processes was the 
Dust Action General Permit, which identifies a series of Best 
Management Practices (BMPs) for specific dust generating operations. 
When ADEQ's Maricopa County Dust Control Forecast predicts that a day 
is at high risk for dust generation, those dust generating operations 
that are not already required to control dust through a permit issued 
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) or the 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) are expected to choose 
and implement at least one BMP to reduce or prevent PM-10 emissions. 
The Dust Action General Permit required action by the Arizona 
Legislature and was not finalized until December 30, 2011.\13\ ADEQ and 
MAG estimate that the Dust Action General Permit will increase the rule 
effectiveness of Rule 310.01 by one percent on high wind days, or 190 
tons on an annual basis. 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 5-4 and p. 6-45. 
ADEQ and MAG also state that modeled attainment cannot be shown without 
the reductions attributable to the Dust Action General Permit. It was 
necessary to extend the attainment date until December 2012 in order 
for the Dust Action General Permit to be adopted and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Arizona House Bill 2208, which added ARS 49-457.05 and 
authorized creation of the Dust Action General Permit, was enacted 
in April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, EPA concurs that an extension of the attainment 
deadline to December 31, 2012 is warranted.
2. Modeled Attainment Demonstration
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan shows attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS 
through modeled attainment demonstrations for the area near the Salt 
River in central Phoenix, (including the West 43rd Avenue monitor which 
recorded the most PM-10 exceedances during high wind conditions for the 
period 2005-2010) and for the entire Maricopa County PM-10 
Nonattainment Area. See generally, 2012 Five Percent Plan, Chapter 6. 
MAG conducted modeling for two design days: May 4, 2007 (based on data 
from the West 43rd Avenue monitor), and June 6, 2007 (based on data 
from the Higley and West 43rd Avenue monitors). In consultation with 
ADEQ and EPA, MAG selected the design days and locations based on the 
fact that, for the past few years, measured exceedances of the PM-10 
NAAQS have been associated with

[[Page 7122]]

