[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 53 (Monday, March 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13425-13442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5517]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ131-0078; FRL-7887-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality's submittals of revisions to the Arizona state 
implementation plan that include substitution of the clean fuel fleet 
program requirement with the cleaner burning gasoline program, adoption 
of the serious area 1-hour ozone plan, and adoption of the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the Phoenix (Arizona) metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. We are also proposing to approve Arizona's request 
to redesignate the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
from nonattainment to attainment. EPA proposes these actions pursuant 
to those provisions of the Clean Air Act that obligate the agency to 
take action on submittals of revisions to state implementation plans 
and requests for redesignation. In addition, under section 107 of the 
Clean Air Act, we are proposing to revise the boundary of the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River 
Indian Reservation. EPA is proposing this last action consistent with 
the Federal trust responsibility to the Tribes and for the purpose of 
relieving the Agency or the Gila River Indian Community of the need to 
promulgate and implement plans and measures for the Community that are 
not needed for attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standard.

[[Page 13426]]


DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before April 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Formal written comments should be mailed or emailed to 
Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901, [email protected]. Comments may also be submitted through 
the Federal Register Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. We prefer 
electronic comments.
    You can inspect copies of EPA's Federal Register document at our 
Region 9 office during normal business hours (see address above). Due 
to increased security, we suggest that you call at least 24 hours prior 
to visiting the Regional Office so that we can make arrangements to 
have someone meet you. The Federal Register document is also available 
as an electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.
    You may inspect and copy the rulemaking docket for this notice at 
the following location during business hours.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning 
Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the address listed below:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, 
First Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85007, Phone: (602) 771-2217.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (520) 622-1622, e-mail: 
[email protected], or see http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
II. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in the Phoenix Metropolitan 
Nonattainment Area
III. The CAA's Requirements for Redesignation Requests and 
Maintenance Plans
IV. EPA's Review of the MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan's Compliance With the CAA's Requirements for Ozone 
Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans
    A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    1. Adequate Monitoring Network
    2. Attainment of the Standard
    3. Monitoring Results
    B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
    C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under 
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    1. Section 110 Requirements
    2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment Areas
    a. Section 172 Requirements
    b. Section 176 Requirements
    c. Section 182 Requirements
    E. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting 
the Requirements of Section 175A
    1. Emissions Inventory
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    3. Monitoring Network
    4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    5. Contingency Plan
    6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
    8. Conclusion
V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area
    A. Background
    B. EPA Review of the Community's Request
    C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the Boundary of the Phoenix 
Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 
110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the State of Arizona's 
1998 request to ``opt-out'' of the clean fuel fleet (CFF) program and 
to approve the cleaner burning gasoline (CBG) program as a substitute 
measure. We are also proposing to approve, under section 110(k)(3) of 
the Act, the State's 2000 submittal of the Final Serious Area Ozone 
State Implementation Plan for Maricopa County (``Serious Area Ozone 
Plan''), which provides a demonstration of compliance with requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') for the Phoenix metropolitan 
``serious'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.
    We are also proposing to approve, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 
110(k)(3), the State's 2004 submittal of the One-Hour Ozone 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County 
Nonattainment Area (``Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan''), 
which was developed and adopted by the Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) as meeting CAA requirements for redesignation 
requests and maintenance plans. EPA is proposing to determine that the 
Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area has fully met the requirements 
for redesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 
redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). However, this 
proposal is contingent upon final approval by EPA of three separate 
proposed rulemakings involving two Maricopa County rules, a negative 
declaration, and a set of permit conditions imposing ``reasonably 
available control technology'' on a specific stationary source. As part 
of our approval of the maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve 
the 2006 and 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and 
NOX in the submitted maintenance plan for transportation 
conformity purposes.
    In addition, we are proposing, under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the 
Act, to revise the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. This 
proposed action would add the Maricopa County portion of the 
Reservation to the current ``unclassifiable/attainment'' area within 
the State of Arizona for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The effect of this 
action would be to relieve the Agency and the Community of the need to 
develop and implement plans and measures that are not needed for 
attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. History of 1-Hour Ozone Planning in the Phoenix Metropolitan 
Nonattainment Area

