Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 16734-16749 [2014-06661]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16734
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
implement transportation conformity
requirements provides evidence of the
State’s ability to consult with other
governmental agencies on air quality
issues.
Based on the analysis above, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
February 14, 2012, submittal from the
State of Idaho to demonstrate that the
SIP meets the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the Pb
NAAQS promulgated on October 15,
2008. Specifically, we are proposing to
find that the Idaho SIP meets the
following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves the state’s law
as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
the state’s law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to the requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this action does not involve technical
standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and the EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 13, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014–06666 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686; FRL–9908–69–
Region–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; State of Arizona;
Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve, as a revision of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan,
the State’s plan for maintaining the 1997
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for ozone averaged over eight hours (8hour ozone standard) in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for ten years
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
beyond redesignation, and the related
motor vehicle emission budgets,
because they meet the applicable
requirements for such plans and
budgets. EPA is also proposing to
approve a request from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality to
redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard because the
request meets the statutory requirements
for redesignation under the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID number EPA–
R09–OAR–2013–0686, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Postal Mail or Delivery: Ginger
Vagenas (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or email.
The online docket system at https://
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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 9 office. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
https://www.regulations.gov, some
information may not be specifically
listed in the index to the docket or may
be publicly available only in hard copy
at the EPA Region 9 office (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports, or otherwise
voluminous materials), and some may
not be publicly available in electronic or
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
hard copy form (e.g., confidential
business information). To view the hard
copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ginger Vagenas, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR–2), San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Ginger
Vagenas can also be reached at (415)
972–3964, or via electronic mail at
vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’,
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Table of Contents
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action
II. Background
III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption
and Submittal of SIP Revisions
IV. Substantive Requirements for
Redesignation
V. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation
Request for the Phoenix-Mesa Ozone
Nonattainment Area
A. Determination That the Area Has
Attained the Applicable NAAQS
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable
for Purposes of Redesignation Under
Section 110 and Part D
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
2. Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
b. Permits for New and Modified Major
Sources
c. Conformity Requirements
C. The Area Must Show the Improvement
in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Emission Reductions
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section
175A
1. Attainment Inventories and Projected
Future Inventories
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Provisions
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
7. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public
Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions. First, under section
110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
‘‘Act’’), EPA is proposing to approve, as
a revision to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP), a plan
developed by the Maricopa Association
of Governments (MAG),1 entitled MAG
1 The MAG membership currently consists of the
27 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for the
Maricopa Nonattainment Area, dated
February 2009 (‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan’’), and submitted by
the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA
on March 23, 2009.2
In connection with the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA is
proposing to find that the maintenance
demonstration shows that the PhoenixMesa area will continue to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
‘‘standard’’) for 10 years beyond
redesignation and that the contingency
provisions, which include already
implemented measures as well as a
process for identifying new or more
stringent measures in the event of a
future monitored violation, meet all
applicable requirements for
maintenance plans and the related
contingency provisions of CAA section
175A. EPA is also proposing to approve
motor vehicle emission budgets in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
Second, under CAA section
107(d)(3)(D), EPA is proposing to
approve ADEQ’s request to redesignate
the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are
doing so based on our conclusion that
the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). This conclusion is based
on our proposed determination that:
The area has attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS; relevant portions of the
Arizona SIP are fully approved;
improvement in air quality in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions; Arizona has
met all requirements applicable to the
Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area with respect to
section 110 and part D of the CAA; and,
as part of this action, our proposed
County and the contiguous urbanized area, the Gila
River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima
Maricopa Indian Community, Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, Maricopa and Pinal Counties.
Representatives of the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens
Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC) also
serve on the Regional Council for transportationrelated issues.
2 See letter from Patrick J. Cunningham, Acting
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, March 23, 2009.
This letter included three enclosures, one of which
is the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan,
including appendices A and B organized into
volumes 1, 2, and 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16735
approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
II. Background
Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that
is formed from photochemical reactions
in the atmosphere between volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. These two pollutants, referred
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by
many types of pollution sources
including on-road motor vehicles (cars,
trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles
and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area
sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints.
In 1971, under section 109 of the Act,
as amended in 1970, EPA promulgated
the original NAAQS for pervasive air
pollutants, including photochemical
oxidants.3 The NAAQS are
concentration levels that, the attainment
and maintenance of which, EPA has
determined to be requisite to protect
public health (i.e., the ‘‘primary’’
NAAQS) and welfare (i.e., the
‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS). In 1979, EPA
revised the chemical designation of the
NAAQS from ‘‘photochemical oxidants’’
to ‘‘ozone,’’ and established a 1-hour
ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million
(ppm).4
In March of 1978, Maricopa County
was designated as a 1-hour oxidant
nonattainment area (43 FR 8962). In
1979, EPA revised Maricopa County’s
designation to refer to ozone (rather
than oxidant) and reduced the
geographic extent of the nonattainment
area to reflect MAG’s Urban Planning
Area (‘‘Phoenix metropolitan area’’)
rather than the entire county. See 44 FR
16388 (March 19, 1979). Under the
CAA, states with nonattainment areas
are required to submit revisions to their
SIPs that include a control strategy
necessary to demonstrate how the area
will attain the NAAQS, and EPA took
action on a number of related SIP
revisions submitted by Arizona in the
late 1970s and 1980s for the Phoenix
metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. However, by 1990,
the area still had not attained the
standard, and under the CAA
Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix
metropolitan area was classified as a
‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment area with an
attainment deadline of November 15,
1996 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991).
The area was later reclassified as a
‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area with a
deadline of November 15, 1999 (62 FR
60001, November 6, 1997).
3 See
4 See
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
26MRP1
16736
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for
ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged
over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to
herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone
standard’’) to replace the existing 1-hour
ozone standard of 0.12 ppm.5 6 In 2004,
EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa area
as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and established June 15,
2005 as the date when the 1-hour ozone
standard would be revoked. The
Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area covers a much larger
portion of Maricopa County than the
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone area
and also includes the Apache Junction
portion of Pinal County.7 Just prior to
revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard,
EPA redesignated the Phoenix
metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment (70 FR
34362, June 14, 2005).8
On April 15, 2004, EPA designated
Phoenix-Mesa as Subpart 1
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard under CAA section 172
with an attainment deadline no later
than June 15, 2009.9 The designation
became effective on June 15, 2004. The
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area is
located in the central portion of Arizona
and encompasses 4,880 square miles,
including the urban portions of
Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and areas
of Indian country of the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima
Maricopa Indian Community, and the
Tohono O’odham Nation. For a precise
description of the geographic
boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.303
and figure 1–1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan. MAG is the agency
with primary responsibility for
developing air quality plans related to
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.
Under part D, subpart 1 of the Act,
states must submit plans to come into
attainment within 3 years of the
5 See
62 FR 33856 (July 18, 1997).
March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA lowered
the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the 2008
8-hour ozone standard), and on May 21, 2012, EPA
designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
(77 FR 30088). Today’s proposed action relates to
a maintenance plan and redesignation request for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, not the more
stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
7 The precise boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 8hour ozone nonattainment area and the Phoenix
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment are found
in 40 CFR 81.303.
8 A more detailed description of the history of 1hour ozone planning in the Phoenix metropolitan
area is presented in section II of EPA’s proposed
redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 70
FR 13425 at 13426–13428 (March 21, 2005).
9 See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR
81.303.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6 On
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
effective date of the nonattainment
designation and must attain the
standard as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than 5 years after the
effective date of the designation. Later,
in the wake of a court decision partially
vacating EPA’s regulations
implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard,10 EPA classified the PhoenixMesa ozone nonattainment area as
‘‘marginal’’ under subpart 2 of part D of
title I of the CAA.11
On June 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted a
SIP revision demonstrating attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by
the attainment date of June 15, 2009
(‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan’’).
In June 2012, EPA approved the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan.12 On
March 23, 2009, ADEQ submitted the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as
a revision to the Arizona SIP.
In summary, the Phoenix
metropolitan area was originally
designated as nonattainment for the
photochemical oxidant, later 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, but was later
redesignated as attainment for the 1hour ozone NAAQS prior to the
revocation of that standard. With
respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA designated a larger
geographic area, the Phoenix-Mesa area,
as nonattainment, later classified as
‘‘marginal,’’ for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. ADEQ’s request to redesignate
the Phoenix Mesa area as attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the
subject of today’s proposed action.
Lastly, EPA has also designated the
Phoenix Mesa area as ‘‘marginal’’
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Today’s proposed action does
not affect the designation of the
Phoenix-Mesa area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
III. Procedural Requirements for
Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
Section 110(l) of the Act requires
States to provide reasonable notice and
public hearing prior to adoption of SIP
revisions. Appendix B, Exhibit 1 of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
documents the public review process
followed by MAG in adopting the plan
prior to transmittal to ADEQ for
subsequent submittal to EPA as a
revision to the Arizona SIP. The
10 See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, 472 F3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
11 See 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012). June 13, 2012
is the effective date for the ‘‘marginal’’ classification
of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
12 See 77 FR 21690 (April 11, 2012) and 77 FR
35285 (June 13, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
documentation in Exhibit 1 also
provides evidence that reasonable
notice of a public hearing was provided
to the public and that a public hearing
was conducted prior to adoption.
Specifically, notice of the availability
of, and opening of a 30-day comment
period on, the public-draft Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan was published
on December 23, 2008, in a newspaper
of general circulation within the
Phoenix area. The public hearing was
held on January 22, 2009. One
individual commented on the draft
maintenance plan during the public
hearing. No written comments were
received during the public comment
period. MAG provided responses to
comments in Exhibit 1 of Appendix B.
On February 25, 2009, the MAG
Regional Council adopted the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan, as
certified in Appendix B, Exhibit 2 of the
plan. Following adoption, MAG
provided the maintenance plan to
ADEQ, and ADEQ adopted the plan and
submitted it to EPA for approval on
March 23, 2009.
Based on the documentation provided
in Appendix B, we find that the
submittal of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision
satisfies the procedural requirements of
section 110(l) of the Act.
IV. Substantive Requirements for
Redesignation
The CAA establishes the requirements
for redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
provided that the following criteria are
met: (1) EPA determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
EPA has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
110(k); (3) EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of CAA 175A;
and (5) the State containing such area
has met all requirements applicable to
the area under section 110 and part D
of the CAA. Section 110 identifies a
comprehensive list of elements that SIPs
must include, and part D establishes the
SIP requirements for nonattainment
areas. Part D is divided into six
subparts. The generally-applicable
nonattainment SIP requirements are
found in part D, subpart 1, and the
ozone-specific SIP requirements are
found in part D, subpart 2.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in a document entitled
‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990’’, published in the Federal
Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR
13498), and supplemented on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein
as the ‘‘General Preamble’’). Additional
guidance was issued in a September 4,
1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, entitled
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’
(referred to herein as the ‘‘Calcagni
memo’’). Maintenance plan submittals
are SIP revisions, and as such, EPA is
obligated, under CAA section 110(k), to
approve them or disapprove them
depending upon whether they meet the
applicable CAA requirements for such
plans.
For reasons set forth below in section
V of this document, we propose to
approve ADEQ’s request for
redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on our conclusion that all the
criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
have been satisfied.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Evaluation of the State’s
Redesignation Request for the PhoenixMesa Ozone Nonattainment Area
A. Determination That the Area Has
Attained the Applicable NAAQS
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires
that we determine that the area has
attained the NAAQS. EPA generally
makes the determination of whether an
area’s air quality meets the ozone
NAAQS based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured
data gathered at established State and
Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
in the nonattainment area and entered
into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitors
operated by state or local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring
requirements must be submitted to
AQS. Heads of monitoring agencies
annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge.
Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on
data in AQS when determining the
attainment status of areas.13 All data are
reviewed to determine the area’s air
quality status in accordance with 40
CFR part 50, Appendix I.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 ozone standard is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
13 See 40 CFR 50.10; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A,
C, D, and E.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
average ozone concentration is less than
or equal to 0.08 ppm.14 This 3-year
average is referred to as the design
value. When the design value is less
than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on
the rounding convention in 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I) at each monitoring site
within the area, the area is meeting the
NAAQS. The data completeness
requirement is met with the 3-year
average percent of days with valid
ambient monitoring data is at least 90
percent of the days during the
designated ozone monitoring season,
and no single year has less than 75
percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50.
Three state or local agencies are
responsible for monitoring ambient air
quality data in the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area: The Maricopa
County Air Quality Department
(MCAQD), the Pinal County Air Quality
Control District (PCAQCD), and ADEQ.
These agencies submit monitoring
network plan reports to EPA on an
annual basis. These reports discuss the
status of the air monitoring network, as
required under 40 CFR part 58.
Beginning in 2007, EPA has reviewed
these annual plans for compliance with
the applicable reporting requirements in
40 CFR 58.10. With respect to ozone, we
have found that MCAQD’s, PCAQCD’s,
and ADEQ’s annual network plans meet
the applicable reporting requirements
under 40 CFR part 58.15
EPA conducts periodic technical
system audits of the state and local
ambient air monitoring networks, and
has done so for ADEQ, MCAQD, and
PCAQCD. For the purposes of this
action, EPA has reviewed the findings
in EPA’s technical system audits of the
networks operated by the three relevant
agencies and notes that none of the
findings in these reports cast doubt on
the reliability of the ozone data
collected at the various monitoring sites
in these networks.16
During the relevant time period, the
ozone monitoring network in the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area
comprised 20 ozone monitors: MCAQD
14 See 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I.
15 See EPA letters to MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and
ADEQ concerning annual network plan reports,
which are included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
16 For the most recent technical system audits
(TSAs), see EPA’s report on the Agency’s September
2008 audit of MCAQCD’s network, EPA’s final TSA
report for ADEQ’s network dated January 2013, and
EPA’s final TSA report for PCAQCD’s network
dated June 2013, which are included in the docket
for this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16737
operated 18 monitors,17 ADEQ operated
one monitor, and PCAQCD operated one
monitor. Please see Figure 2–1 in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for
a map showing the locations of the
monitors constituting the State and local
agency regional ozone monitoring
network. Based on population and
ambient ozone, EPA regulations
required only three ozone monitoring
sites in the Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
during the 2010–2012 period. Thus, the
ozone monitoring network in the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area
exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of monitoring sites
designated as SLAMS for that pollutant.
MCAQD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ
annually certify that the data they
submit to AQS are complete and
quality-assured.18 All 20 sites
monitored ozone concentrations on a
continuous basis using Federal
Equivalent Method (FEM) analyzers.
The spatial scale and site type
(monitoring objective type) of most of
the ozone monitoring sites in the
nonattainment area are ‘‘neighborhood’’
and ‘‘population exposure,’’
respectively. The Blue Point, Cave
Creek, Pinnacle Peak, and Rio Verde
sites are classified as ‘‘urban’’ scale with
site types of ‘‘maximum ozone
concentrations,’’ while the Humboldt
Mountain site is classified as ‘‘regional
scale’’ with a site type of ‘‘maximum
ozone concentrations.’’ The Fountain
Hills and JLG Supersite sites are also
sited to measure ‘‘maximum ozone
concentrations’’ but are located at the
‘‘neighborhood’’ scale.19
In addition to the SLAMS ozone
network maintained by MCAQD,
PCAQCD, and ADEQ, there are five
tribal monitors located within the
nonattainment area. The Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Salt
River) operates four ozone monitors and
the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Fort
McDowell) operates one monitor on
17 The Mesa ozone monitor, operated by MCAQD,
began operation on November 1, 2012 and therefore
only gathered data for two months during the 2010–
2012 design value period. As a result, this monitor
is not appropriate to consider in determining
whether the area has attained the 1997 ozone
standard. In the future, as complete data become
available, the monitor will be eligible for use in
determining continued attainment.
18 For the most recent data certification
submittals, see MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ
letters concerning data certification for 2010, 2011,
and 2012, which are included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
19 The sources of information for this paragraph
include ADEQ’s ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring
Network Plan for the Year 2013,’’ dated October 29,
2013; MCAQD’s ‘‘2012 Air Monitoring Network
Review,’’ undated; and PCAQCD’s ‘‘2013 Ambient
Monitoring Network Plan and 2012 Data
Summary,’’ dated July 1, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16738
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tribal lands located in the eastern
portion of the nonattainment area. The
ozone monitoring data from Fort
McDowell is characterized as
‘‘informational’’ and therefore not
suitable for comparison against the 1997
ozone standard. Conversely, the Salt
River ozone monitors have the basic
monitoring objective of ‘‘NAAQS
comparison’’ and the data should be
considered ‘‘regulatory’’ and
appropriate for use when determining if
the nonattainment area is attaining the
1997 ozone standard.
Consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has
reviewed the ozone ambient air
monitoring data as recorded in AQS for
the monitoring period from 2010
through 2012 collected at the
monitoring sites discussed above and
found that the data meet our
completeness criteria (see table 1).
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AMBIENT DATA FOR OZONE COLLECTED WITHIN PHOENIX-MESA OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA,
2010–2012
Site
Site ID
Agency
Parameter
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
DV (ppm) ........
% complete .....
04–013–3001
PCAQCD
Blue Point .....................................................................................................
04–013–9702
MCAQD
Buckeye ........................................................................................................
04–013–4011
MCAQD
Cave Creek ..................................................................................................
04–013–4008
MCAQD
Central Phoenix ............................................................................................
04–013–3002
MCAQD
Dysart ...........................................................................................................
04–013–4010
MCAQD
Falcon Field ..................................................................................................
04–013–1010
MCAQD
Fountain Hills ................................................................................................
04–013–9704
MCAQD
Glendale .......................................................................................................
04–013–2001
MCAQD
High School ..................................................................................................
04–013–7024
SRPMIC
Humboldt Mountain ......................................................................................
04–013–9508
MCAQD
JLG Supersite ...............................................................................................
04–013–9997
ADEQ .....
Lehi ...............................................................................................................
04–013–7022
SRPMIC
North Phoenix ...............................................................................................
04–013–1004
MCAQD
Pinnacle Peak ..............................................................................................
04–013–2005
MCAQD
Red Mountain ...............................................................................................
04–013–7021
SRPMIC
Rio Verde .....................................................................................................
04–013–9706
MCAQD
Senior Center ...............................................................................................
04–013–7020
SRPMIC
South Phoenix ..............................................................................................
04–013–4003
MCAQD
South Scottsdale ..........................................................................................
04–013–3003
MCAQD
Tempe ..........................................................................................................
04–013–4005
MCAQD
West Chandler ..............................................................................................
04–013–4004
MCAQD
West Phoenix ...............................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Apache Junction ...........................................................................................
04–013–0019
MCAQD
2010–2012
Design value (DV)
and % complete
0.074
98
0.075
99
0.066
100
0.077
100
0.074
100
0.071
100
0.069
99
0.076
99
0.076
100
0.074
99
0.075
100
0.076
98
0.073
98
0.081
100
0.077
20 78
0.077
93
0.074
98
0.074
95
0.076
98
0.077
100
0.070
99
0.074
100
0.078
100
Table 1 summarizes the site-specific
3-year ozone design values for all
monitoring sites within the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for the period
of 2010–2012. As shown in table 1, the
design value for the 2010–2012 period
was less than 0.084 ppm at all of the
monitors in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area. Therefore, we are
proposing to determine, based on
complete quality-assured data for the
2010–2012 period, that the Phoenix-
Mesa ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Preliminary data for 2013 are
also consistent with continued
20 The Pinnacle Peak site was temporarily shut
down on November 16, 2011 and relocated to a
nearby location on July 1, 2012. See Letter from Ben
Davis, Air Monitoring Manager, MCAQD, to
Michael Flagg, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region 9, dated January 31, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
attainment.21 Given the timing of this
proposed action after the end of 2013
but before the monitoring agencies must
enter data collected during the final
quarter of the 2013 into AQS, we will
be updating this determination based on
design values calculated for 2011–2013,
and preliminary review of available
2014 data, for the purposes of the final
action.
B. The Area Must Have a Fully
Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of
Redesignation Under Section 110 and
Part D
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require
EPA to determine that the area has a
fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) that meets all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D for the purposes of redesignation.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the general
elements that a SIP must contain in
order to be fully approved. EPA has
analyzed the Arizona SIP and
determined that it is consistent with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2). The
Phoenix-Mesa portion of the approved
Arizona SIP, which includes rules
pertaining to areas and sources under
the jurisdiction of ADEQ, MCAQD, and
PCAQCD, contains enforceable emission
limitations; requires monitoring,
compiling, and analyzing of ambient air
quality data; requires preconstruction
review of new or modified stationary
sources; provides adequate funding,
staff, and associated resources necessary
to implement its requirements; and
provides the necessary assurances that
the State of Arizona maintains
responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of the SIP where the
State is relying on local or regional
governments or agencies for
implementation of the SIP.22
21 See the AQS Preliminary Design Value Report
for 2013 dated March 6, 2014, included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
22 We note that SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to the applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain
certain measures to prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality problems in
another state (transport SIP). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s designation
and classification in that state. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and classification
are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing
a redesignation request. The transport SIP
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply
to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe
that these requirements should be construed to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
On numerous occasions, we have
approved Arizona submittals addressing
the basic CAA section 110 provisions.
There are no outstanding or
disapproved applicable SIP submittals
with respect to the Phoenix-Mesa
portion of the SIP that prevent
redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.23 Therefore, we
propose to find that Arizona has met all
SIP requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone area applicable for the purposes
of redesignation under section 110 of
the CAA (General SIP Requirements).
2. Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions, subparts 1 and 2, that
address planning and emission control
requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. Both of these subparts are found
in title I, part D of the CAA; sections
171–179 and sections 181–185,
respectively. Subpart 1 contains general,
less prescriptive requirements for all
nonattainment areas of any pollutant,
including ozone, governed by a NAAQS.
Subpart 2 contains additional, more
specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2.
The applicable subpart 1
requirements are contained in sections
172(c)(1)–(9) and 176 of the CAA. Under
applicable requirements for the purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for the purposes of
redesignation. The State will still be subject to these
requirements after the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment
area is redesignated.
This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirements.
See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174 dated October 10, 1996
and 62 FR 24816 dated May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458
dated May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748 dated December 7, 1995).
See also the discussion of this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879 at 37890
dated June 19, 2000), in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR 53094 dated October 19,
2001), and in the South Coast redesignation (72 FR
6986 dated February 14, 2007 and 72 FR 26718
dated May 11, 2007).
23 On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398) EPA
issued a partial approval and partial disapproval of
Arizona’s ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. While this final rule was not a full
approval, it does not represent an obstacle to
redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 ozone
nonattainment area because the infrastructure
elements effective in the Phoenix-Mesa area that
EPA disapproved (i.e., certain PSD program
elements, composition of air quality hearing boards)
are not related to the nonattainment SIP
requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area and thus are not relevant for the
purposes of redesignation.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16739
subpart 1, with respect to the PhoenixMesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
the state of Arizona is required to
submit SIP revisions that provide for:
• Implementation of all reasonably
available control measures (RACM),
including, at a minimum, reasonable
available control technology for existing
sources and attainment of the standard
(section 172(c)(1));
• Reasonable further progress (RFP)
(section 172(c)(2));
• A comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in the area (section 172(c)(3));
• Identification and quantification of
the emissions, if any, of any such
pollutant which will be allowed in
accordance with section 173(a)(1)(B)
(i.e., new or modified stationary sources
located in established economic
development zones) (section 172(c)(4));
• Permits for the construction of new
and modified major stationary sources
in the nonattainment area (section
172(c)(5))(herein, referred to as
‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ or ‘‘NSR’’);
• Enforceable emission limitations as
may be necessary or appropriate to
provide for attainment of such standard
in such area by the applicable
attainment date (section 172(c)(6));
• Compliance with section 110(a)(2)
of the Act (section 172(c)(7));
• Use of equivalent modeling
emission inventory, and planning
procedures if approved by EPA (section
172(c)(8));
• Contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)); and
• Interagency consultation and
enforceability for the purposes of
transportation conformity (section
176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390).
On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35285), EPA
approved the Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area based on the
determination that it met all applicable
requirements for such plans under
subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, we approved the following
SIP elements:
• The RACM demonstration and
attainment demonstration as meeting
the requirements of section 172(c)(1), 40
CFR 51.912(d), and 40 CFR 51.908;
• The RFP demonstration as meeting
the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.910;
• The 2002 base year emission
inventory as meeting the requirements
of section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.915;
and
• The contingency measures for
failure to make RFP or to attain as
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16740
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
meeting the requirements of section
172(c)(9).
In addition, we note that the approved
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
relied on enforceable emission
limitations necessary to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date in compliance with
section 172(c)(6) and the plan was
adopted and submitted in compliance
with section 110(a)(2) as required under
section 172(c)(7). Furthermore, the State
of Arizona did not rely on sections
172(c)(4) (i.e., identification and
quantification of certain emission
increases) or 172(c)(8) (equivalent
techniques) in connection with the
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. The
approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment
Plan did not address the following SIP
elements: (1) NSR permit requirements
in the nonattainment area (section
172(c)(5)) and (2) transportation
conformity provisions related to
interagency consultation and
enforceability (section 176(c)(4) and 40
CFR 51.390). We address these two
remaining part D SIP elements later in
this subsection.24
As noted above, the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area was initially
designated nonattainment under subpart
1 of the CAA, but was subsequently
classified as marginal nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under
subpart 2 of the CAA (77 FR 28424, May
14, 2012). The effective date of the
classification of the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area as marginal was
June 13, 2012, and under our subpart 2
classifications rule, states had one year
from the effective date of that final rule
(i.e., until June 13, 2013) to submit SIP
revisions.
ADEQ has not submitted any SIP
revisions for the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area in response to the
area’s classification to marginal.25
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24 The
requirements for SIP revisions to
demonstrate RACM, RFP, attainment, and
contingencies (for failure to meet RFP or
attainment) in subpart 1 are not applicable for the
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request.
Such requirements are directed at ensuring
attainment by the applicable attainment date, and
since, as discussed in section V.A., the area is
showing attainment, the requirements have no
meaning at this point. See the General Preamble, 74
FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992).
25 In any event, the State of Arizona is not
required to submit further SIP revisions to satisfy
additional requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A)
to correct RACT rules for the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area because we already
determined that the State had met the VOC RACT
requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A). See our
proposed rule (70 FR 13425, at 13435, March 21,
2005) and final rule (70 FR 34362, at 34363, June
14, 2005) redesignating the Phoenix metropolitan
area as attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We
also note that the State of Arizona previously
submitted, and EPA approved, an ‘‘enhanced’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
However, EPA believes that this does
not preclude this redesignation from
being approved, based on (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating
requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the
redesignation request is submitted; and
(2) consideration of the inequity of
retroactively applying any requirements
that might be applied in the future.
Under EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of section 170(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, to qualify for redesignation,
states requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant
SIP requirements that came due prior to
the submittal of a complete
redesignation request.26 At the time the
redesignation request was submitted
(i.e., March 23, 2009), the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area was not classified
under subpart 2, and thus, subpart 2
requirements were not yet due for this
area.
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the
inequity in such retroactive
rulemakings. See Sierra Club v.
Whitman 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),
in which the court upheld a district
court’s ruling refusing to make
retroactive an EPA determination of
nonattainment that was past the
statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The court
stated, ‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the states,
which would face fines and suits for not
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program
that exceeds the requirements of section
182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment
area, if those requirements were applicable for the
purposes of redesignation. See 69 FR 2912 (January
22, 2003). Lastly, the State of Arizona previously
submitted, and EPA approved Maricopa County’s
emissions statement rule and thereby has complied
with section 182(a)(3)(B), if that requirement were
applicable for the purposes of redesignation for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 7038
(February 10, 2005).
26 See the Calcagni memo; see also Memorandum
entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for
Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November
15, 1992,’’ from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation dated
September 17, 1993; Redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 60 FR 12459 (March 7, 1995);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
upholding this interpretation; and Redesignation of
St. Louis, Missouri, 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here, it would be unfair to
penalize the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area by applying to it, for
purposes of redesignation, additional
SIP requirements under subpart 2 that
were not in effect or yet due at the time
it submitted its redesignation request, or
the time that the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area attained the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
In the following subsection, we
address the following SIP elements: (1)
NSR permit requirements in the
nonattainment area (section 172(c)(5))
and (2) transportation conformity
provisions related to interagency
consultation and enforceability (section
176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390).
b. Permits for New and Modified Major
Sources
To meet the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(5), states must submit SIP
revisions that meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.165 (‘‘Permit
requirements’’), and EPA regulations at
40 CFR 51.914, which extend the SIP
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 to areas
designated as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Under 40 CFR 51.165, states are
required to submit SIP revisions that
establish certain requirements for new
or modified stationary sources in
nonattainment areas, including
provisions to ensure that major new
sources or major modifications of
existing sources of nonattainment
pollutants incorporate the highest level
of control, referred to as the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), and
that increases in emissions from such
stationary sources are offset so as to
provide for reasonable further progress
towards attainment.
The process for reviewing permit
applications and issuing permits for
new or modified stationary sources of
air pollution is referred to as new source
review. With respect to new major
sources or major modifications at
existing major sources of nonattainment
pollutants in nonattainment areas, this
process is referred to as nonattainment
NSR or simply NSR. With respect to
new major sources or major
modifications at existing major sources
of pollutants for which as area is
designated attainment or unclassifiable,
states are required to submit SIP
revisions that ensure that major new
stationary sources and major
modifications of existing stationary
sources meet the federal requirements
for prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD), including
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
application of the best available control
technology (BACT) for each applicable
pollutant emitted in significant
amounts, among other requirements.
In the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment
area, EPA, MCAQD, PCAQCD, and
ADEQ share responsibility for issuing
permits. EPA has the responsibility for
permit application review and permit
issuance for new or modified stationary
sources in Indian country of the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt
River-Pima Maricopa Indian
Community, and the Tohono O’odham
Nation. MCAQD and PCAQCD are
responsible for permitting for most
stationary sources located within their
respective counties and to portable
sources that operate solely within the
boundaries of the counties. ADEQ has
jurisdiction over refineries, copper
smelters, coal-fired power plants,
Portland cement plants throughout the
State and over sources that operate in
multiple counties or outside the
boundaries of Maricopa, Pima, and
Pinal counties.
EPA has promulgated nonattainment
NSR rules at 40 CFR 49.166 through
49.175 that establish the necessary
permitting requirements for new or
modified major stationary sources in the
areas of Indian country located within
the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.
With respect to PCAQCD, the existing
Arizona SIP does not include rules that
meet nonattainment NSR requirements
for Pinal County; however, because the
Pinal County portion of the
nonattainment area was newly
designated as nonattainment for ozone
in 2004, i.e., had not previously been
part of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area, EPA’s
regulations in appendix S to 40 CFR
part 51 apply until such time as
nonattainment NSR rules meeting the
applicable requirements are approved
by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
See 40 CFR 52.24(k).
EPA has not approved nonattainment
NSR rules for ADEQ and MCAQD since
the 1980s, and the existing SIPapproved NSR rules do not comply with
all of the current SIP NSR requirements
under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
and under 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone
nonattainment areas. However, the
existing SIP-approved NSR rules for
both ADEQ and MCAQD meet the basic
requirements of a nonattainment NSR
program, including the definition of
‘‘major stationary source’’ as any
stationary source in a nonattainment
area with a potential to emit 100 tons
per year or more, emissions limitations
that constitute LAER, and emissions
reductions to offset emissions increases
that would otherwise occur. See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)
section R9–3–101 (‘‘Definitions’’) and
section R9–3–302 (‘‘Installation permits
for sources in nonattainment areas’’);
and Maricopa County Rule 21.0
(‘‘Procedures for Obtaining an
Installation Permit’’). Also, because the
SIP-approved NSR rules apply ‘‘in any
nonattainment area for the pollutant(s)
for which the source is classified as a
major source,’’ AAC R9–3–302(A), the
requirements apply throughout the
Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, except for Indian
country and for sources subject to Pinal
County jurisdiction, as discussed above.
Moreover, ADEQ’s and MCAQD’s SIPapproved NSR rules have served as a
federally-enforceable constraint on the
growth of stationary source emissions,
and thus have supported the region’s
efforts to lower ambient ozone
concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa
area. Those efforts have resulted in
attainment of the standard since 2007
(see table 2, below) and thus we find
that ADEQ’s and MCAQD’s SIPapproved NSR rules are likely to
continue to support continued
attainment of the standard during the
maintenance phase after redesignation.
Therefore, given that a portion of the
nonattainment area is subject to federal
rules implementing the nonattainment
NSR requirements (Indian country and
the Pinal County portion of the
nonattainment area) and given that the
fundamental nonattainment NSR
requirements are approved into the SIP
for the other portions of the
nonattainment area, we conclude that
the State has met the applicable NSR
requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa
eight-hour ozone nonattainment area for
the purposes of redesignation of the area
for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
c. Conformity Requirements
Under section 176(c) of the 1990 CAA
Amendments, States are required to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that federally-supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that
state conformity provisions must be
consistent with federal conformity
regulations that the CAA required EPA
to promulgate. EPA’s conformity
regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part
93, subparts A (referred to herein as
transportation conformity) and B
(referred herein as general conformity).