elevated winds. MAG's selected design days were not days that would be 
likely to be considered a high wind exceptional event (i.e., the 
geographic extent of the exceedances did not suggest the occurrence of 
an area-wide storm event). EPA's detailed analysis of the modeling can 
be found in Section IV of the TSD for this action. The modeling was 
conducted in a way that was consistent with EPA guidance and the input 
of EPA technical experts. The modeling indicates that the emission 
reductions in the plan should result in PM-10 levels that are 
consistent with the NAAQS by December 31. 2012. This attainment 
modeling was confirmed by the monitoring data as described in the next 
section of this proposal. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the 2012 
Five Percent Plan's attainment demonstration provides sufficient 
assurance that the control measures implemented in the nonattainment 
area will be sufficient to ensure ongoing compliance with the PM-10 
standard in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
3. Monitoring Data Showing Attainment
    EPA is also taking into account the fact that monitoring data 
recorded at air quality monitors throughout the Maricopa County PM-10 
Nonattainment Area show that the area in fact reached attainment of the 
PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2012. Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 
standard is determined by calculating the average number of expected 
exceedances of the standard over a three-year period. Specifically, the 
24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the expected number of 
exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal to 
one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. During the 
2010-2012 time period, MCAQD operated fifteen PM-10 monitors, while 
ADEQ and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 
operated an additional three PM-10 monitoring stations in the area. 
EPA's analysis indicates that all of these monitors have an expected 
exceedance of less than one for the years 2010-2012.
    EPA's review of monitoring data for the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for the 
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area includes exceedances of the 
standard recorded during the 2010-2012 time period. However, EPA does 
not consider these exceedances of the NAAQS to be violations because 
they were the result of exceptional events. ADEQ submitted three 
packages containing demonstrations for high wind PM-10 exceptional 
events covering a total of one hundred thirty-three measured 
exceedances occurring over twenty-seven days in the years 2011 and 2012 
at monitors within the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. EPA 
reviewed the documentation that ADEQ provided to demonstrate that the 
exceedances on these days meet the criteria for an exceptional event in 
EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (EER).\14\ EPA concurred with ADEQ's 
requests for exceptional event determinations, based on the weight of 
evidence, that one hundred thirty-one of the one hundred thirty-three 
exceedances were caused by high wind exceptional events.\15\ 
Accordingly EPA has determined that the monitored exceedances 
associated with these exceptional events should not be used for 
regulatory purposes, including for evaluation of the CAA section 189(d) 
plan submission. Excluding these exceedances caused predominantly by 
uncontrollable emissions, EPA proposes to determine that the Maricopa 
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area has attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS 
based on the monitors operated by ADEQ, MCAQD and PCAQD. This is 
consistent with attainment of the standard projected by the state in 
the 2012 Five Percent Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 50.1(j), (k), (l); 50.14; 51.930.
    \15\ See Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, ADEQ, dated 
September 6, 2012, May 6, 2013, and July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monitors operated by tribal governments in the nonattainment area 
also provide data that can be considered to evaluate attainment. The 
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community operates three PM-10 
monitoring stations on tribal land within the Maricopa County PM-10 
Nonattainment Area that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and are 
therefore appropriate to consider when determining if the area has 
attained the standard. As our analysis in Section III of the TSD 
indicates, these monitors show exceedances of the standard on three 
days during the 2010-2012 time period. Two of those exceedances (both 
on July 8, 2011) were during area-wide storms that resulted in 
exceedances at the non-tribal monitors that EPA has already determined 
were caused by exceptional events. EPA TSD Section III. The third 
exceedance (on July 2, 2011) appears to be related to local sources 
rather than an exceptional event. Pursuant to 40 CFR 49.10, however, 
EPA cannot disapprove a state SIP submittal because of the ``failure to 
address air resources within the exterior boundaries of an Indian 
Reservation or other areas within the jurisdiction of an Indian 
tribe.'' Therefore, we did not further consider these exceedances as 
part of this proposed action to approve the 2012 Five Percent Plan.
    The plan submitted by the state projected that the Maricopa County 
PM-10 Nonattainment Area would attain by December 31, 2012, because 
that was the most expeditious attainment date practicable considering 
the severity of nonattainment and the availability of controls in the 
area. Monitoring data for the years 2010-2012, taking into account 
EPA's determinations with respect to exceptional events during that 
period, indicate that the area attained the standard as of December 31, 
2012.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Additional exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS occurred on six 
days between April and October 2013. Arizona has indicated its 
intent to submit documentation regarding these exceedances to EPA 
and to request that EPA concur with the state's determination that 
they qualify as exceptional events. EPA will evaluate the state's 
submissions and requests consistent with the EER and relevant 
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the 2012 Five Percent Plan meets the 
requirement to demonstrate attainment by the appropriate attainment 
date. This proposed finding is based on our analysis of the modeling 
described in the plan and analysis of the monitoring data for the years 
2010-2012.

C. Five Percent Requirement

    CAA section 189(d) requires a state with a serious PM-10 
nonattainment area that fails to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment deadlines to submit within 12 months after the 
applicable attainment date plan revisions which provide an annual five 
percent reduction in emissions of PM-10 or PM-10 precursors in the area 
from the date of the submission until attainment, based on the most 
recent inventory.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan's demonstration of annual five percent 
reductions is found in Chapter 5. Arizona and MAG used the 2008 PM-10 
Inventory as the ``most recent inventory'' and derived emissions levels 
for years 2007-2012 based upon the 2008 PM-10 Inventory. See Five 
Percent Plan at p. 5-4. The demonstration of annual five percent 
reductions uses 2007 as the baseline from which the five percent 
reductions are calculated and as point at which the reductions should 
start.\17\ The 2012 Five Percent Plan's

[[Page 7123]]

demonstration is summarized in Table 1,18 19 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA believes Arizona's use of 2007 as the baseline for five 
percent reductions is reasonable and consistent with Congress' 
intent. Section 189(d) states that plans are due within 12 months of 
the missed attainment deadline and that the plans should provide for 
annual five percent reductions from the date of the submission until 
attainment. Arizona's attainment deadline was December 31, 2006. 67 
FR 48718 (July 25, 2002). Accordingly, a submittal to fulfill 
section 189(d) was due by December 31, 2007, and reductions should 
have begun to occur as of that date. See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007). 
The decline in emissions from 2007 to 2008 shows that reductions 
did, in fact, begin to occur within that time frame. See Table 1. 
Arguably, these reductions occurred outside the literal time frame 
specified by Congress (i.e., ``the date of the submission'' of the 
plan) because the 2012 Five Percent Plan was not submitted until May 
26, 2012. We note that Arizona had submitted the 2007 Five Percent 
Plan on December 21, 2007 (although it withdrew the plan on January 
25, 2011). EPA believes that it is appropriate and consistent with 
Congress's intent for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS that we 
consider reductions that occurred prior to the submittal of the 2012 
Five Percent Plan.
    \18\ Table 5-2
    \19\ Table 5-3