    Under section 107(d) of the CAA, as amended in 1977, Maricopa 
County was designated as a 1-hour oxidant (later ozone) nonattainment 
area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). Originally, the nonattainment area was 
county-wide, but EPA later approved a State request to limit the 
nonattainment area to a subregion within Maricopa County that was 
defined by the boundaries of the Maricopa Association of Governments' 
(MAG) Urban Planning Area. See 44 FR 16388, 16393 (March 19, 1979). We 
refer to this area herein as the ``Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area'' or the ``Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 
area,'' and we note that the boundary of this nonattainment area has 
remained defined by reference to the MAG urban planning area from 1979 
through the present time. However, we are proposing today to revise the 
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area boundary to 
exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation (see Section V of this 
proposed rule).
    On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

[[Page 13427]]

Under the Act, as amended in 1990, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area remained nonattainment by operation of law, 
and under section 107(d)(4)(A) of the amended Act, the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area was further classified as a 
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area based on ozone monitoring data 
during the 1987-1989 period. See 56 FR 56694, 56717 (November 6, 1991). 
Because attainment was not achieved by November 15, 1996 (the CAA 
attainment date for ``moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas), the 
Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area was reclassified to 
``serious,'' effective February 13, 1998, with a new attainment date of 
November 15, 1999. See 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997) and 63 FR 7290 
(February 13, 1998).
    In connection with one of the requirements for ``moderate'' ozone 
nonattainment areas, the State of Arizona submitted the initial 15 
percent Rate of Progress plan (15 percent ROP plan) for the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area via the Maricopa Association of 
Governments 1993 Ozone Plan for the Maricopa County Area (November 
1993) on November 15, 1993, and an Addendum (March 1994) to that plan 
on April 8, 1994. On April 13, 1994, EPA found the initial plan 
(including the Addendum) incomplete because it failed to include in 
fully adopted and enforceable form all of the measures relied upon in 
the 15 percent ROP demonstration. This incompleteness finding started 
the 18-month sanction clock in CAA section 179 and the two year clock 
under section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation 
plan (FIP) covering the 15 percent ROP requirement. Subsequently in 
November 1994 and April 1995, Arizona submitted an attainment plan for 
the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area which updated the 15 
percent ROP demonstration. On May 12, 1995, we found the revised 15 
percent ROP plan and the attainment plan complete, turning off the 
sanctions clock; however, under section 110(c), the FIP clock continued 
until EPA approved the 15 percent ROP plan.
    In August 1996, EPA was sued by the American Lung Association of 
Arizona, ALAA v. Browner, No. CIV 96-1856 PHX ROS (D.Ariz.). This case 
sought to enforce EPA's obligation under CAA section 110(c) to 
promulgate a FIP for the 15 percent ROP requirement. On July 8, 1997, a 
consent decree was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Arizona establishing a schedule of January 20, 1998 for proposing 
and May 18, 1998 for promulgating a 15 percent ROP plan. Under the 
consent decree, EPA's obligation to promulgate a 15 percent ROP plan 
was relieved to the extent that we had approved State measures. EPA 
determined in its final rule that the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area had in place or would have in place sufficient 
control measures to meet the 15 percent ROP requirement for volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor emission to ozone, under CAA 
section 182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See 63 FR 28898 (May 27, 
1998), as amended at 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).
    In February 2000, the State of Arizona requested that EPA make a 