Transportation conformity applies to
transportation plans, program, and
projects developed, funded, and
approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the
Federal Transit Act. General Conformity
applies to all other federally-supported
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16741
or funded projects. SIP revisions
intended to address conformity
requirements are referred to herein as
conformity SIPs.
The State of Arizona has adopted
general conformity procedures,
approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (65
FR 19916).27 The State-adopted
transportation conformity procedures,
found at Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS), Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14,
have not yet been approved by EPA.
EPA, however, believes it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for the
purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d)(3)(E) because state
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not
been approved. 28
C. The Area Must Show the
Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
Section 107(d)(E)(iii) precludes
redesignation of a nonattainment area to
attainment unless EPA determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from the
implementation of the applicable SIP,
applicable federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable regulations. Under this
criterion, the State must be able to
reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to emissions reductions that
are permanent and enforceable.
Attainment resulting from temporary
reductions in emission rates (e.g.,
reduced production or shutdown due to
temporary adverse economic
conditions) or unusually favorable
meteorology would not qualify as an air
quality improvement due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions.
In our proposed (70 FR 13425, March
21, 2005) and final (70 FR 34362, June
14, 2005) redesignation rules for the
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area, we described the
numerous stationary source and mobile
source control measures that were
approved as part of the Arizona SIP and
that, together with certain federal
measures, had provided for attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard through
permanent and enforceable emissions
27 In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),
which eliminated the requirement for States to
adopt and submit conformity SIPs addressing
general conformity requirements. See 75 FR 17254
(April 5, 2010) for conforming changes to EPA’s
general conformity regulations.
28 See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir.
2001) upholding this interpretation.
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16742
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
reductions. See, e.g., the table of VOC
RACT rules on page 13433 of our
proposed 1-hour ozone redesignation
rule at 13425. Significant mobile source
control measures that contributed to
attainment and provide for maintenance
of the 1-hour ozone standard included
low volatility cleaner burning gasoline,
the federal motor vehicle and nonroad
control programs, and implementation
of an enhanced vehicle emissions
inspection (VEI) program. See 70 FR
13425 at page 13430.
The State of Arizona has relied on
these same permanent and enforceable
measures to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard but added an additional
stationary source rule to the control
strategy, Maricopa County rule 358
(‘‘Polystyrene Foam Operations’’),
which EPA approved at 70 FR 30370
(May 26, 2005). In the approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG
quantified the emissions reduction from
certain specific State and local
measures, including VEI enhancements,
local transportation improvements,
summer gasoline formulation, and a rule
governing polystyrene foam operation,
as totaling 6.0 mtpd of VOC in 2008 (a
2.4 percent reduction compared to the
2002 base case) and 13.4 mtpd of NOX
(a 4.6 percent reduction compared to the
2002 base case). These reductions have
contributed to the overall reduction in
emissions that have provided for
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan relies on monitoring data (see
figure 2–2 in the plan) showing a
general downward trend in 8-hour
ozone concentrations in the PhoenixMesa area from 2000 through 2008
despite increases of more than 15
percent in population, employment and
vehicle travel, as evidence that the
improvement in air quality can
reasonably be attributed to the
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions from the measures described
above.
In addition, we reviewed temperature
data for Phoenix over this time period
to determine if unusual meteorological
conditions could have played a
significant role in attaining the 1997 8hour ozone standard in the PhoenixMesa area. However, we did not observe
any anomaly over this period relative to
long-term averages.29 The period from
2002 to 2008 did not show a trend in
declining air temperatures that would
suggest that the observed trend in ozone
concentrations was a result of favorable
meteorology. We do recognize that a
significant economic slowdown
occurred nationally starting in 2008,
and that the Phoenix-Mesa area was
affected, but we note that the downward
trend in ozone concentrations had
already been established well before
that time.30
Based on the evidence discussed
above, EPA finds that the improvement
in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area is the result of
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions from implementation of a
combination of control measures. As
such, we propose to find that the
criterion for redesignation set forth at
CAA section 107(d)(e)(E)(iii) is satisfied.
D. The Area Must Have a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Under
CAA Section 175A
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. We
interpret this section of the Act to
require, in general, the following core
elements: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring
network, verification of continued
attainment, and contingency plan. See
Calcagni memo, pages 8 through 13.
Under CAA section 175A, a
maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA
approves a redesignation to attainment.
Eight years after redesignation, the State
must submit a revised maintenance plan
that demonstrates continued attainment
for the subsequent ten-year period
following the initial ten-year
maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency provisions that EPA deems
necessary to promptly correct any
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. Based on our
review and evaluation of the plan, as
detailed below, we are proposing to
approve the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan because we believe
that it meets the requirements of CAA
section 175A.
1. Attainment Inventories and Projected
Future Inventories
A maintenance plan for the 1997 8hour ozone standard must include an
inventory of emissions of ozone
precursors (VOC and NOX) in the area
in order to identify a level of emissions
that are sufficient to attain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. This inventory
must be consistent with EPA’s most
recent guidance on emissions
inventories for nonattainment areas
available at the time of plan submittal
and should represent emissions during
the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment.
The inventory must also be
comprehensive, including emissions
from stationary point sources, area
sources, nonroad mobile sources, and
on-road motor vehicle sources, and
must be based on actual ‘‘ozone season
data,’’ i.e., summertime emissions.
MAG selected year 2005 as the year
for the attainment inventory in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. As
shown in table 2, the area attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard at the end
of 2007 based on monitoring data
collected over the course of the previous
three-year period (2005–2007) during
which the calculated design value was
less than the standard. The attainment
inventory will generally be the actual
inventory during the time period the
area attained the standard, and year
2005 was one of the years from the
three-year period for which the area first
attained the standard. Thus, MAG’s
selection of 2005 for the attainment
inventory is acceptable.
TABLE 2—EIGHT-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA NONATTAINMENT AREA
Design value * (parts per million)
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Site
Agency
2005–07
Apache Junction ......................................................
Blue Point ................................................................
Buckeye ...................................................................
Cave Creek ..............................................................
29 See memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality
Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX,
entitled ‘‘Meteorological Trend Analysis for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PCAQCD
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
2006–08
0.076
0.067
0.065
0.079
0.080
0.064
0.066
0.078
Phoenix-Mesa Area,’’ dated November 22, 2013,
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2007–09
0.075
0.067
0.064
0.075
2008–10
0.073
0.070
0.064
0.074
30 Id.
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
2009–11
0.072
0.072
0.064
0.075
2010–12
0.074
0.075
0.066
0.077
16743
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EIGHT-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued
Design value * (parts per million)
Site
Agency
2005–07
Central Phoenix .......................................................
Dysart .......................................................................
Falcon Field .............................................................
Fountain Hills ...........................................................
Glendale ...................................................................
High School .............................................................
Humboldt Mountain ..................................................
JLG Supersite ..........................................................
Lehi ..........................................................................
North Phoenix ..........................................................
Pinnacle Peak ..........................................................
Red Mountain ..........................................................
Rio Verde .................................................................
Senior Center ...........................................................
South Phoenix .........................................................
South Scottsdale ......................................................
Tempe ......................................................................
West Chandler .........................................................
West Phoenix ...........................................................
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
SRPMIC
MCAQD
ADEQ .....
SRPMIC
MCAQD
MCAQD
SRPMIC
MCAQD
SRPMIC
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
MCAQD
2006–08
0.075
0.067
0.076
0.082
0.075
** 0.077
0.081
0.076
** 0.079
0.082
0.078
0.083
0.083
0.076
0.072
0.078
0.077
0.076
0.074
2007–09
0.074
0.067
0.075
0.079
0.074
** 0.076
0.078
0.076
0.074
0.081
0.074
0.080
0.080
0.075
0.072
0.077
0.077
0.076
0.078
0.070
0.066
0.071
0.074
0.071
0.073
0.074
0.075
0.074
0.076
0.072
0.076
0.075
0.072
0.071
0.075
0.073
0.073
0.073
2008–10
0.071
0.068
0.070
0.074
0.072
0.072
0.071
0.075
0.073
0.077
0.073
0.076
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.074
0.071
0.073
0.073
2009–11
0.071
0.070
0.068
0.073
0.072
0.072
0.071
0.075
0.072
0.077
0.074
0.076
0.073
0.072
0.072
0.074
0.068
0.072
0.073
2010–12
0.074
0.071
0.069
0.076
0.076
0.074
0.075
0.076
0.073
0.081
0.077
0.077
0.074
0.074
0.076
0.077
0.070
0.074
0.078
* The design value is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration.
** Design values do not meet the completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The attainment year emission
inventory for 2005 in the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan is generally
consistent with the 2005 Periodic
Emission Inventory (PEI) emissions
estimates for Maricopa County and the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. The
PEI was calculated in terms of annual
emissions and ozone season-day
emissions.
Emissions from point sources were
estimated from each identified facility
through permit system databases and
annual emissions reports submitted to
the facility’s permitting authority.
Emissions from area sources were
estimated by source category using
information from permit databases and
previous SIP inventories. MAG
estimated nonroad mobile source
emissions using EPA’s NONROAD2005
model, and estimated on-road motor
vehicle source emissions using EPA’s
MOBILE6.2 model. On-road vehicle
emissions estimates reflect estimates of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
from U.S. Department of
Transportation’s 2005 Highway
Performance and Monitoring System.
Biogenic emissions of NOX and VOC
were calculated using the Model of
Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from
Nature (MEGAN) with input including
emissions rates developed from
measurements made of the dominant
plant species in Maricopa County,
locations and biomass densities of the
dominant plant species, and surface
temperature data. See 2005 Periodic
Emissions Inventory for ozone
precursors in volume 1 of the
appendices to the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
For the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan, MAG adjusted and
supplemented the 2005 PEI ozone
precursor emissions estimates
developed using the methods described
above to develop emissions estimates
for an area referred to as the inner
modeling domain (‘‘modeling domain’’),
a rectangular area encompassing all of
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the nonattainment area and largely
defined by the boundaries of the
irregularly-shaped nonattainment area.
See figure II–1 of MAG’s technical
support document (TSD) for the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan for an
illustration of the modeling domain.
The modeling domain defines the area
for which MAG modeled ozone
concentrations.
MAG developed modeling-domain
emissions estimates for 2005 for the
June, July, and August episodes that
were modeled for the approved EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan. See table
3 below for a summary of modeling
domain emissions estimates by source
category for year 2005 for the June
modeling episode. The 2005 attainment
year inventory includes credit for
committed control measures that were
in place during the summer of 2005. See
table 3–5 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16744
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—2005 AND PROJECTED 2019 AND 2025 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE PHOENIX-MESA MODELING
DOMAIN FOR JUNE OZONE EPISODE
[Metric tons per day] a
VOC
NOX
Source category
2005
2019
2025
2005
2019
2025
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Nonroad Mobile ........................................
On-road Motor Vehicles ...........................
Biogenics ..................................................
10.9
19.6
77.7
154.3
8.6
58.6
27.7
43.9
125.8
8.6
59.1
31.1
37.9
109.8
8.6
11.1
79.2
40.3
72.1
451.3
16.7
111.4
48.7
30.9
451.3
18.7
124.8
31.8
47.9
451.3
Total ..................................................
271.1
264.4
246.4
653.9
659.0
674.4
a Emissions
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
reflect a specific day of the week (Thursday) during the June ozone episode.
Sources: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan at tables 3–6 and 3–7; table 1 of the Maintenance Plan Supplement.
As shown in table 3, in the 2005
attainment year inventory for the
modeling domain, biogenic sources
contributed approximately 70 percent to
total VOC emissions. In contrast, onroad motor vehicles dominated the total
NOX emissions and accounted for 60
percent of total NOX.
In addition to 2005 values, table 3
above also summarizes MAG’s VOC and
NOX emissions estimates for an interim
year (2019) and the maintenance plan’s
horizon year (2025). The projected
emission inventories for 2019 and 2025
were based on the use of growth factors,
on-going emissions control programs,
and retirement rates for obsolete
sources. The Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan includes MAG’s 2025
emissions estimates and related
documentation, while MAG’s 2019
interim-year emissions estimates and
documentation are found in a separate
MAG document, entitled ‘‘Analysis of
the Interim Year 2019 as a Supplement
to the 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone
Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment
Area,’’ dated June 17, 2013
(‘‘Maintenance Plan Supplement’’).
MAG used growth factors to project
emissions in 2019 and 2025 for point
and area sources based on population
and employment projections approved
by the MAG Regional Council in May
2007. MAG included population and
employment growth projections for
2016 and 2021 in the Maintenance Plan
Supplement and projected emissions for
2019 from interpolation of the projected
emissions for 2016 and 2021. MAG used
a compound annual growth rate for
population of 2.6 percent between 2005
and 2016. The actual compound annual
growth rate between 2005 and 2011,
based on the 2005 Special Census for
Maricopa County and the 2010 Census,
was 0.8 percent. Because the population
of Maricopa County grew more slowly
than projected, MAG expects the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
emission inventories related to the
socioeconomic projections for the
interim and horizon years to be
conservatively overestimated.
MAG used different growth factors for
different source types within each
source category (e.g., specific stationary
point sources excluding power plants,
specific categories of area sources such
as dry cleaners). For nonroad mobile
sources, MAG derived growth factors
from the EPA NONROAD2005 model
defaults for Maricopa County. The
growth factors are listed in Appendix
IV–vii to Appendix A, Exhibit 2 of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
and generally range from 1 to 1.8. For
power plants, MAG estimated future
emissions based on the facility’s
potential to emit (PTE), i.e., the
maximum levels allowed under existing
permits. MAG estimated on-road motor
vehicle emissions based on the same
population and employment projections
used to estimate point and area sources,
but increased on-road source emissions
of VOC and NOX by 10 percent to
provide safety margins for the motor
vehicle emission budgets for
transportation conformity.
For biogenic emissions, the 2005
inventory was held constant for 2019
and 2025. In the approved Eight-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG similarly
held biogenic emissions constant,
compared to the 2002 base year
inventory, when demonstrating
attainment with the standard by 2008
(see tables 5–3 and 5–4 in the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan). In
additional information provided to EPA
during our review of the Eight-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG explained
that no projected land use or land cover
data was available for the 2008
attainment year, therefore biogenic
emissions in the ozone modeling
domain were held constant. As
discussed in greater detail in our
proposed rulemaking to approve the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan,
MAG expected that the trend of
increasing urbanization in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area would be
expected to decrease biogenic VOC
emissions in Maricopa County. Because
MAG did not have 2008 land use data
available, it determined that
maintaining constant biogenic
emissions of the ozone precursors
would be more conservative than
attempting to estimate the anticipated
decrease in biogenic VOC emissions.
See 77 FR 21690 at 21694 (April 11,
2012). This rationale similarly applies to
the use of a constant biogenic emissions
value for each ozone episode in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan builds upon the control strategy
developed for attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
standard and the control strategy
developed for attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. The plan
specifically cites and quantifies the
emissions reductions from seven control
measures for maintenance
demonstration purposes in the PhoenixMesa area through year 2025. These
measures include one federal control
measure, a measure referred to as
‘‘Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission
Standards,’’ and six State or local
control measures. All of these measures
have been approved into the Arizona
SIP, or, in the case of the federal
nonroad equipment emission standards,
have been promulgated by EPA as
regulations published in the CFR:
• Summer fuel reformulation,
approved as part of Arizona’s cleaner
burning gasoline regulations at 69 FR
10161 (March 4, 2004);
• Phased-In emission test cutpoints
and one-time waiver from vehicle
emissions test, approved as part of the
Arizona vehicle emissions inspection
and maintenance program at 69 FR 2912
(January 22, 2003);
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
• Tougher enforcement of vehicle
registration and emission test
compliance, as set forth in ARS 49–552
(‘‘Enforcement on city, town, county,
school district or special district
property’’), approved at 70 FR 11553
(March 9, 2005); and 49–541.01
(paragraphs D and E) 31 (‘‘Vehicle
emissions inspection program; constant
four wheel drive vehicles; requirements;
location; violation; classification;
penalties; new program termination’’),
approved at 70 FR 11553 (March 9,
2005);
• Federal (tier 4) nonroad equipment
emissions standards, promulgated in 40
CFR part 1039 at 69 FR 38958 (June 29,
2004);
• Expansion of Area A boundaries, as
set forth in ARS 49–541 (‘‘Definitions’’),
approved at 78 FR 30209 (May 22,
2013); and
• Ban open burning during the ozone
season, as set forth in ARS 49–501
(‘‘Unlawful open burning; exceptions;
fine; definition’’), approved in a final
rule signed by the EPA Region IX
Regional Administrator on December
16745
16, 2013 (not yet published in the
Federal Register).