                                Table 1--2012 Five Percent Plan Emissions by Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                     2007         2008         2009         2010         2011         2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Inventory \18\...........       59,218       56,681       52,123       50,497       49,743       49,673
Controlled Inventory \19\.........       59,218       49,231       45,600       44,062       43,438       43,130
Annual Reduction..................  ...........        9,987        3,631        1,538          624          308
Cumulative Reduction..............  ...........        9,987       13,618       15,156       15,780       16,088
Target Reduction..................  ...........        2,961        5,922        8,883       11,844       14,805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``baseline inventory'' values are derived from the 2008 PM-10 
Inventory as adjusted by population and economic growth factors from 
the University of Arizona. See 2012 Five Percent Plan, at p. 5-4 and p. 
5-5, Table 5-2. The ``controlled inventory'' values show emission 
levels after taking into account reductions attributable to adopted 
control measures, specifically, Rules 310, 310.01 and 316, and the Dust 
Action General Permit. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 5-1 through 5-
6; see also, p. 5-7, Table 5-3. ``Annual reduction'' is the 
mathematical difference between the prior year controlled inventory and 
the current year controlled inventory. ``Cumulative reduction'' is the 
running total of actual reductions starting with 2007 and continuing to 
the attainment year of 2012. The target required reduction is five 
percent of the base year (2007) inventory (2,961 tons per year) for the 
first year (2008), and additional reductions of five percent per year, 
until the attainment year of 2012.
    The ``controlled inventory'' values reflect emission reductions due 
to improved compliance with Maricopa County Rules 310 (Fugitive Dust 
from Dust-Generating Operations), 310.01 (Fugitive Dust from Non-
Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust) and 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing) as well as the benefits of the Dust Action General Permit 
in 2012.\20\ Maricopa County has been inspecting sources subject to 
these rules and tracking the extent to which the sources are complying 
with the regulations. Based on these data, MCAQD calculated rule 
effectiveness values for each rule. See 2012 Five Percent Plan, 
Appendix B, Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA has approved Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 into the Arizona 
SIP. 75 FR 78167 (Dec. 15, 2010); 74 FR 58554 (Nov. 13, 2009). EPA 
has also approved Arizona statutory provisions related to the Dust 
Action General Permit. 78 FR 72579 (Dec. 3, 2013). EPA intends to 
propose action on the Dust Action General Permit in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 Five Percent Plan demonstrates compliance with the five 
percent reduction requirement by comparing the cumulative reductions 
from the Dust Action General Permit and increased effectiveness of the 
Maricopa County rules against the total five percent reductions each 
year. Most of the required reductions were achieved in the early years 
of the plan. EPA encourages this approach as it accelerates the 
environmental benefits of the reductions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This approach is consistent with the approach taken in a 
previous section 189(d) plan for the San Joaquin Valley. See 69 FR 
5411 (Feb. 4, 2004) and 69 FR 30006 (May 25, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

    Pursuant to sections 172(c)(3) and 189(c)(1), the state must 
demonstrate RFP in the 2012 Five Percent Plan. We have explained in 
guidance that for areas such as the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area where ``the nonattainment problem is attributed to area type 
sources (e.g., fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, etc.), RFP 
should be met by showing annual incremental emission reductions 
sufficient generally to maintain linear progress towards attainment. 
Total PM-10 emissions should not remain constant or increase from 1 
year to the next in such an area.'' Addendum at 42015. Further, we have 
stated that, ``in reviewing the SIP, EPA will determine whether the 
annual incremental emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in 
light of the statutory objective to ensure timely attainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS.'' Id. at 42016.
    CAA section 189(c) further requires PM-10 attainment plans to 
contain quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three 
years and that are consistent with RFP for the area. These quantitative 
milestones should consist of elements that allow RFP to be quantified 
or measured objectively. Specifically, states should identify and 
submit quantitative milestones that allow for evaluation of whether the 
plan is obtaining emission reductions adequate to achieve the NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date. Id. at 42016.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan provides a reasonable further progress 
(RFP) demonstration in Chapter 6. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-34 
through 6-36. This analysis uses the controlled inventory totals by 
year as shown in Table 1 of this proposal. Specifically, the 2012 Five 
Percent Plan shows the following levels of PM-10, which decline between 
2007 and 2012:

2007--59,218 tons
2008--49,231 tons
2009--45,600 tons
2010--44,062 tons
2011--43,438 tons
2012--43,130 tons

    The analysis required for the five percent demonstration provides 
annual emission targets between the base year of 2007 and the 
attainment year of 2012. These annual totals show a steady downward 
trend in emissions that fulfills the milestone requirement of every 
three years. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-36, Fig. 6-6. The trend is 
more sharply downward in the initial years because most of the 
improvements in rule effectiveness occurred in 2008. Id at 35-36. EPA 
proposes to find that the 2012 Five Percent Plan has demonstrated 
reasonable further progress and that by setting annual target emission 
levels, the plan has exceeded the requirement to provide for milestones 
every three years.

E. Contingency Measures

    CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that attainment plans provide for 
the

[[Page 7124]]

implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails 
to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the PM-10 standard as 
projected in the plan. That section further requires that such measures 
are to take effect in any such case without further action by the state 
or EPA. The CAA does not specify how many contingency measures are 
necessary nor does it specify the level of emission reductions they 
must produce.
    In guidance we have explained that the purpose of contingency 
measures is to ensure that additional emission reductions beyond those 
relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations are available 
immediately if there is a failure to meet RFP requirements or a failure 
to attain by the applicable statutory date. Addendum at 42014-42015. 
Contingency measures must consist of measures that the state is not 
otherwise relying on to meet other attainment plan requirements in the 
area. Thus, these additional emission reductions that will be achieved 
by the contingency measures ensure continued progress towards 
attainment while the state is revising the SIP to correct the failure 
to meet RFP or to attain. To that end, we recommend that contingency 
measures for PM-10 nonattainment areas provide emission reductions 
equivalent to one year's average increment of RFP. Id.
    In interpreting the requirement that the contingency measures must 
``take effect without further action by the State or the 
Administrator,'' the General Preamble provides the following general 
guidance: ``[s]tates must show that their contingency measures can be 
implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no 
additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative 
review.'' General Preamble at 13512.\22\ Further, ``[i]n general, EPA 
will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of the 
measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its 
failure.'' Id. The Addendum at 42015 reiterates this interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA elaborated on its interpretation of this language in 
section 172(c)(9) in the General Preamble in the context of the 
ozone standard: ``The EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as 
notification of sources, modification of permits, etc., would 
probably be needed before a measure could be implemented 
effectively.'' General Preamble at 13512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also interpreted section 172(c)(9) to allow states to 
implement contingency measures before they are triggered by a failure 
of RFP or attainment as long as those measures are intended to achieve 
emission reductions over and beyond those relied on in the attainment 
and RFP demonstrations. Id.; see also, LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th 
Cir. 2004). The 2012 Five Percent Plan calculated the target for 
contingency measure reductions by subtracting the attainment year 2012 
emissions (43,130 tons) from the 2007 baseline emissions (59,218 tons) 
and dividing by five years, yielding a target of 3,218 tons per year. 
2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-37. EPA proposes to find that this method 
of calculating the target for contingency measure reductions is 
consistent with CAA requirements and EPA guidance and we propose to 
approve this target value for contingency measures.
    The contingency measures are shown in Table 6-22 of the 2012 Five 
Percent Plan and are composed of various methods to reduce fugitive 
dust emissions from roads. The most significant reductions are from 
paving dirt roads and alleys; other reductions result from street 
sweeping of freeways, ramps and frontage roads, lower speed limits on 
dirt roads and alleys, and paving and stabilizing of unpaved shoulders. 
The measures were implemented in the years 2008 through 2012. These 
contingency measures are surplus to the measures used to demonstrate 
five percent reductions, RFP, and attainment. The method used to 
estimate emissions reductions from these contingency measures are 
consistent with EPA recommended calculation methods for such measures 
and the total reductions exceed the target of one year of RFP. EPA 
proposes to approve the contingency measures described in the 2012 Five 
Percent Plan.