finding that the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area had attained 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable ``serious'' area attainment 
date of November 15, 1999 based on 1997-1999 ozone monitoring data. In 
May of 2000, we proposed such a finding (see 65 FR 31859, May 19, 2000) 
and approximately one year later, we published a final attainment 
determination for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 
2001).
    On December 7, 1998, in connection with one of the requirements for 
``serious'' ozone nonattainment areas, the State submitted to EPA a SIP 
revision opting out of the Clean Fuel Fleet program requirement and 
requesting EPA approval of its interim Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) 
program as a substitute program. On June 7, 1999, the revision was 
found to be complete by operation of law pursuant to EPA's completeness 
criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In today's notice, we 
are proposed to approve this request.
    On December 14, 2000, the State submitted the Final Serious Area 
Ozone State Implementation Plan for Maricopa County (``Serious Area 
Ozone Plan'') to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. This plan was 
found to be complete by operation of law on June 14, 2001. Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared the Serious Area 
Ozone Plan, and in doing so, anticipated a positive attainment finding 
for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area based on 1997-1999 
ozone monitoring data. The Serious Area Ozone Plan includes a complete 
emissions inventory for year 1996, and describes the State's compliance 
with CAA requirements for ``serious'' ozone nonattainment areas, 
including the requirements for enhanced monitoring. In today's notice, 
we are proposing to approve the Serious Area Ozone Plan for the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area.
    In earlier actions, we have already approved revisions to Arizona's 
Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program (69 FR 10161, March 4, 2004) and 
to Arizona's Vehicle Emissions Inspection (VEI) Program (68 FR 2912, 
January 22, 2003) as well as many of Maricopa County's VOC RACT rules. 
(The Federal Register citations and effective dates for these rules are 
listed later in this notice in Table 3.) These programs, as revised, 
are the principal State and local controls relied on in the Serious 
Area Ozone Plan.
    On April 21, 2004, the State submitted the One-Hour Ozone 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County 
Nonattainment Area (Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan) to EPA 
as a revision to the Arizona SIP. This plan was found to be complete by 
operation of law on October 21, 2004. The Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) prepared the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan, which relies on continuation of the control measures cited above 
in connection with the Serious Area Ozone Plan but also includes 
additional control measures including coordination of traffic signal 
systems, tougher enforcement of vehicle registration and emission test 
compliance, development of intelligent transportation systems, and a 
new Maricopa County rule governing VOC emissions from aerospace 
manufacturing and rework operations. The plan includes contingency 
measures to remedy any future violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and 
includes VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2006 and 2015 for the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area. In today's notice, we are proposing to 
approve the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area.
    Our proposed approvals of the Serious Area Ozone Plan and the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan are contingent upon final 
EPA approval of certain other rulemakings described in more detail 
later in this notice. EPA notes that the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area 
has been designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and is 
subject to additional requirements as a result. See 69 FR 23858, 23879 
(April 30, 2004). Final approval of this proposal would change the 
official designation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 
for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area from nonattainment to 
attainment but would not affect the