Table 4 shows the projected emission
reductions developed by MAG from the
seven maintenance measures during the
June ozone episode. Of the seven
maintenance measures in the PhoenixMesa Maintenance Plan, the federal
nonroad equipment emission standards
represents the largest reduction in VOC
and NOX emissions from an individual
maintenance measure.
TABLE 4—2025 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL MAINTENANCE MEASURES IN THE PHOENIX-MESA 8-HOUR
OZONE MODELING DOMAIN
VOC
Maintenance measure
Reduction
(metric tons
per day)
Summer Fuel Reformulation
Phased-In Emission Test Cutpoints
One-Time Waiver from Vehicle Emissions Test
Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emission
Test Compliance
Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission Standards
Expansion of Area A Boundary
Ban Open Burning During Ozone Season
NOX
Percent
reduction in
anthropogenic
emissions
Reduction
(metric tons
per day)
Percent
reduction in
anthropogenic
emissions
1.3
< 0.1
0.2
0.5
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.4 (increase)
< 0.1
0.3
0.1 (increase).
< 0.1.
0.1.
0.2
19.3
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
7.9
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.4
47.2
0.4
< 0.1
0.1.
16.5.
0.1.
< 0.1.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, table 3–2.
As shown in table 3, NOX emissions
from point sources is projected to
increase dramatically between 2005 and
the interim and horizon years of 2019
and 2025, primarily due to MAG’s
conservative assumption that power
plants in the future would operate at
their PTE. Emissions of NOX from area
sources are also estimated to be higher
in the interim and horizon years. MAG
projected that emissions from nonroad
sources would decrease due to the
implementation of federal emission
standards for nonroad equipment (see
Table 4). Emissions of NOX from onroad motor vehicles are also projected to
decrease notwithstanding the 10%
increase added to the 2025 motor
vehicle emissions estimates (to provide
for a safety margin for transportation
conformity purposes), due to the
continuing benefit of the federal motor
vehicle control program and the
turnover of older model cars to newer
models designed to meet more stringent
EPA emissions standards. Overall,
between 2005 and 2025, MAG projected
total emissions of NOX to decrease by
nearly 25 mtpd for the June ozone
episode.
As shown in table 3, MAG projected
that VOC emissions from point and area
sources will increase over the 2005 to
2025 time frame. Emissions from VOC
from nonroad and on-road mobile
sources are projected to decrease
between 2005 and 2025,
notwithstanding the 10% safety margin
added to 2025 motor vehicle emissions
estimates for the same reasons given
above for NOX. Emissions of biogenic
VOC are projected to remain constant,
as discussed above. Overall, MAG
projected total emissions of VOC in
2025 to increase by approximately 20
mtpd for the June ozone episode as
compared to 2005.
Based on our review of the emission
inventories (and related documentation)
from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan, we find that the inventory for 2005
is comprehensive, that the methods and
assumptions used by MAG to develop
the 2005 emission inventory are
reasonable, and that the inventory
reasonably estimates actual ozone
season emissions in an attainment year.
Moreover, we find that the 2005
emission inventory reflects the latest
planning assumptions and emission
models available at the time the plan
was developed, and provide a
comprehensive and reasonably accurate
basis upon which to forecast ozone
precursor emissions for years 2019 and
2025.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
CAA section 175A(a) requires that the
maintenance plan ‘‘provide for the
maintenance of the national primary
ambient air quality standard for such air
pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.’’
Generally, a state may demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard
by either showing that future emissions
will not exceed the level of the
attainment year inventory or by
modeling to show that the future mix of
sources and emissions rates will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS. For
areas that are required under the Act to
submit modeled attainment
demonstrations, the maintenance
demonstration should generally use the
same type of modeling as used for the
attainment demonstration. See Calcagni
memo, page 9.
On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35286), EPA
published a final approval of the EightHour Ozone Attainment Plan, which
demonstrated attainment of the 1997 8-
31 These provisions are now codified in ARS 49–
550 (‘‘Violation; Classification; Civil Penalty’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16746
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area by June 15,
2009. Consistent with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance
on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment
of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional
Haze’’ (‘‘EPA Modeling Guidance’’), the
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
included the following components: A
conceptual description of the area’s
nonattainment problem, a modeling
protocol, model selection and set-up,
selection and evaluation of ozone
episodes to model, meteorological and
emissions input data preparation, model
performance evaluations for the
photochemical and meteorological
models, the modeled attainment test,
and a weight of evidence evaluation.
See Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan,
chapter 3 and appendix A, exhibit 2.
EPA evaluated these components and
found that they provided an adequate
basis for the attainment demonstration.
See 77 FR 21690, at 21697–21699.
For the modeled 10-year maintenance
test, MAG selected the same
photochemical and meteorologicalinput models and set-up and the same
high-ozone episodes to model as
evaluated in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan. As such, we are not
reassessing the modeling protocol,
choice of ozone episodes, and model
performance. Here, the model was used
to predict the effect of changes in
emissions due to land use changes,
growth, and the effect of control
measures from a baseline emission year
of 2005 to maintenance years 2019 and
2025.32 The resulting concentrations
were used to evaluate the impact of
emission changes during the high-ozone
episode-specific meteorological
conditions. See Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan (chapter 3 and
appendix A, exhibit 2) and the
Maintenance Plan Supplement.
Under EPA Modeling Guidance, the
model is used to develop relative
response factors (RRFs) that give the
model’s response to emission changes,
and the RRFs are applied to monitored
design value concentrations to arrive at
the predicted future concentrations. The
particulars of the calculation, and which
model grid cells and modeled days are
to be included, are specified in the EPA
Guidance. See EPA Modeling Guidance,
pages 15, 25, and 155. MAG assessed
the 2019 and 2025 effects and found the
maximum predicted ozone design value
to be 0.081 parts per million (ppm) in
2019 and 0.081 ppm in 2025. All values
32 We evaluate the emissions inventory for the
baseline and maintenance years in section V.D.1.,
above.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
equal to or less than 0.084 ppm meet the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus,
the modeling results predict continued
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for at
least ten years beyond redesignation
(assuming redesignation of the area
before 2016).
In addition to a modeled maintenance
demonstration, which focuses on
locations with an air quality monitor,
EPA generally requires an unmonitored
area analysis. This analysis is intended
to ensure that a control strategy leads to
maintenance of the NAAQS in other
locations that have no monitor but that
might have base year (and/or future
year) ambient ozone levels exceeding
the NAAQS. The unmonitored area
analysis uses a combination of model
output and ambient data to identify
areas that might exceed the NAAQS if
monitors were located there. In order to
examine unmonitored areas in all
portions of the modeling domain, EPA
recommends use of interpolated spatial
fields of ambient data combined with
gridded modeled outputs. See EPA
Modeling Guidance, page 29. MAG used
the EPA developed Modeled Attainment
Test Software (MATS) Version 2.0.1 to
conduct this analysis. The maximum
design values from this analysis were
0.083 ppm in 2019 and 0.083 ppm in
2025, i.e., in attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. See Maintenance
Plan Supplement.
Based on our prior approval of MAG’s
photochemical modeling approach for
8-hour ozone attainment demonstration
purposes and because we find MAG’s
application of the same basic approach
to the 8-hour ozone maintenance
demonstration to be reasonable, we
accept the results of MAG’s modeling as
a sufficient demonstration that the plan
provides for maintenance of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in the PhoenixMesa area through the first ten years
after redesignation to attainment.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
meets the maintenance demonstration
requirements under CAA section
175A(a).
3. Monitoring Network
Continued ambient monitoring of an
area is generally required over the
maintenance period. As discussed in
section V.A. of this document, ozone is
currently monitored by ADEQ, MCAQD,
and PCAQCD at a total of 20 sites within
the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. ADEQ and MCAQD
monitors represent 19 of the 20 sites.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan (see page 3–21 of the plan)
indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD will
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
continue to operate an appropriate air
quality monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify continued attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, if there
is significant change to parameters such
as population, vehicle miles of travel, or
significant sources, ADEQ and MCAQD
will undertake studies to determine if it
is appropriate to re-site monitors or add
additional monitors to the network.
Lastly, the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan takes note of the
annual review by EPA of State and local
ambient monitoring network plans
under 40 CFR part 58 as providing a
continuing means for ensuring the
adequacy of the ozone monitoring
network in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
We note that PCAQCD is not cited in
the subsection on an approved
monitoring network and verification of
continued attainment in the Eight-Hour
Maintenance Plan, but find the failure to
include PCAQCD in the plan’s
discussion of continued monitoring and
verification of continued attainment to
be harmless error because the applicable
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part
58 will continue to apply to PCAQCD’s
ozone monitor regardless of our
approval of the maintenance plan and
redesignation request and because the
overall ozone monitoring network
operated by ADEQ and MCAQD alone
(i.e., 19 of 20 NAMS and SLAMS
stations) is sufficient to meet ozone
monitoring requirements in the
Phoenix-Mesa are. Therefore, for the
reasons given above, EPA finds that the
Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan
adequately provides for continued
ambient ozone monitoring in the
Phoenix-Mesa area.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
Each State should ensure that it has
the legal authority to implement and
enforce all measures necessary to attain
and to maintain the NAAQS.
Previously, in taking action to approve
the various measures that the State is
relying on for attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, such as the cleaner burning
gasoline regulations and the vehicle
emissions inspection (VEI) program, we
determined that the State has the
necessary legal authority to implement
and enforce the measures and find no
sunset clauses that would be triggered
for these control measures upon
redesignation to attainment. We are,
however, aware of Arizona Revised
Statutes (ARS) section 41–3017.01
which provides for the termination of
the VEI on January 1, 2017, but
recognize that the Arizona Legislature
has at various intervals in the past
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
extended the termination date for the
VEI program and expect it to do so again
before 2017. We also find that the
applicable State, regional, and county
agencies, such as ADEQ, the Arizona
Department of Weights and Measures,
Arizona Department of Transportation
(DOT), MAG, Maricopa County, Pinal
County, and local cities and towns, have
the necessary authority to adopt,
implement, and enforce any emission
control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct
ozone NAAQS violations.
To verify continued attainment, in
addition to continuing to operate an
ozone monitoring network that meets
EPA ambient air quality surveillance
requirements, MCAQD will continue to
update the emissions inventory for
ozone precursors in the Phoenix-Mesa
area every three years with input and
assistance from ADEQ, Arizona DOT,
and MAG. These emissions inventory
updates will provide a means with
which to track emissions relative to
those projected in the maintenance
plan, and thereby verify the continued
attainment of the NAAQS.
Lastly, the transportation conformity
process, which requires a comparison of
on-road motor vehicle emissions that
would occur under new or amended
transportation plans and programs with
the motor vehicle emissions budgets in
the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan, represents another means by
which to verify continued attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix-Mesa area, given the
importance of motor vehicle emissions
to the overall emissions inventories of
ozone precursors. See pages 3–14 and
3–15 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan. These methods are
sufficient for the purpose of verifying
continued attainment.
5. Contingency Provisions
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires
that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as EPA deems
necessary, to promptly correct any
violations of the NAAQS that occur after
redesignation of the area. Such
provisions must include a requirement
that the State will implement all
measures (with respect to the control of
the air pollutant concerned) that were
contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area as an
attainment area.
Under section 175A(d), contingency
measures identified in the contingency
plan do not have to be fully adopted at
the time of redesignation. However, the
contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should
ensure that the contingency measures
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
are adopted expeditiously once they are
triggered by a specified event. The
maintenance plan should clearly
identify the measures to be adopted, a
schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation, and a specific
timeline for action by the State. As a
necessary part of the plan, the State
should also identify specific indicators
or triggers that will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to
be implemented.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, MAG adopted a contingency plan
to address possible future ozone air
quality problems. See page 3–21 of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
The plan includes both specific
contingency measures that have already
been adopted and are being
implemented early 33 and a mechanism
to trigger the adoption of additional
measures as needed. The specific
contingency measures, which are
described in more detail in section IV–
7–2 of MAG’s TSD for the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan (appendix A,
exhibit 2 of the plan), are:
• Gross Polluter Option for I/M
Program Waivers;
• Increased Waiver Repair Limit
Options;
• Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle
Emissions Standards;
• Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems;
• Develop Intelligent Transportation
Systems; and
• Liquid Leaker Test as Part of
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.
Two of the measures, ‘‘coordinate traffic
signal systems’’ and ‘‘develop intelligent
transportation systems,’’ are control
measures that the Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan had relied upon to
demonstrate attainment of the standard.
As noted above, CAA section 175A(d)
requires contingency plans to include a
requirement that the State will
implement all measures with respect to
the control of the air pollutant
concerned that were contained in the
SIP for the area before redesignation of
the area as an attainment area, i.e., if
triggered under the terms of the
contingency plan. In the case of these
two specific contingency measures, we
do not believe that the contingency plan
must include a specific requirement to
resume their implementation, i.e., if
triggered, because the measures
themselves continue to be implemented
by the relevant agencies. The Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan simply does
not rely on emissions reductions from
33 MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA
guidance memorandum entitled ‘‘Early
Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16747
them to demonstrate maintenance
through 2025. The emissions reductions
from the other contingency measures
listed above are also not included in the
projected emissions inventory, and no
emission reduction credit was taken for
these measures in the modeling for the
maintenance demonstration. As noted
in the maintenance plan,
implementation of these measures
should provide additional assurance
that the 1997 ozone standard will be
maintained through 2025.
In addition to the previously
implemented contingency measures
listed above, the plan includes a
commitment to examine ambient air
quality data to determine if additional
contingency measures are needed. If the
three-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily 8-hour ozone
concentration exceeds 84 parts per
billion at any ozone monitor, additional
control measures will be considered.
The plan requires that (1) the
monitoring data will be verified within
three months after the activation of the
trigger; (2) control measures will be
considered for adoption six months after
the date established in (1); and (3) the
resultant committed measures will be
implemented within six to twelve
months, depending on the time needed
to put the measures in place.
Upon our review of the plan, as
summarized above, we find that the
contingency provisions of the EightHour Ozone Maintenance Plan identify
specific contingency measures, contain
tracking and triggering mechanisms to
determine when contingency measures
are needed, and contain specific
timelines for action. Accordingly, we
conclude that the contingency
provisions of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan are adequate to
ensure prompt correction of a violation
and therefore comply with section
175A(d) of the Act.
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan
Revisions
CAA section 175A(b) provides that
States shall submit a SIP revision eight
years after redesignation that provides
for maintaining the NAAQS for an
additional ten years. The Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan includes
MAG’s commitment to prepare the
revised maintenance plan eight years
after redesignation to attainment. See
page 3–22 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our
transportation conformity rule (codified
in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16748
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to SIPs, and
establishes the criteria and procedures
for determining whether or not they do
so. Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards or any
interim milestones.
Maintenance plan submittals must
specify the emissions of transportationrelated VOC and NOX emissions
allowed in the last year of the
maintenance period, i.e., the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or
budgets). The MVEBs serve as a ceiling
on emissions that would result from an
area’s planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained
in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble describes how
to establish MVEBs in the SIP and how
to revise the MVEBs if needed.
The submittal must also demonstrate
that these emissions levels, when
considered with emissions from all
other sources, are consistent with
maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for
us to find these emissions levels or
‘‘budgets’’ adequate and approvable, the
submittal must meet the conformity
adequacy provisions of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). For more
information on the transportation
conformity requirement and applicable
policies on MVEBs, please visit our
transportation conformity Web site at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
EPA’s process for determining
adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to
comment on the MVEB during a public
comment period; and (3) making a
finding of adequacy based on our initial
review of the submitted SIP. The
process for determining the adequacy of
a submitted MVEB is codified at 40 CFR
93.118.
The availability of the SIP submission
with MVEBs was announced for public
comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site
on April 27, 2009 at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
tansconf/currsips.htm, which provided
a 30-day public comment period. The
comment period for this notification
ended on May 28, 2009, and EPA
received no comments from the public.