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our 
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that 
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air 
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a 
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air 
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 
attainment of the NAAQS or the timely achievement of interim 
milestones.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan specifies the maximum transportation-
related PM-10 emissions allowed in the proposed attainment year, 2012, 
i.e., the MVEB of 54.9 metric tons per day (mtpd). 2012 Five Percent 
Plan at p. 6-43. This budget includes emissions from road construction, 
vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear, dust generated from unpaved roads 
and re-entrained dust from vehicles traveling on paved roads. This 
budget is based on the 2012 emissions inventory that was projected from 
the 2008 PM-10 Inventory and reflects emission reductions that the plan 
expects will result from the control measures. The budget is consistent 
with the attainment, five percent and RFP demonstrations in the Plan.
    On September 12, 2013, we announced receipt of the 2012 Five 
Percent Plan on the Internet and requested public comment on the 
adequacy of the MVEB by October 15, 2013. We did not receive any 
comments during the comment period. During that time we reviewed the 
MVEB and preliminarily determined that it met the adequacy criteria in 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). We sent a letter to ADEQ and MAG dated 
November 22, 2013 stating that the 2012 motor vehicle PM-10 emissions 
budget for the Maricopa area in the submitted plan was adequate. Our 
finding was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2013, 
effective December 20, 2013. 78 FR 73188.
    Now that EPA has thoroughly reviewed the submitted SIP, we are 
proposing to approve the MVEB for 2012 as part of our approval of the 
2012 Five Percent Plan. EPA has determined that the MVEB emission 
target is consistent with emission control measures in the SIP and the 
attainment demonstration, five percent demonstration and RFP 
demonstration. The details of EPA's evaluation of the MVEB for 
compliance with the budget adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) is 
provided in a separate document included in the docket of this 
rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See ``Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review'' by Greg 
Nudd, EPA Region 9, November 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Adequate Legal Authority

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air Act requires that 
implementation plans provide necessary assurances that the state (or 
the general purpose local government) will have adequate personnel, 
funding and authority under state law. Requirements for legal authority 
are further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart L (section 51.230-232) 
and for resources in 40 CFR 51.280.
    States and responsible local agencies must demonstrate that they 
have the legal authority to adopt and enforce provisions of the SIP and 
to obtain information necessary to determine compliance. These 
requirements are addressed in cover letters and submittal

[[Page 7125]]

package for the 2012 Five Percent Plan.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Completeness Determination Checklist (EPA, July 2, 
2012) for details on the location of the documentation of authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAG derives its authority to develop and adopt air quality plans, 
including the 2012 Five Percent Plan, from ARS 49-406 and from a 
February 7, 1978 letter from the Governor of Arizona designating MAG as 
responsible for those tasks.\25\ ADEQ is authorized to adopt and submit 
the 2012 Five Percent Plan by ARS 49-404 and ARS 49-406. MCAQD 
implements air quality programs within Maricopa County. Pinal County 
Air Quality Control District implements air quality programs within 
Pinal County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Letter from Wesley Bolin, Governor of Arizona, to Douglas 
M. Costle, Administrator of EPA, February 7, 1978. 2012 Five Percent 
Plan, Appendix E, Exh. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) and related regulations have been 
met with respect to legal authority.

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the 189(d) plan for the Maricopa County 
(Phoenix) PM-10 nonattainment area. Specifically, we propose to approve 
the following:
    (A) The 2008 baseline emissions inventory and the 2007, 2009, 2010, 
2011 and 2012 projected emission inventories as meeting the 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3);
    (B) the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 189(d) and 179(d)(3);
    (C) the 5% demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
189(d);
    (D) the reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone 
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 
189(c);
    (E) the contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(9); and
    (F) the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget as compliant with the budget 
adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that 
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal 
approval of the SIP does not create any new requirements, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and 
replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

[[Page 7126]]

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule. However, even though EPA is acting on a State plan, 
and that plan does not apply in Indian Country, there are four tribes 
located within the PM-10 nonattainment area, several of which have 
imposed particulate control measures of their own in order to reduce 
PM-10 concentrations. EPA informed tribal environmental staff regarding 
the proposed approval so that the tribes could inform their leadership 
and participate in the public comment process if desired.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a 
state rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February 
16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental 
justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice 
part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The 
Executive Order has informed the development and implementation of 
EPA's environmental justice program and policies. Consistent with the 
Executive Order and the associated Presidential Memorandum, the 
Agency's environmental justice policies promote environmental 
protection by focusing attention and Agency efforts on addressing the 
types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among 
minority, low-income and Tribal populations.
    This action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or Tribal 
populations because the action proposed increases the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations without having 
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 14, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-02574 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P