[[Page 13428]]

8-hour ozone nonattainment area designation for the Phoenix-Mesa area.

III. The CAA's Requirements for Redesignation Requests and Maintenance 
Plans

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for 
redesignation providing that the following conditions are met: (1) The 
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable 
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the 
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan 
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the 
State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D. EPA provided guidance on 
redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and 
supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070).
    EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation 
requests in the following documents:
     ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas'', Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992 (Helms memo 
1992a);
     ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations'', Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992 (Helms memo 1992b);
     ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo 1992a);
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in 
Response to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines'', Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992 
(Calcagni memo 1992b);
     ``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'', Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 
1993 (Shapiro memo);
     ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment'', Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994 (Nichols memo); and
     ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'', Memorandum from John S. 
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 
1995 (Seitz memo).

IV. EPA's Review of the MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan's Compliance With the CAA's Requirements for Ozone 
Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans

    EPA believes the State of Arizona has demonstrated that the area 
meets all of the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment as 
specified in Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS. In this case, the applicable 
NAAQS is the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
1. Adequate Monitoring Network
    The CAA requires States to establish and operate air monitoring 
networks to compile data on ambient air quality for all criteria 
pollutants. See section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Our regulations in 
40 CFR part 58 establish specific regulatory requirements for operating 
air quality surveillance networks to measure ambient concentrations of 
ozone, including measurement method requirements, network design, 
quality assurance procedures, and in the case of large urban areas, the 
minimum number of monitoring sites designated as National Air 
Monitoring Stations (NAMS).
    For this proposed action, we are discussing the adequacy of the 
Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area monitoring network to support 
our finding that the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
appropriately evaluates the 1-hour ozone problem in the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area. Reliable ambient data are necessary to 
validate the base year air quality modeling which in turn is necessary 
to assure a sound maintenance demonstration.
    As it existed in the 2000 to 2002 period, the ozone ambient air 
monitoring network consisted of four National Air Monitoring Stations 
(NAMS), 14 State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), and three 
Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) operated by the Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (MCESD) and the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Figure 2-1 on page 2-6 in the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan lists the names of the sites 
and their locations in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. 
Since the 2000-2002 period, the ozone network has changed, e.g., 
certain sites have been discontinued while new sites have been added. 
In the 2002-2004 period, the ozone monitoring network consists of 18 
monitoring sites, four designated as NAMS, 12 designated as SLAMS, and 
two SPMs. These sites all use EPA reference methods, are sited 
according to our regulations, meet the applicable monitoring objectives 
in our regulations, and are operated according to our regulations. We 
therefore find that the monitoring network operated by the MCESD and 
ADEQ is adequate to support the technical evaluation of ozone 
maintenance in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.
2. Attainment of the Standard
    For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance 
with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive 
calendar years of quality-assured ambient monitoring data. A violation 
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the estimated number of 
exceedances per year averaged over three years is greater than 1.0 at 
any monitoring site in the area or its downwind environs, using 
conventional rounding techniques.
    The calculation of the estimated exceedances takes into account not 
only the number of exceedances during a given ozone season, but also 
completeness of data, and daily peak ozone concentrations on days in 
the ozone season that can be assumed to be less than the level of the 
standard. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone 
concentration

[[Page 13429]]

during a given day is greater than or equal to 0.125 parts per million 
(ppm), using conventional rounding techniques. Monitoring data must be 
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
3. Monitoring Results
    MCESD and ADEQ submitted quality-assured ozone monitoring data to 
EPA for the 1997 to 1999 ozone monitoring seasons. As noted previously, 
we determined that the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date. See 66 FR 29230 (May 30, 2001). Since then, the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS, as shown in Table 1.

  Table 1.--Average Number of Exceedance Days per Year and Design Values by Monitor in the Phoenix Metropolitan
                                     Ozone Nonattainment Area (2000 to 2004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Average  number
                     Site                                  SITE  type             of  exceedance    Site design
                                                                                  days per year     value (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Point....................................  NAMS                                           0           0.110
Central Phoenix...............................  NAMS                                           0           0.098
Fountain Hills................................  NAMS                                           0           0.106
South Scottsdale..............................  NAMS                                           0           0.099
Tempe.........................................  SPM                                            0           0.098
Falcon Field..................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.104
Rio Verde.....................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.101
Dysart**......................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.085
South Phoenix.................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.091
West Phoenix..................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.097
Pinnacle Peak.................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.101
North Phoenix.................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.105
Glendale......................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.099
West Chandler.................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.099
Cave Creek....................................  SPM                                            0           0.099
Humboldt Mountain.............................  SLAMS                                          0           0.099
JLG Supersite*................................  SLAMS                                          0           0.086
Palo Verde*...................................  SLAMS                                          0          0.098
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: AQS Database and MCESD 2003 Network Review.
*ADEQ Site.
**Site only has data from 2003-2004.

    Table 1 also provides design values for each monitoring site. The 
design value generally represents the 4th highest daily maximum 
(hourly) ozone concentration over a given three-year period at a given 
site. Design values provide one basis of comparison between different 
parts of a given nonattainment area with respect to peak ozone 
exposure; as such, the design values are provided herein for 
information purposes only. Attainment of the ozone NAAQS relies on the 
average number of exceedances per year (the design value is used under 
the CAA if an area is found to have missed its attainment deadline and 
must be reclassified).
    Based on the monitoring data summarized in Table 1, we propose to 
determine that the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
has attained, and continues to attain, the applicable NAAQS and 
therefore meets the related criterion for redesignation under section 
107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the Act.