Note, however, that a second
mechanism is also provided for EPA
review and public comment on MVEBs,
as described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). This
mechanism provides for EPA’s review of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the adequacy of an implementation plan
MVEB simultaneously with its review
and approval or disapproval of the
submitted plan itself. In this instance,
EPA used the web notification
discussed above to solicit public
comments on the adequacy of the
Phoenix-Mesa MVEBs in the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan, but is taking
comment on the approvability of the
submitted MVEBs through this
proposed rule. Any and all comments
on the approvability of the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEBs should
be submitted during the comment
period stated in the DATES section of this
document.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan contains new VOC and NOX
MVEBs for the Phoenix-Mesa area for
2025.34 MAG developed the budgets for
the 2025 maintenance year by using
geographic information systems (GIS) to
separate the on-road motor vehicle
emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa air
quality planning area from the larger
ozone modeling domain, resulting in
MVEBs of 43.8 metric tons per day
(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOX.
The MVEBs include a 10% safety
margin 35 and correspond to the peak
episode day (Thursday) in June 2025
that was used to model maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix-Mesa area in the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan.
To estimate motor vehicle emissions
for the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan and related MVEBs, MAG used the
version of EPA’s motor vehicle
emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2)
that was current at the time the
emissions estimates were prepared. The
calculated emission factors were
multiplied by the estimates of vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) to generate
emission estimates for on-road motor
vehicle sources. The projected
emissions inventory and related MVEBs
take into account expected growth in
VMT and reductions from the
maintenance measures, but do not
34 The derivation of the MVEBs is discussed in
MAG’s emissions inventory, which was included in
the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan submittal
as Appendix A, Exhibit 1 (pages 99–110), and in
Section IV–2 of MAG’s TSD, which was included
in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
submittal as Appendix A, Exhibit 2. Additional
discussion of the on-road emissions budgets is
included in Section IV–9 of the TSD.
35 MAG increased the 2025 VOC and NO
X
emissions from on-road motor vehicle sources in
the eight-hour ozone modeling domain in order to
address the ‘‘inherent uncertainties associated with
the use of the latest planning assumptions in
conformity analyses.’’ MAG distributed the increase
spatially ‘‘based on the proportion of onroad mobile
emissions assigned to each four kilometer grid
cell.’’ See page 3–20 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include reductions from
implementation of the contingency
measures.
The MVEBs are consistent with the
2025 on-road motor vehicle source VOC
and NOX emissions included in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan’s
2025 emission inventory, as
summarized above in table 3, above.
The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.124(a))
allows for a safety margin, and even
with the 10 percent safety margin added
to the on-road emissions, the overall
emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area are
consistent with continued maintenance
of the 1997 ozone standard.
EPA is proposing to approve the
MVEBs for 2025 as part of our approval
of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area. We
have determined that the MVEB
emission targets are consistent with
emission control measures in the SIP
and that the Phoenix-Mesa area can
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for ten years beyond redesignation. The
details of EPA’s evaluation of the
MVEBs for compliance with the budget
adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e)
are provided in a separate memorandum
included in the docket of this
rulemaking.36
If we finalize this action as proposed,
we will make the adequacy finding for
the 2025 MVEBs in the final rule in
which we approve the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan. Pursuant to
40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), our adequacy
finding will be effective upon
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Once found adequate,
MAG and the U.S. Department of
Transportation must use these new
budgets for 2025 in conformity analyses
with applicable horizon years after
2024. The 2008 MVEBs established in
MAG’s Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment
Plan, which EPA previously approved
(77 FR 35285), also remain in effect. Onroad motor vehicle emissions in any
required analysis years up to and
including 2024 cannot exceed levels
established by those previouslyapproved MVEBs.
VI. Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for
the reasons set forth above, EPA is
proposing to approve ADEQ’s submittal
dated March 23, 2009 of the MAG EightHour Ozone Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa
Nonattainment Area (February 2009)
36 See EPA memorandum dated October 31, 2013
entitled ‘‘Adequacy Documentation for Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets in the February 2009
Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan for
the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area.’’
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(‘‘Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan’’)
as a revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan (SIP). In
connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the
maintenance demonstration showing
how the area will continue to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years
beyond redesignation and the
contingency provisions describing the
actions that the relevant State, regional,
and local agencies will take in the event
of a future monitored violation meet all
applicable requirements for
maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in CAA section
175A. EPA is also proposing to approve
the motor vehicle emissions budgets in
the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
The motor vehicle emissions budgets,
43.8 mtpd of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of
NOX, include a 10% safety margin and
correspond to the peak episode day
(Thursday) during the June 2025 ozone
episode that was used to model
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
Second, under CAA section
107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to
approve ADEQ’s request, which
accompanied the submitted of the
maintenance plan, to redesignate the
Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are
doing so based on our conclusion that
the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our proposed
determination that the area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that
relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are
fully approved, that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions,
that Arizona has met all requirements
applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area with respect
to section 110 and part D of the CAA,
and based on our proposed approval as
part of this action of the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document or
on other relevant matters. We will
accept comments from the public on
this proposal for the next 30 days. We
will consider these comments before
taking final action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these
actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as
meeting Federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those by State law. For these
reasons, these proposed actions:
• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16749
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
Nonetheless, EPA has discussed the
proposed action with the three Tribes,
the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the
Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian
Community, and the Tohono O’odham
Nation located within the Phoenix-Mesa
8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014–06661 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0600; FRL–9906–74–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AR89
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Updates to HCFC Trade Language As
Applied to Article 5 Countries;
Ratification Status of Parties to the
Montreal Protocol; and Harmonized
Tariff Schedule Commodity Codes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to update:
regulations governing trade of HCFCs to
reflect that HCFC control measures have
now taken effect for Parties operating
under Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol; references to Party ratification
status; tariff codes for ozone depleting
substances to address changes made in
2012 by the U.S. International Trade
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16734-16749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06661]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686; FRL-9908-69-Region-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona;
Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is proposing to approve, as a revision of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone averaged over eight hours (8-
hour ozone standard) in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for ten
years beyond redesignation, and the related motor vehicle emission
budgets, because they meet the applicable requirements for such plans
and budgets. EPA is also proposing to approve a request from the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to redesignate the Phoenix-
Mesa nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation
under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R09-OAR-2013-0686, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Postal Mail or Delivery: Ginger Vagenas (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The online docket system at https://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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 9 office. While all documents in the docket are
listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may not be
specifically listed in the index to the docket or may be publicly
available only in hard copy at the EPA Region 9 office (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports, or otherwise
voluminous materials), and some may not be publicly available in
electronic or
[[Page 16735]]
hard copy form (e.g., confidential business information). To view the
hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-2), San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Ginger Vagenas
can also be reached at (415) 972-3964, or via electronic mail at
vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
IV. Substantive Requirements for Redesignation
V. Evaluation of the State's Redesignation Request for the Phoenix-
Mesa Ozone Nonattainment Area
A. Determination That the Area Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Meeting Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part
D
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
2. Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
b. Permits for New and Modified Major Sources
c. Conformity Requirements
C. The Area Must Show the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under
CAA Section 175A
1. Attainment Inventories and Projected Future Inventories
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Provisions
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
7. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. First, under
section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA is
proposing to approve, as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP), a plan developed by the Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG),\1\ entitled MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, dated February
2009 (``Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan''), and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA on March 23,
2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The MAG membership currently consists of the 27 incorporated
cities and towns within Maricopa County and the contiguous urbanized
area, the Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima Maricopa
Indian Community, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Maricopa and Pinal
Counties. Representatives of the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens Transportation Oversight
Committee (CTOC) also serve on the Regional Council for
transportation-related issues.
\2\ See letter from Patrick J. Cunningham, Acting Director,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Laura Yoshii, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, March 23, 2009. This letter
included three enclosures, one of which is the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan, including appendices A and B organized into
volumes 1, 2, and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA is
proposing to find that the maintenance demonstration shows that the
Phoenix-Mesa area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for 10
years beyond redesignation and that the contingency provisions, which
include already implemented measures as well as a process for
identifying new or more stringent measures in the event of a future
monitored violation, meet all applicable requirements for maintenance
plans and the related contingency provisions of CAA section 175A. EPA
is also proposing to approve motor vehicle emission budgets in the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
93.118(e).
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is proposing to approve
ADEQ's request to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We
are doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five
criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). This
conclusion is based on our proposed determination that: The area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; relevant portions of the Arizona
SIP are fully approved; improvement in air quality in the area is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; Arizona has met
all requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA;
and, as part of this action, our proposed approval of the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan.
II. Background
Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed from photochemical
reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.
These two pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by
many types of pollution sources including on-road motor vehicles (cars,
trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints.
In 1971, under section 109 of the Act, as amended in 1970, EPA
promulgated the original NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, including
photochemical oxidants.\3\ The NAAQS are concentration levels that, the
attainment and maintenance of which, EPA has determined to be requisite
to protect public health (i.e., the ``primary'' NAAQS) and welfare
(i.e., the ``secondary'' NAAQS). In 1979, EPA revised the chemical
designation of the NAAQS from ``photochemical oxidants'' to ``ozone,''
and established a 1-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million
(ppm).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
\4\ See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March of 1978, Maricopa County was designated as a 1-hour
oxidant nonattainment area (43 FR 8962). In 1979, EPA revised Maricopa
County's designation to refer to ozone (rather than oxidant) and
reduced the geographic extent of the nonattainment area to reflect
MAG's Urban Planning Area (``Phoenix metropolitan area'') rather than
the entire county. See 44 FR 16388 (March 19, 1979). Under the CAA,
states with nonattainment areas are required to submit revisions to
their SIPs that include a control strategy necessary to demonstrate how
the area will attain the NAAQS, and EPA took action on a number of
related SIP revisions submitted by Arizona in the late 1970s and 1980s
for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. However,
by 1990, the area still had not attained the standard, and under the
CAA Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix metropolitan area was classified as
a ``moderate'' nonattainment area with an attainment deadline of
November 15, 1996 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The area was later
reclassified as a ``serious'' nonattainment area with a deadline of
November 15, 1999 (62 FR 60001, November 6, 1997).
[[Page 16736]]
In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm
averaged over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to herein as the ``1997 8-
hour ozone standard'') to replace the existing 1-hour ozone standard of
0.12 ppm.5 6 In 2004, EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa area
as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and established
June 15, 2005 as the date when the 1-hour ozone standard would be
revoked. The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area covers a much
larger portion of Maricopa County than the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour
ozone area and also includes the Apache Junction portion of Pinal
County.\7\ Just prior to revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA
redesignated the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area
to attainment (70 FR 34362, June 14, 2005).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 62 FR 33856 (July 18, 1997).
\6\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA lowered the 8-hour
ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour ozone standard), and on
May 21, 2012, EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 30088).
Today's proposed action relates to a maintenance plan and
redesignation request for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, not the
more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
\7\ The precise boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area and the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment are found in 40 CFR 81.303.
\8\ A more detailed description of the history of 1-hour ozone
planning in the Phoenix metropolitan area is presented in section II
of EPA's proposed redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard. See
70 FR 13425 at 13426-13428 (March 21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2004, EPA designated Phoenix-Mesa as Subpart 1
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 172
with an attainment deadline no later than June 15, 2009.\9\ The
designation became effective on June 15, 2004. The Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area is located in the central portion of Arizona and
encompasses 4,880 square miles, including the urban portions of
Maricopa and Pinal Counties, and areas of Indian country of the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community,
and the Tohono O'odham Nation. For a precise description of the
geographic boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.303 and figure 1-1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. MAG
is the agency with primary responsibility for developing air quality
plans related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under part D, subpart 1 of the Act, states must submit plans to
come into attainment within 3 years of the effective date of the
nonattainment designation and must attain the standard as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than 5 years after the effective date of
the designation. Later, in the wake of a court decision partially
vacating EPA's regulations implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard,\10\ EPA classified the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
as ``marginal'' under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472
F3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
\11\ See 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012). June 13, 2012 is the
effective date for the ``marginal'' classification of the Phoenix-
Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted a SIP revision demonstrating
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area by the attainment date of June 15, 2009 (``Eight-
Hour Ozone Attainment Plan''). In June 2012, EPA approved the Eight-
Hour Ozone Attainment Plan.\12\ On March 23, 2009, ADEQ submitted the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 77 FR 21690 (April 11, 2012) and 77 FR 35285 (June 13,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Phoenix metropolitan area was originally designated
as nonattainment for the photochemical oxidant, later 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but was later redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS prior to the revocation of that standard. With respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA designated a larger geographic area, the
Phoenix-Mesa area, as nonattainment, later classified as ``marginal,''
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. ADEQ's request to redesignate the
Phoenix Mesa area as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the
subject of today's proposed action. Lastly, EPA has also designated the
Phoenix Mesa area as ``marginal'' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Today's proposed action does not affect the designation of the
Phoenix-Mesa area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
Section 110(l) of the Act requires States to provide reasonable
notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Appendix
B, Exhibit 1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan documents the
public review process followed by MAG in adopting the plan prior to
transmittal to ADEQ for subsequent submittal to EPA as a revision to
the Arizona SIP. The documentation in Exhibit 1 also provides evidence
that reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided to the public
and that a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption.
Specifically, notice of the availability of, and opening of a 30-
day comment period on, the public-draft Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan was published on December 23, 2008, in a newspaper of general
circulation within the Phoenix area. The public hearing was held on
January 22, 2009. One individual commented on the draft maintenance
plan during the public hearing. No written comments were received
during the public comment period. MAG provided responses to comments in
Exhibit 1 of Appendix B.
On February 25, 2009, the MAG Regional Council adopted the Eight-
Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, as certified in Appendix B, Exhibit 2 of
the plan. Following adoption, MAG provided the maintenance plan to
ADEQ, and ADEQ adopted the plan and submitted it to EPA for approval on
March 23, 2009.
Based on the documentation provided in Appendix B, we find that the
submittal of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision
satisfies the procedural requirements of section 110(l) of the Act.
IV. Substantive Requirements for Redesignation
The CAA establishes the requirements for redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)
allows for redesignation provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area
under 110(k); (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA
175A; and (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Section
110 identifies a comprehensive list of elements that SIPs must include,
and part D establishes the SIP requirements for nonattainment areas.
Part D is divided into six subparts. The generally-applicable
nonattainment SIP requirements are found in part D, subpart 1, and the
ozone-specific SIP requirements are found in part D, subpart 2.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in a document entitled
``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation
of
[[Page 16737]]
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'', published in the
Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented on
April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein as the ``General
Preamble''). Additional guidance was issued in a September 4, 1992
memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (referred to herein as the ``Calcagni memo''). Maintenance
plan submittals are SIP revisions, and as such, EPA is obligated, under
CAA section 110(k), to approve them or disapprove them depending upon
whether they meet the applicable CAA requirements for such plans.
For reasons set forth below in section V of this document, we
propose to approve ADEQ's request for redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on our conclusion that all the criteria under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied.
V. Evaluation of the State's Redesignation Request for the Phoenix-Mesa
Ozone Nonattainment Area
A. Determination That the Area Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that we determine that the
area has attained the NAAQS. EPA generally makes the determination of
whether an area's air quality meets the ozone NAAQS based upon the most
recent three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at
established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitors operated by state or local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS.
Heads of monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies
primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of
areas.\13\ All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality
status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 40 CFR 50.10; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I; 40 CFR part
53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D, and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 ozone standard is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average
of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.\14\ This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix I) at each monitoring site within the area, the
area is meeting the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement is met
with the 3-year average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring
data is at least 90 percent of the days during the designated ozone
monitoring season, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three state or local agencies are responsible for monitoring
ambient air quality data in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area: The
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), the Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (PCAQCD), and ADEQ. These agencies submit
monitoring network plan reports to EPA on an annual basis. These
reports discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required
under 40 CFR part 58. Beginning in 2007, EPA has reviewed these annual
plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40
CFR 58.10. With respect to ozone, we have found that MCAQD's, PCAQCD's,
and ADEQ's annual network plans meet the applicable reporting
requirements under 40 CFR part 58.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See EPA letters to MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ concerning
annual network plan reports, which are included in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA conducts periodic technical system audits of the state and
local ambient air monitoring networks, and has done so for ADEQ, MCAQD,
and PCAQCD. For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed the
findings in EPA's technical system audits of the networks operated by
the three relevant agencies and notes that none of the findings in
these reports cast doubt on the reliability of the ozone data collected
at the various monitoring sites in these networks.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the most recent technical system audits (TSAs), see
EPA's report on the Agency's September 2008 audit of MCAQCD's
network, EPA's final TSA report for ADEQ's network dated January
2013, and EPA's final TSA report for PCAQCD's network dated June
2013, which are included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the relevant time period, the ozone monitoring network in
the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area comprised 20 ozone monitors: MCAQD
operated 18 monitors,\17\ ADEQ operated one monitor, and PCAQCD
operated one monitor. Please see Figure 2-1 in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan for a map showing the locations of the monitors
constituting the State and local agency regional ozone monitoring
network. Based on population and ambient ozone, EPA regulations
required only three ozone monitoring sites in the Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) during the 2010-2012 period. Thus,
the ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area
exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of monitoring sites
designated as SLAMS for that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Mesa ozone monitor, operated by MCAQD, began operation
on November 1, 2012 and therefore only gathered data for two months
during the 2010-2012 design value period. As a result, this monitor
is not appropriate to consider in determining whether the area has
attained the 1997 ozone standard. In the future, as complete data
become available, the monitor will be eligible for use in
determining continued attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ annually certify that the data they submit
to AQS are complete and quality-assured.\18\ All 20 sites monitored
ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using Federal Equivalent
Method (FEM) analyzers. The spatial scale and site type (monitoring
objective type) of most of the ozone monitoring sites in the
nonattainment area are ``neighborhood'' and ``population exposure,''
respectively. The Blue Point, Cave Creek, Pinnacle Peak, and Rio Verde
sites are classified as ``urban'' scale with site types of ``maximum
ozone concentrations,'' while the Humboldt Mountain site is classified
as ``regional scale'' with a site type of ``maximum ozone
concentrations.'' The Fountain Hills and JLG Supersite sites are also
sited to measure ``maximum ozone concentrations'' but are located at
the ``neighborhood'' scale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For the most recent data certification submittals, see
MCAQCD, PCAQCD, and ADEQ letters concerning data certification for
2010, 2011, and 2012, which are included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
\19\ The sources of information for this paragraph include
ADEQ's ``State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year
2013,'' dated October 29, 2013; MCAQD's ``2012 Air Monitoring
Network Review,'' undated; and PCAQCD's ``2013 Ambient Monitoring
Network Plan and 2012 Data Summary,'' dated July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the SLAMS ozone network maintained by MCAQD, PCAQCD,
and ADEQ, there are five tribal monitors located within the
nonattainment area. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Salt
River) operates four ozone monitors and the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation (Fort McDowell) operates one monitor on
[[Page 16738]]
tribal lands located in the eastern portion of the nonattainment area.
The ozone monitoring data from Fort McDowell is characterized as
``informational'' and therefore not suitable for comparison against the
1997 ozone standard. Conversely, the Salt River ozone monitors have the
basic monitoring objective of ``NAAQS comparison'' and the data should
be considered ``regulatory'' and appropriate for use when determining
if the nonattainment area is attaining the 1997 ozone standard.
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the ozone ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS
for the monitoring period from 2010 through 2012 collected at the
monitoring sites discussed above and found that the data meet our
completeness criteria (see table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Pinnacle Peak site was temporarily shut down on
November 16, 2011 and relocated to a nearby location on July 1,
2012. See Letter from Ben Davis, Air Monitoring Manager, MCAQD, to
Michael Flagg, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9, dated
January 31, 2012.
Table 1--Summary of Ambient Data for Ozone Collected Within Phoenix-Mesa Ozone Nonattainment Area, 2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010-2012 Design
Site Site ID Agency Parameter value (DV) and %
complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Junction.................. 04-013-3001 PCAQCD.......... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 98
Blue Point....................... 04-013-9702 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.075
................ % complete............ 99
Buckeye.......................... 04-013-4011 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.066
................ % complete............ 100
Cave Creek....................... 04-013-4008 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.077
................ % complete............ 100
Central Phoenix.................. 04-013-3002 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 100
Dysart........................... 04-013-4010 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.071
................ % complete............ 100
Falcon Field..................... 04-013-1010 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.069
................ % complete............ 99
Fountain Hills................... 04-013-9704 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.076
................ % complete............ 99
Glendale......................... 04-013-2001 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.076
................ % complete............ 100
High School...................... 04-013-7024 SRPMIC.......... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 99
Humboldt Mountain................ 04-013-9508 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.075
................ % complete............ 100
JLG Supersite.................... 04-013-9997 ADEQ............ DV (ppm).............. 0.076
................ % complete............ 98
Lehi............................. 04-013-7022 SRPMIC.......... DV (ppm).............. 0.073
................ % complete............ 98
North Phoenix.................... 04-013-1004 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.081
................ % complete............ 100
Pinnacle Peak.................... 04-013-2005 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.077
................ % complete............ \20\ 78
Red Mountain..................... 04-013-7021 SRPMIC.......... DV (ppm).............. 0.077
................ % complete............ 93
Rio Verde........................ 04-013-9706 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 98
Senior Center.................... 04-013-7020 SRPMIC.......... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 95
South Phoenix.................... 04-013-4003 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.076
................ % complete............ 98
South Scottsdale................. 04-013-3003 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.077
................ % complete............ 100
Tempe............................ 04-013-4005 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.070
................ % complete............ 99
West Chandler.................... 04-013-4004 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.074
................ % complete............ 100
West Phoenix..................... 04-013-0019 MCAQD........... DV (ppm).............. 0.078
................ % complete............ 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 summarizes the site-specific 3-year ozone design values for
all monitoring sites within the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for the
period of 2010-2012. As shown in table 1, the design value for the
2010-2012 period was less than 0.084 ppm at all of the monitors in the
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area. Therefore, we are proposing to
determine, based on complete quality-assured data for the 2010-2012
period, that the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. Preliminary data for 2013 are also
consistent with continued
[[Page 16739]]
attainment.\21\ Given the timing of this proposed action after the end
of 2013 but before the monitoring agencies must enter data collected
during the final quarter of the 2013 into AQS, we will be updating this
determination based on design values calculated for 2011-2013, and
preliminary review of available 2014 data, for the purposes of the
final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See the AQS Preliminary Design Value Report for 2013 dated
March 6, 2014, included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require EPA to determine that the
area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that
meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the
purposes of redesignation.
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the general elements that a SIP must
contain in order to be fully approved. EPA has analyzed the Arizona SIP
and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of section
110(a)(2). The Phoenix-Mesa portion of the approved Arizona SIP, which
includes rules pertaining to areas and sources under the jurisdiction
of ADEQ, MCAQD, and PCAQCD, contains enforceable emission limitations;
requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing of ambient air quality
data; requires preconstruction review of new or modified stationary
sources; provides adequate funding, staff, and associated resources
necessary to implement its requirements; and provides the necessary
assurances that the State of Arizona maintains responsibility for
ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP where the State is relying
on local or regional governments or agencies for implementation of the
SIP.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect
to the applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state (transport SIP). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in
that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP requirements, where applicable, continue
to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for
the purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements that are not connected with nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are
not applicable requirements for the purposes of redesignation. The
State will still be subject to these requirements after the Phoenix-
Mesa nonattainment area is redesignated.
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174 dated October 10, 1996 and 62 FR
24816 dated May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458 dated May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748 dated December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion of this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR
37879 at 37890 dated June 19, 2000), in the Pittsburgh redesignation
(66 FR 53094 dated October 19, 2001), and in the South Coast
redesignation (72 FR 6986 dated February 14, 2007 and 72 FR 26718
dated May 11, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On numerous occasions, we have approved Arizona submittals
addressing the basic CAA section 110 provisions. There are no
outstanding or disapproved applicable SIP submittals with respect to
the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the SIP that prevent redesignation of the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\23\
Therefore, we propose to find that Arizona has met all SIP requirements
for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone area applicable for the purposes of
redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398) EPA issued a partial
approval and partial disapproval of Arizona's ``infrastructure'' SIP
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While this final rule was not a
full approval, it does not represent an obstacle to redesignation of
the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 ozone nonattainment area because the
infrastructure elements effective in the Phoenix-Mesa area that EPA
disapproved (i.e., certain PSD program elements, composition of air
quality hearing boards) are not related to the nonattainment SIP
requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area and thus
are not relevant for the purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subparts 1 and 2, that
address planning and emission control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. Both of these subparts are found in title I, part
D of the CAA; sections 171-179 and sections 181-185, respectively.
Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for all
nonattainment areas of any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2.
The applicable subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9) and 176 of the CAA. Under subpart 1, with respect to the
Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the state of Arizona is
required to submit SIP revisions that provide for:
Implementation of all reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including, at a minimum, reasonable available control
technology for existing sources and attainment of the standard (section
172(c)(1));
Reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2));
A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
the area (section 172(c)(3));
Identification and quantification of the emissions, if
any, of any such pollutant which will be allowed in accordance with
section 173(a)(1)(B) (i.e., new or modified stationary sources located
in established economic development zones) (section 172(c)(4));
Permits for the construction of new and modified major
stationary sources in the nonattainment area (section
172(c)(5))(herein, referred to as ``nonattainment NSR'' or ``NSR'');
Enforceable emission limitations as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by
the applicable attainment date (section 172(c)(6));
Compliance with section 110(a)(2) of the Act (section
172(c)(7));
Use of equivalent modeling emission inventory, and
planning procedures if approved by EPA (section 172(c)(8));
Contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)); and
Interagency consultation and enforceability for the
purposes of transportation conformity (section 176(c)(4) and 40 CFR
51.390).
On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35285), EPA approved the Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area based on the
determination that it met all applicable requirements for such plans
under subpart 1 of part D, title 1 of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, we approved the following SIP elements:
The RACM demonstration and attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.912(d), and 40
CFR 51.908;
The RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.910;
The 2002 base year emission inventory as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.915; and
The contingency measures for failure to make RFP or to
attain as
[[Page 16740]]
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(9).
In addition, we note that the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
relied on enforceable emission limitations necessary to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in compliance with
section 172(c)(6) and the plan was adopted and submitted in compliance
with section 110(a)(2) as required under section 172(c)(7).
Furthermore, the State of Arizona did not rely on sections 172(c)(4)
(i.e., identification and quantification of certain emission increases)
or 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques) in connection with the Eight-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan. The approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
did not address the following SIP elements: (1) NSR permit requirements
in the nonattainment area (section 172(c)(5)) and (2) transportation
conformity provisions related to interagency consultation and
enforceability (section 176(c)(4) and 40 CFR 51.390). We address these
two remaining part D SIP elements later in this subsection.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The requirements for SIP revisions to demonstrate RACM,
RFP, attainment, and contingencies (for failure to meet RFP or
attainment) in subpart 1 are not applicable for the purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request. Such requirements are directed
at ensuring attainment by the applicable attainment date, and since,
as discussed in section V.A., the area is showing attainment, the
requirements have no meaning at this point. See the General
Preamble, 74 FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area was initially
designated nonattainment under subpart 1 of the CAA, but was
subsequently classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard under subpart 2 of the CAA (77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012).
The effective date of the classification of the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area as marginal was June 13, 2012, and under our subpart
2 classifications rule, states had one year from the effective date of
that final rule (i.e., until June 13, 2013) to submit SIP revisions.
ADEQ has not submitted any SIP revisions for the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area in response to the area's classification to
marginal.\25\ However, EPA believes that this does not preclude this
redesignation from being approved, based on (1) EPA's longstanding
policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements
due at the time the redesignation request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of retroactively applying any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In any event, the State of Arizona is not required to
submit further SIP revisions to satisfy additional requirements
under section 182(a)(2)(A) to correct RACT rules for the Phoenix-
Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area because we already determined
that the State had met the VOC RACT requirements under section
182(a)(2)(A). See our proposed rule (70 FR 13425, at 13435, March
21, 2005) and final rule (70 FR 34362, at 34363, June 14, 2005)
redesignating the Phoenix metropolitan area as attainment for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. We also note that the State of Arizona previously
submitted, and EPA approved, an ``enhanced'' vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program that exceeds the requirements of section
182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area, if those
requirements were applicable for the purposes of redesignation. See
69 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). Lastly, the State of Arizona
previously submitted, and EPA approved Maricopa County's emissions
statement rule and thereby has complied with section 182(a)(3)(B),
if that requirement were applicable for the purposes of
redesignation for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 7038
(February 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 170(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation
to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came
due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request.\26\ At
the time the redesignation request was submitted (i.e., March 23,
2009), the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area was not classified under
subpart 2, and thus, subpart 2 requirements were not yet due for this
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See the Calcagni memo; see also Memorandum entitled ``State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests
for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,'' from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation dated September 17, 1993;
Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan, 60 FR 12459 (March 7,
1995); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), upholding
this interpretation; and Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, 68 FR
25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemakings. See Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F.3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the court upheld a district court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
court stated, ``[a]lthough EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the states, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly
here, it would be unfair to penalize the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment
area by applying to it, for purposes of redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect or yet due at the
time it submitted its redesignation request, or the time that the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
In the following subsection, we address the following SIP elements:
(1) NSR permit requirements in the nonattainment area (section
172(c)(5)) and (2) transportation conformity provisions related to
interagency consultation and enforceability (section 176(c)(4) and 40
CFR 51.390).
b. Permits for New and Modified Major Sources
To meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5), states must
submit SIP revisions that meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.165
(``Permit requirements''), and EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.914, which
extend the SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 to areas designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Under 40 CFR 51.165, states are required to submit SIP revisions
that establish certain requirements for new or modified stationary
sources in nonattainment areas, including provisions to ensure that
major new sources or major modifications of existing sources of
nonattainment pollutants incorporate the highest level of control,
referred to as the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), and that
increases in emissions from such stationary sources are offset so as to
provide for reasonable further progress towards attainment.
The process for reviewing permit applications and issuing permits
for new or modified stationary sources of air pollution is referred to
as new source review. With respect to new major sources or major
modifications at existing major sources of nonattainment pollutants in
nonattainment areas, this process is referred to as nonattainment NSR
or simply NSR. With respect to new major sources or major modifications
at existing major sources of pollutants for which as area is designated
attainment or unclassifiable, states are required to submit SIP
revisions that ensure that major new stationary sources and major
modifications of existing stationary sources meet the federal
requirements for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD),
including
[[Page 16741]]
application of the best available control technology (BACT) for each
applicable pollutant emitted in significant amounts, among other
requirements.
In the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area, EPA, MCAQD, PCAQCD, and
ADEQ share responsibility for issuing permits. EPA has the
responsibility for permit application review and permit issuance for
new or modified stationary sources in Indian country of the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community,
and the Tohono O'odham Nation. MCAQD and PCAQCD are responsible for
permitting for most stationary sources located within their respective
counties and to portable sources that operate solely within the
boundaries of the counties. ADEQ has jurisdiction over refineries,
copper smelters, coal-fired power plants, Portland cement plants
throughout the State and over sources that operate in multiple counties
or outside the boundaries of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties.
EPA has promulgated nonattainment NSR rules at 40 CFR 49.166
through 49.175 that establish the necessary permitting requirements for
new or modified major stationary sources in the areas of Indian country
located within the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. With respect to
PCAQCD, the existing Arizona SIP does not include rules that meet
nonattainment NSR requirements for Pinal County; however, because the
Pinal County portion of the nonattainment area was newly designated as
nonattainment for ozone in 2004, i.e., had not previously been part of
the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, EPA's
regulations in appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 apply until such time as
nonattainment NSR rules meeting the applicable requirements are
approved by EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. See 40 CFR 52.24(k).
EPA has not approved nonattainment NSR rules for ADEQ and MCAQD
since the 1980s, and the existing SIP-approved NSR rules do not comply
with all of the current SIP NSR requirements under the CAA, as amended
in 1990, and under 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone nonattainment areas.
However, the existing SIP-approved NSR rules for both ADEQ and MCAQD
meet the basic requirements of a nonattainment NSR program, including
the definition of ``major stationary source'' as any stationary source
in a nonattainment area with a potential to emit 100 tons per year or
more, emissions limitations that constitute LAER, and emissions
reductions to offset emissions increases that would otherwise occur.
See Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) section R9-3-101
(``Definitions'') and section R9-3-302 (``Installation permits for
sources in nonattainment areas''); and Maricopa County Rule 21.0
(``Procedures for Obtaining an Installation Permit''). Also, because
the SIP-approved NSR rules apply ``in any nonattainment area for the
pollutant(s) for which the source is classified as a major source,''
AAC R9-3-302(A), the requirements apply throughout the Phoenix-Mesa
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, except for Indian country and for
sources subject to Pinal County jurisdiction, as discussed above.
Moreover, ADEQ's and MCAQD's SIP-approved NSR rules have served as
a federally-enforceable constraint on the growth of stationary source
emissions, and thus have supported the region's efforts to lower
ambient ozone concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa area. Those efforts
have resulted in attainment of the standard since 2007 (see table 2,
below) and thus we find that ADEQ's and MCAQD's SIP-approved NSR rules
are likely to continue to support continued attainment of the standard
during the maintenance phase after redesignation.
Therefore, given that a portion of the nonattainment area is
subject to federal rules implementing the nonattainment NSR
requirements (Indian country and the Pinal County portion of the
nonattainment area) and given that the fundamental nonattainment NSR
requirements are approved into the SIP for the other portions of the
nonattainment area, we conclude that the State has met the applicable
NSR requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa eight-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the purposes of redesignation of the area for the 1997 eight-
hour ozone standard.
c. Conformity Requirements
Under section 176(c) of the 1990 CAA Amendments, States are
required to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-
supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that state
conformity provisions must be consistent with federal conformity
regulations that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA's conformity
regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part 93, subparts A (referred to
herein as transportation conformity) and B (referred herein as general
conformity). Transportation conformity applies to transportation plans,
program, and projects developed, funded, and approved under title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. General Conformity applies to all
other federally-supported or funded projects. SIP revisions intended to
address conformity requirements are referred to herein as conformity
SIPs.
The State of Arizona has adopted general conformity procedures,
approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (65 FR 19916).\27\ The State-adopted
transportation conformity procedures, found at Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS), Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14, have not yet been approved by
EPA. EPA, however, believes it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity SIP requirements as not applying for the purposes of a
redesignation request under section 107(d)(3)(E) because state
conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), which eliminated the requirement for States to adopt
and submit conformity SIPs addressing general conformity
requirements. See 75 FR 17254 (April 5, 2010) for conforming changes
to EPA's general conformity regulations.
\28\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001)
upholding this interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Area Must Show the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
Section 107(d)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment unless EPA determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from the implementation of the applicable SIP, applicable
federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable regulations. Under this criterion, the State must be able
to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to emissions
reductions that are permanent and enforceable. Attainment resulting
from temporary reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production
or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually
favorable meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
In our proposed (70 FR 13425, March 21, 2005) and final (70 FR
34362, June 14, 2005) redesignation rules for the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment area, we described the numerous stationary
source and mobile source control measures that were approved as part of
the Arizona SIP and that, together with certain federal measures, had
provided for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard through permanent
and enforceable emissions
[[Page 16742]]
reductions. See, e.g., the table of VOC RACT rules on page 13433 of our
proposed 1-hour ozone redesignation rule at 13425. Significant mobile
source control measures that contributed to attainment and provide for
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard included low volatility
cleaner burning gasoline, the federal motor vehicle and nonroad control
programs, and implementation of an enhanced vehicle emissions
inspection (VEI) program. See 70 FR 13425 at page 13430.
The State of Arizona has relied on these same permanent and
enforceable measures to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard but added
an additional stationary source rule to the control strategy, Maricopa
County rule 358 (``Polystyrene Foam Operations''), which EPA approved
at 70 FR 30370 (May 26, 2005). In the approved Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan, MAG quantified the emissions reduction from certain
specific State and local measures, including VEI enhancements, local
transportation improvements, summer gasoline formulation, and a rule
governing polystyrene foam operation, as totaling 6.0 mtpd of VOC in
2008 (a 2.4 percent reduction compared to the 2002 base case) and 13.4
mtpd of NOX (a 4.6 percent reduction compared to the 2002
base case). These reductions have contributed to the overall reduction
in emissions that have provided for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan relies on monitoring data
(see figure 2-2 in the plan) showing a general downward trend in 8-hour
ozone concentrations in the Phoenix-Mesa area from 2000 through 2008
despite increases of more than 15 percent in population, employment and
vehicle travel, as evidence that the improvement in air quality can
reasonably be attributed to the permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions from the measures described above.
In addition, we reviewed temperature data for Phoenix over this
time period to determine if unusual meteorological conditions could
have played a significant role in attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area. However, we did not observe any
anomaly over this period relative to long-term averages.\29\ The period
from 2002 to 2008 did not show a trend in declining air temperatures
that would suggest that the observed trend in ozone concentrations was
a result of favorable meteorology. We do recognize that a significant
economic slowdown occurred nationally starting in 2008, and that the
Phoenix-Mesa area was affected, but we note that the downward trend in
ozone concentrations had already been established well before that
time.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality Analysis Office,
Air Division, EPA Region IX, entitled ``Meteorological Trend
Analysis for Phoenix-Mesa Area,'' dated November 22, 2013, included
in the docket for this rulemaking.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence discussed above, EPA finds that the
improvement in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area is
the result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions from
implementation of a combination of control measures. As such, we
propose to find that the criterion for redesignation set forth at CAA
section 107(d)(e)(E)(iii) is satisfied.
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under CAA
Section 175A
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
We interpret this section of the Act to require, in general, the
following core elements: Attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued
attainment, and contingency plan. See Calcagni memo, pages 8 through
13.
Under CAA section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years
after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan that
demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-year period
following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain such contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. Based on our review and evaluation of the
plan, as detailed below, we are proposing to approve the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan because we believe that it meets the
requirements of CAA section 175A.
1. Attainment Inventories and Projected Future Inventories
A maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard must include
an inventory of emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and NOX)
in the area in order to identify a level of emissions that are
sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This inventory must
be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories
for nonattainment areas available at the time of plan submittal and
should represent emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment. The inventory must also be
comprehensive, including emissions from stationary point sources, area
sources, nonroad mobile sources, and on-road motor vehicle sources, and
must be based on actual ``ozone season data,'' i.e., summertime
emissions.
MAG selected year 2005 as the year for the attainment inventory in
the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. As shown in table 2, the area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the end of 2007 based on
monitoring data collected over the course of the previous three-year
period (2005-2007) during which the calculated design value was less
than the standard. The attainment inventory will generally be the
actual inventory during the time period the area attained the standard,
and year 2005 was one of the years from the three-year period for which
the area first attained the standard. Thus, MAG's selection of 2005 for
the attainment inventory is acceptable.
Table 2--Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values in the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value * (parts per million)
Site Agency -----------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Junction................................ PCAQCD......................... 0.076 0.080 0.075 0.073 0.072 0.074
Blue Point..................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.067 0.064 0.067 0.070 0.072 0.075
Buckeye........................................ MCAQD.......................... 0.065 0.066 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066
Cave Creek..................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.079 0.078 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.077
[[Page 16743]]
Central Phoenix................................ MCAQD.......................... 0.075 0.074 0.070 0.071 0.071 0.074
Dysart......................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.071
Falcon Field................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.076 0.075 0.071 0.070 0.068 0.069
Fountain Hills................................. MCAQD.......................... 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.076
Glendale....................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.075 0.074 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076
High School.................................... SRPMIC......................... ** 0.077 ** 0.076 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.074
Humboldt Mountain.............................. MCAQD.......................... 0.081 0.078 0.074 0.071 0.071 0.075
JLG Supersite.................................. ADEQ........................... 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.076
Lehi........................................... SRPMIC......................... ** 0.079 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 0.073
North Phoenix.................................. MCAQD.......................... 0.082 0.081 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.081
Pinnacle Peak.................................. MCAQD.......................... 0.078 0.074 0.072 0.073 0.074 0.077
Red Mountain................................... SRPMIC......................... 0.083 0.080 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.077
Rio Verde...................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.083 0.080 0.075 0.072 0.073 0.074
Senior Center.................................. SRPMIC......................... 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.074
South Phoenix.................................. MCAQD.......................... 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.076
South Scottsdale............................... MCAQD.......................... 0.078 0.077 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.077
Tempe.......................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.077 0.077 0.073 0.071 0.068 0.070
West Chandler.................................. MCAQD.......................... 0.076 0.076 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.074
West Phoenix................................... MCAQD.......................... 0.074 0.078 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.078
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The design value is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration.
** Design values do not meet the completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.
The attainment year emission inventory for 2005 in the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan is generally consistent with the 2005 Periodic
Emission Inventory (PEI) emissions estimates for Maricopa County and
the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. The PEI was calculated in terms of
annual emissions and ozone season-day emissions.
Emissions from point sources were estimated from each identified
facility through permit system databases and annual emissions reports
submitted to the facility's permitting authority. Emissions from area
sources were estimated by source category using information from permit
databases and previous SIP inventories. MAG estimated nonroad mobile
source emissions using EPA's NONROAD2005 model, and estimated on-road
motor vehicle source emissions using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model. On-road
vehicle emissions estimates reflect estimates of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) using data from U.S. Department of Transportation's 2005 Highway
Performance and Monitoring System. Biogenic emissions of NOX
and VOC were calculated using the Model of Emissions of Gases and
Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) with input including emissions rates
developed from measurements made of the dominant plant species in
Maricopa County, locations and biomass densities of the dominant plant
species, and surface temperature data. See 2005 Periodic Emissions
Inventory for ozone precursors in volume 1 of the appendices to the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
For the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, MAG adjusted and
supplemented the 2005 PEI ozone precursor emissions estimates developed
using the methods described above to develop emissions estimates for an
area referred to as the inner modeling domain (``modeling domain''), a
rectangular area encompassing all of the nonattainment area and largely
defined by the boundaries of the irregularly-shaped nonattainment area.
See figure II-1 of MAG's technical support document (TSD) for the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for an illustration of the modeling
domain. The modeling domain defines the area for which MAG modeled
ozone concentrations.
MAG developed modeling-domain emissions estimates for 2005 for the
June, July, and August episodes that were modeled for the approved
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. See table 3 below for a summary of
modeling domain emissions estimates by source category for year 2005
for the June modeling episode. The 2005 attainment year inventory
includes credit for committed control measures that were in place
during the summer of 2005. See table 3-5 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
[[Page 16744]]
Table 3--2005 and Projected 2019 and 2025 VOC and NOX Emissions for the Phoenix-Mesa Modeling Domain for June Ozone Episode
[Metric tons per day] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
Source category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2019 2025 2005 2019 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 10.9 58.6 59.1 11.1 16.7 18.7
Area.................................................... 19.6 27.7 31.1 79.2 111.4 124.8
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 77.7 43.9 37.9 40.3 48.7 31.8
On-road Motor Vehicles.................................. 154.3 125.8 109.8 72.1 30.9 47.9
Biogenics............................................... 8.6 8.6 8.6 451.3 451.3 451.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 271.1 264.4 246.4 653.9 659.0 674.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions reflect a specific day of the week (Thursday) during the June ozone episode.
Sources: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan at tables 3-6 and 3-7; table 1 of the Maintenance Plan Supplement.
As shown in table 3, in the 2005 attainment year inventory for the
modeling domain, biogenic sources contributed approximately 70 percent
to total VOC emissions. In contrast, on-road motor vehicles dominated
the total NOX emissions and accounted for 60 percent of
total NOX.
In addition to 2005 values, table 3 above also summarizes MAG's VOC
and NOX emissions estimates for an interim year (2019) and
the maintenance plan's horizon year (2025). The projected emission
inventories for 2019 and 2025 were based on the use of growth factors,
on-going emissions control programs, and retirement rates for obsolete
sources. The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan includes MAG's 2025
emissions estimates and related documentation, while MAG's 2019
interim-year emissions estimates and documentation are found in a
separate MAG document, entitled ``Analysis of the Interim Year 2019 as
a Supplement to the 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area,'' dated June 17,
2013 (``Maintenance Plan Supplement'').
MAG used growth factors to project emissions in 2019 and 2025 for
point and area sources based on population and employment projections
approved by the MAG Regional Council in May 2007. MAG included
population and employment growth projections for 2016 and 2021 in the
Maintenance Plan Supplement and projected emissions for 2019 from
interpolation of the projected emissions for 2016 and 2021. MAG used a
compound annual growth rate for population of 2.6 percent between 2005
and 2016. The actual compound annual growth rate between 2005 and 2011,
based on the 2005 Special Census for Maricopa County and the 2010
Census, was 0.8 percent. Because the population of Maricopa County grew
more slowly than projected, MAG expects the emission inventories
related to the socioeconomic projections for the interim and horizon
years to be conservatively overestimated.
MAG used different growth factors for different source types within
each source category (e.g., specific stationary point sources excluding
power plants, specific categories of area sources such as dry
cleaners). For nonroad mobile sources, MAG derived growth factors from
the EPA NONROAD2005 model defaults for Maricopa County. The growth
factors are listed in Appendix IV-vii to Appendix A, Exhibit 2 of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and generally range from 1 to 1.8.
For power plants, MAG estimated future emissions based on the
facility's potential to emit (PTE), i.e., the maximum levels allowed
under existing permits. MAG estimated on-road motor vehicle emissions
based on the same population and employment projections used to
estimate point and area sources, but increased on-road source emissions
of VOC and NOX by 10 percent to provide safety margins for
the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
For biogenic emissions, the 2005 inventory was held constant for
2019 and 2025. In the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG
similarly held biogenic emissions constant, compared to the 2002 base
year inventory, when demonstrating attainment with the standard by 2008
(see tables 5-3 and 5-4 in the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan). In
additional information provided to EPA during our review of the Eight-
Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG explained that no projected land use or
land cover data was available for the 2008 attainment year, therefore
biogenic emissions in the ozone modeling domain were held constant. As
discussed in greater detail in our proposed rulemaking to approve the
Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, MAG expected that the trend of
increasing urbanization in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area would be
expected to decrease biogenic VOC emissions in Maricopa County. Because
MAG did not have 2008 land use data available, it determined that
maintaining constant biogenic emissions of the ozone precursors would
be more conservative than attempting to estimate the anticipated
decrease in biogenic VOC emissions. See 77 FR 21690 at 21694 (April 11,
2012). This rationale similarly applies to the use of a constant
biogenic emissions value for each ozone episode in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan builds upon the control
strategy developed for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
standard and the control strategy developed for attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. The plan specifically cites and quantifies the
emissions reductions from seven control measures for maintenance
demonstration purposes in the Phoenix-Mesa area through year 2025.
These measures include one federal control measure, a measure referred
to as ``Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission Standards,'' and six State
or local control measures. All of these measures have been approved
into the Arizona SIP, or, in the case of the federal nonroad equipment
emission standards, have been promulgated by EPA as regulations
published in the CFR:
Summer fuel reformulation, approved as part of Arizona's
cleaner burning gasoline regulations at 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 2004);
Phased-In emission test cutpoints and one-time waiver from
vehicle emissions test, approved as part of the Arizona vehicle
emissions inspection and maintenance program at 69 FR 2912 (January 22,
2003);
[[Page 16745]]
Tougher enforcement of vehicle registration and emission
test compliance, as set forth in ARS 49-552 (``Enforcement on city,
town, county, school district or special district property''), approved
at 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005); and 49-541.01 (paragraphs D and E) \31\
(``Vehicle emissions inspection program; constant four wheel drive
vehicles; requirements; location; violation; classification; penalties;
new program termination''), approved at 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ These provisions are now codified in ARS 49-550
(``Violation; Classification; Civil Penalty'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal (tier 4) nonroad equipment emissions standards,
promulgated in 40 CFR part 1039 at 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004);
Expansion of Area A boundaries, as set forth in ARS 49-541
(``Definitions''), approved at 78 FR 30209 (May 22, 2013); and
Ban open burning during the ozone season, as set forth in
ARS 49-501 (``Unlawful open burning; exceptions; fine; definition''),
approved in a final rule signed by the EPA Region IX Regional
Administrator on December 16, 2013 (not yet published in the Federal
Register).
Table 4 shows the projected emission reductions developed by MAG
from the seven maintenance measures during the June ozone episode. Of
the seven maintenance measures in the Phoenix-Mesa Maintenance Plan,
the federal nonroad equipment emission standards represents the largest
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from an individual
maintenance measure.
Table 4--2025 Emission Reductions From Individual Maintenance Measures in the Phoenix-Mesa 8-Hour Ozone Modeling
Domain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance measure Percent reduction Percent reduction
Reduction (metric in anthropogenic Reduction (metric in anthropogenic
tons per day) emissions tons per day) emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Fuel Reformulation 1.3 0.5 0.4 (increase) 0.1 (increase).
Phased-In Emission Test Cutpoints < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1.
One-Time Waiver from Vehicle 0.2 < 0.1 0.3 0.1.
Emissions Test
Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1.
Registration and Emission Test
Compliance
Federal Nonroad Equipment Emission 19.3 7.9 47.2 16.5.
Standards
Expansion of Area A Boundary 0.2 < 0.1 0.4 0.1.
Ban Open Burning During Ozone Season < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, table 3-2.
As shown in table 3, NOX emissions from point sources is
projected to increase dramatically between 2005 and the interim and
horizon years of 2019 and 2025, primarily due to MAG's conservative
assumption that power plants in the future would operate at their PTE.
Emissions of NOX from area sources are also estimated to be
higher in the interim and horizon years. MAG projected that emissions
from nonroad sources would decrease due to the implementation of
federal emission standards for nonroad equipment (see Table 4).
Emissions of NOX from on-road motor vehicles are also
projected to decrease notwithstanding the 10% increase added to the
2025 motor vehicle emissions estimates (to provide for a safety margin
for transportation conformity purposes), due to the continuing benefit
of the federal motor vehicle control program and the turnover of older
model cars to newer models designed to meet more stringent EPA
emissions standards. Overall, between 2005 and 2025, MAG projected
total emissions of NOX to decrease by nearly 25 mtpd for the
June ozone episode.
As shown in table 3, MAG projected that VOC emissions from point
and area sources will increase over the 2005 to 2025 time frame.
Emissions from VOC from nonroad and on-road mobile sources are
projected to decrease between 2005 and 2025, notwithstanding the 10%
safety margin added to 2025 motor vehicle emissions estimates for the
same reasons given above for NOX. Emissions of biogenic VOC
are projected to remain constant, as discussed above. Overall, MAG
projected total emissions of VOC in 2025 to increase by approximately
20 mtpd for the June ozone episode as compared to 2005.
Based on our review of the emission inventories (and related
documentation) from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, we find that
the inventory for 2005 is comprehensive, that the methods and
assumptions used by MAG to develop the 2005 emission inventory are
reasonable, and that the inventory reasonably estimates actual ozone
season emissions in an attainment year. Moreover, we find that the 2005
emission inventory reflects the latest planning assumptions and
emission models available at the time the plan was developed, and
provide a comprehensive and reasonably accurate basis upon which to
forecast ozone precursor emissions for years 2019 and 2025.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
CAA section 175A(a) requires that the maintenance plan ``provide
for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality
standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at least 10
years after the redesignation.'' Generally, a state may demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard by either showing that future
emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment year inventory or
by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates
will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. For areas that are required
under the Act to submit modeled attainment demonstrations, the
maintenance demonstration should generally use the same type of
modeling as used for the attainment demonstration. See Calcagni memo,
page 9.
On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35286), EPA published a final approval of
the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, which demonstrated attainment of
the 1997 8-
[[Page 16746]]
hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area by June 15,
2009. Consistent with EPA's ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-
Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze'' (``EPA
Modeling Guidance''), the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan included the
following components: A conceptual description of the area's
nonattainment problem, a modeling protocol, model selection and set-up,
selection and evaluation of ozone episodes to model, meteorological and
emissions input data preparation, model performance evaluations for the
photochemical and meteorological models, the modeled attainment test,
and a weight of evidence evaluation. See Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment
Plan, chapter 3 and appendix A, exhibit 2. EPA evaluated these
components and found that they provided an adequate basis for the
attainment demonstration. See 77 FR 21690, at 21697-21699.
For the modeled 10-year maintenance test, MAG selected the same
photochemical and meteorological-input models and set-up and the same
high-ozone episodes to model as evaluated in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan. As such, we are not reassessing the modeling protocol,
choice of ozone episodes, and model performance. Here, the model was
used to predict the effect of changes in emissions due to land use
changes, growth, and the effect of control measures from a baseline
emission year of 2005 to maintenance years 2019 and 2025.\32\ The
resulting concentrations were used to evaluate the impact of emission
changes during the high-ozone episode-specific meteorological
conditions. See Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (chapter 3 and
appendix A, exhibit 2) and the Maintenance Plan Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We evaluate the emissions inventory for the baseline and
maintenance years in section V.D.1., above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA Modeling Guidance, the model is used to develop relative
response factors (RRFs) that give the model's response to emission
changes, and the RRFs are applied to monitored design value
concentrations to arrive at the predicted future concentrations. The
particulars of the calculation, and which model grid cells and modeled
days are to be included, are specified in the EPA Guidance. See EPA
Modeling Guidance, pages 15, 25, and 155. MAG assessed the 2019 and
2025 effects and found the maximum predicted ozone design value to be
0.081 parts per million (ppm) in 2019 and 0.081 ppm in 2025. All values
equal to or less than 0.084 ppm meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
thus, the modeling results predict continued maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for at least ten years beyond
redesignation (assuming redesignation of the area before 2016).
In addition to a modeled maintenance demonstration, which focuses
on locations with an air quality monitor, EPA generally requires an
unmonitored area analysis. This analysis is intended to ensure that a
control strategy leads to maintenance of the NAAQS in other locations
that have no monitor but that might have base year (and/or future year)
ambient ozone levels exceeding the NAAQS. The unmonitored area analysis
uses a combination of model output and ambient data to identify areas
that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there. In order to
examine unmonitored areas in all portions of the modeling domain, EPA
recommends use of interpolated spatial fields of ambient data combined
with gridded modeled outputs. See EPA Modeling Guidance, page 29. MAG
used the EPA developed Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) Version
2.0.1 to conduct this analysis. The maximum design values from this
analysis were 0.083 ppm in 2019 and 0.083 ppm in 2025, i.e., in
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See Maintenance Plan
Supplement.
Based on our prior approval of MAG's photochemical modeling
approach for 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration purposes and because
we find MAG's application of the same basic approach to the 8-hour
ozone maintenance demonstration to be reasonable, we accept the results
of MAG's modeling as a sufficient demonstration that the plan provides
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area
through the first ten years after redesignation to attainment.
Therefore, we propose to find that the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan meets the maintenance demonstration requirements under CAA section
175A(a).
3. Monitoring Network
Continued ambient monitoring of an area is generally required over
the maintenance period. As discussed in section V.A. of this document,
ozone is currently monitored by ADEQ, MCAQD, and PCAQCD at a total of
20 sites within the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
ADEQ and MCAQD monitors represent 19 of the 20 sites.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (see page 3-21 of the plan)
indicates that ADEQ and MCAQD will continue to operate an appropriate
air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, if
there is significant change to parameters such as population, vehicle
miles of travel, or significant sources, ADEQ and MCAQD will undertake
studies to determine if it is appropriate to re-site monitors or add
additional monitors to the network. Lastly, the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan takes note of the annual review by EPA of State and
local ambient monitoring network plans under 40 CFR part 58 as
providing a continuing means for ensuring the adequacy of the ozone
monitoring network in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
We note that PCAQCD is not cited in the subsection on an approved
monitoring network and verification of continued attainment in the
Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan, but find the failure to include PCAQCD in
the plan's discussion of continued monitoring and verification of
continued attainment to be harmless error because the applicable
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58 will continue to apply to
PCAQCD's ozone monitor regardless of our approval of the maintenance
plan and redesignation request and because the overall ozone monitoring
network operated by ADEQ and MCAQD alone (i.e., 19 of 20 NAMS and SLAMS
stations) is sufficient to meet ozone monitoring requirements in the
Phoenix-Mesa are. Therefore, for the reasons given above, EPA finds
that the Eight-Hour Maintenance Plan adequately provides for continued
ambient ozone monitoring in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
Each State should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to maintain
the NAAQS. Previously, in taking action to approve the various measures
that the State is relying on for attainment and maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, such as the cleaner burning gasoline regulations
and the vehicle emissions inspection (VEI) program, we determined that
the State has the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce
the measures and find no sunset clauses that would be triggered for
these control measures upon redesignation to attainment. We are,
however, aware of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 41-3017.01
which provides for the termination of the VEI on January 1, 2017, but
recognize that the Arizona Legislature has at various intervals in the
past
[[Page 16747]]
extended the termination date for the VEI program and expect it to do
so again before 2017. We also find that the applicable State, regional,
and county agencies, such as ADEQ, the Arizona Department of Weights
and Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT), MAG, Maricopa
County, Pinal County, and local cities and towns, have the necessary
authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any emission control
contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct ozone NAAQS
violations.
To verify continued attainment, in addition to continuing to
operate an ozone monitoring network that meets EPA ambient air quality
surveillance requirements, MCAQD will continue to update the emissions
inventory for ozone precursors in the Phoenix-Mesa area every three
years with input and assistance from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, and MAG. These
emissions inventory updates will provide a means with which to track
emissions relative to those projected in the maintenance plan, and
thereby verify the continued attainment of the NAAQS.
Lastly, the transportation conformity process, which requires a
comparison of on-road motor vehicle emissions that would occur under
new or amended transportation plans and programs with the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, represents
another means by which to verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area, given the importance of
motor vehicle emissions to the overall emissions inventories of ozone
precursors. See pages 3-14 and 3-15 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan. These methods are sufficient for the purpose of verifying
continued attainment.
5. Contingency Provisions
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any
violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Such provisions must include a requirement that the State will
implement all measures (with respect to the control of the air
pollutant concerned) that were contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.
Under section 175A(d), contingency measures identified in the
contingency plan do not have to be fully adopted at the time of
redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a
specified event. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific timeline for action by the State. As a
necessary part of the plan, the State should also identify specific
indicators or triggers that will be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be implemented.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, MAG adopted a contingency
plan to address possible future ozone air quality problems. See page 3-
21 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. The plan includes both
specific contingency measures that have already been adopted and are
being implemented early \33\ and a mechanism to trigger the adoption of
additional measures as needed. The specific contingency measures, which
are described in more detail in section IV-7-2 of MAG's TSD for the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (appendix A, exhibit 2 of the plan),
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA guidance memorandum
entitled ``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Polluter Option for I/M Program Waivers;
Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options;
Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Emissions Standards;
Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems;
Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems; and
Liquid Leaker Test as Part of Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program.
Two of the measures, ``coordinate traffic signal systems'' and
``develop intelligent transportation systems,'' are control measures
that the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan had relied upon to
demonstrate attainment of the standard. As noted above, CAA section
175A(d) requires contingency plans to include a requirement that the
State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the
air pollutant concerned that were contained in the SIP for the area
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area, i.e., if
triggered under the terms of the contingency plan. In the case of these
two specific contingency measures, we do not believe that the
contingency plan must include a specific requirement to resume their
implementation, i.e., if triggered, because the measures themselves
continue to be implemented by the relevant agencies. The Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan simply does not rely on emissions reductions
from them to demonstrate maintenance through 2025. The emissions
reductions from the other contingency measures listed above are also
not included in the projected emissions inventory, and no emission
reduction credit was taken for these measures in the modeling for the
maintenance demonstration. As noted in the maintenance plan,
implementation of these measures should provide additional assurance
that the 1997 ozone standard will be maintained through 2025.
In addition to the previously implemented contingency measures
listed above, the plan includes a commitment to examine ambient air
quality data to determine if additional contingency measures are
needed. If the three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily 8-
hour ozone concentration exceeds 84 parts per billion at any ozone
monitor, additional control measures will be considered. The plan
requires that (1) the monitoring data will be verified within three
months after the activation of the trigger; (2) control measures will
be considered for adoption six months after the date established in
(1); and (3) the resultant committed measures will be implemented
within six to twelve months, depending on the time needed to put the
measures in place.
Upon our review of the plan, as summarized above, we find that the
contingency provisions of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
identify specific contingency measures, contain tracking and triggering
mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed, and
contain specific timelines for action. Accordingly, we conclude that
the contingency provisions of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan are
adequate to ensure prompt correction of a violation and therefore
comply with section 175A(d) of the Act.
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
CAA section 175A(b) provides that States shall submit a SIP
revision eight years after redesignation that provides for maintaining
the NAAQS for an additional ten years. The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan includes MAG's commitment to prepare the revised maintenance plan
eight years after redesignation to attainment. See page 3-22 of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A) requires
[[Page 16748]]
that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs, and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards or any interim milestones.
Maintenance plan submittals must specify the emissions of
transportation-related VOC and NOX emissions allowed in the
last year of the maintenance period, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs or budgets). The MVEBs serve as a ceiling on emissions
that would result from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble
describes how to establish MVEBs in the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs
if needed.
The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels,
when considered with emissions from all other sources, are consistent
with maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for us to find these emissions
levels or ``budgets'' adequate and approvable, the submittal must meet
the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For
more information on the transportation conformity requirement and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy based on
our initial review of the submitted SIP. The process for determining
the adequacy of a submitted MVEB is codified at 40 CFR 93.118.
The availability of the SIP submission with MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web site on April 27, 2009 at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/tansconf/currsips.htm, which provided a
30-day public comment period. The comment period for this notification
ended on May 28, 2009, and EPA received no comments from the public.
Note, however, that a second mechanism is also provided for EPA review
and public comment on MVEBs, as described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). This
mechanism provides for EPA's review of the adequacy of an
implementation plan MVEB simultaneously with its review and approval or
disapproval of the submitted plan itself. In this instance, EPA used
the web notification discussed above to solicit public comments on the
adequacy of the Phoenix-Mesa MVEBs in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan, but is taking comment on the approvability of the submitted MVEBs
through this proposed rule. Any and all comments on the approvability
of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEBs should be submitted
during the comment period stated in the DATES section of this document.
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan contains new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the Phoenix-Mesa area for 2025.\34\ MAG
developed the budgets for the 2025 maintenance year by using geographic
information systems (GIS) to separate the on-road motor vehicle
emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa air quality planning area from the larger
ozone modeling domain, resulting in MVEBs of 43.8 metric tons per day
(mtpd) of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of NOX. The MVEBs include a 10%
safety margin \35\ and correspond to the peak episode day (Thursday) in
June 2025 that was used to model maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The derivation of the MVEBs is discussed in MAG's emissions
inventory, which was included in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan submittal as Appendix A, Exhibit 1 (pages 99-110), and in
Section IV-2 of MAG's TSD, which was included in the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan submittal as Appendix A, Exhibit 2.
Additional discussion of the on-road emissions budgets is included
in Section IV-9 of the TSD.
\35\ MAG increased the 2025 VOC and NOX emissions
from on-road motor vehicle sources in the eight-hour ozone modeling
domain in order to address the ``inherent uncertainties associated
with the use of the latest planning assumptions in conformity
analyses.'' MAG distributed the increase spatially ``based on the
proportion of onroad mobile emissions assigned to each four
kilometer grid cell.'' See page 3-20 of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate motor vehicle emissions for the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan and related MVEBs, MAG used the version of EPA's motor
vehicle emissions factor model (MOBILE6.2) that was current at the time
the emissions estimates were prepared. The calculated emission factors
were multiplied by the estimates of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to
generate emission estimates for on-road motor vehicle sources. The
projected emissions inventory and related MVEBs take into account
expected growth in VMT and reductions from the maintenance measures,
but do not include reductions from implementation of the contingency
measures.
The MVEBs are consistent with the 2025 on-road motor vehicle source
VOC and NOX emissions included in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan's 2025 emission inventory, as summarized above in
table 3, above. The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.124(a)) allows for a
safety margin, and even with the 10 percent safety margin added to the
on-road emissions, the overall emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa area are
consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard.
EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for 2025 as part of our
approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa
area. We have determined that the MVEB emission targets are consistent
with emission control measures in the SIP and that the Phoenix-Mesa
area can maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for ten years beyond
redesignation. The details of EPA's evaluation of the MVEBs for
compliance with the budget adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) are
provided in a separate memorandum included in the docket of this
rulemaking.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See EPA memorandum dated October 31, 2013 entitled
``Adequacy Documentation for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the
February 2009 Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan for the
Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we finalize this action as proposed, we will make the adequacy
finding for the 2025 MVEBs in the final rule in which we approve the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. Pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)(iii), our adequacy finding will be effective upon
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Once found
adequate, MAG and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use these
new budgets for 2025 in conformity analyses with applicable horizon
years after 2024. The 2008 MVEBs established in MAG's Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan, which EPA previously approved (77 FR 35285), also
remain in effect. On-road motor vehicle emissions in any required
analysis years up to and including 2024 cannot exceed levels
established by those previously-approved MVEBs.
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing to approve ADEQ's submittal dated March 23, 2009 of
the MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009)
[[Page 16749]]
(``Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan'') as a revision to the Arizona
state implementation plan (SIP). In connection with the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration
showing how the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for 10 years beyond redesignation and the contingency provisions
describing the actions that the relevant State, regional, and local
agencies will take in the event of a future monitored violation meet
all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. EPA is also proposing to
approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan because we find they meet the applicable
transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). The
motor vehicle emissions budgets, 43.8 mtpd of VOC and 101.8 mtpd of
NOX, include a 10% safety margin and correspond to the peak
episode day (Thursday) during the June 2025 ozone episode that was used
to model maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa
area in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to approve
ADEQ's request, which accompanied the submitted of the maintenance
plan, to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are doing so based on
our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our proposed determination that the area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that relevant portions of the
Arizona SIP are fully approved, that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, that Arizona
has met all requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA,
and based on our proposed approval as part of this action of the Eight-
Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those by State law.
For these reasons, these proposed actions:
Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Nonetheless, EPA has
discussed the proposed action with the three Tribes, the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community, and the
Tohono O'odham Nation located within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-06661 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