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)

    EPA fully approved the ozone SIP for the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area that had been required under the CAA, as amended in 
1977. See 47 FR 19326 (May 5, 1982) and 40 CFR 52.123(d). With respect 
to ozone-related SIP requirements under the CAA, as amended in 1990, 
EPA is proposing action in today's notice to approve the Serious Area 
Ozone Plan SIP revision for the Phoenix metropolitan serious 1-hour 
ozone nonattainment area and thereby fulfill the requirements for a 
periodic inventory for 1996 and enhanced monitoring.
    CAA requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are cumulative in 
that ``serious'' areas must also meet the applicable requirements for 
the two lesser classifications: ``marginal'' and ``moderate''. Most of 
the applicable requirements for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area, such as the base year 1990 emissions inventory, an 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program and various 
Maricopa County RACT rules, have been fully approved under section 
110(k) by EPA in previous rulemakings and our final approval of the 
Serious Area Ozone Plan will accomplish the same for the 1996 periodic 
inventory requirement and the enhanced monitoring requirement.
    We recognize that there remain several EPA proposed rules that need 
to be finalized before we can finalize our action described herein. 
These proposed rules involve Maricopa County (MC) Rule 358, source-
specific RACT for W.R. Meadows, the MC rule establishing the emissions 
statements requirement, and a negative declaration. If, and once, we 
finalize our approvals of these separate proposed actions and finalize 
our proposed approval of the Serious Area Ozone Plan, then we will have 
fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under 
section 110(k) and satisfied the criterion for redesignation under 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA.

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and 
enforceable

[[Page 13430]]

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, 
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
    EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvements are due to the implementation of permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions through the implementation of emission 
controls contained in the Arizona SIP and Federal measures. Subsequent 
to the 1990 CAA amendments, Arizona implemented a number of emission 
controls. The area has complied with all of the emission requirements 
for a serious ozone nonattainment area as required by the CAA.
    Some of the emission reductions were achieved through the 
implementation of the use of low volatility cleaner burning gasoline, 
more stringent Tier I motor vehicle emission standards, implementation 
of an enhanced vehicle I/M program, controls on area sources, and the 
adoption of tighter emissions limits on existing stationary sources. 
All of the emission control measures contained in the 15 percent ROP 
plan, serious area ozone plan, and redesignation request and 
maintenance plan have been fully adopted, have been implemented, and 
are enforceable in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. 
Maricopa County has adopted and implemented emission control rules 
requiring existing sources of VOC to meet, at minimum, RACT. These 
requirements apply to sources in categories covered by CTGs and other 
major non-CTG sources.
    Table 2 shows the decrease in emissions between 1990 and 1999 due 
to permanent and enforceable measures.

              Table 2.--990 and 1999 Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment Area VOC and NOX Emissions
                                       [Emissions in metric tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        1990                      1999
                      Source category                       ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                 VOC           NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources..............................................         25.6         70.9          15.3         16.5
Area Sources...............................................        111.8          7.4          82.6         43.0
On-Road Mobile Sources.....................................        136.2        130.1         106.9        129.8
Nonroad Mobile Sources.....................................         57.9         85.2          78.5         59.3
                                                            --------------
Biogenics..................................................         37.3  ............         76.7          7.3
    Total..................................................        368.8        293.6         360.0       255.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: some columns may not add to 100% due to rounding; on-road mobile sources for 1990 were developed with
  EPA's MOBILE5a, whereas 1999 on-road mobile sources were developed using EPA's MOBILE5b.
Sources: 1990 data: 1993 MAG Ozone Plan; 1999 data: MAG 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.

    It can be seen that overall, both VOC emissions and NOX 
emissions decreased in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area 
between 1990 and 1999. Increases in emissions of VOC in the nonroad 
mobile source category and biogenics were offset by larger decreases in 
emissions from other source categories. Increases in emissions of 
NOX from area sources were offset by larger decreases in 
other source categories. We propose to find that the improvement in 
ozone air quality in the Phoenix metropolitan area is due to emissions 
reductions from implementation of permanent and enforceable measures 
and that the area thereby meets the redesignation criterion under 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

D. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 
and Part D of the CAA

1. Section 110 Requirements
    Although section 110 was amended in 1990, the Maricopa County 
portion of the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of amended section 
110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change in substance, 
and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment EPA-approved SIP 
met these requirements. As to those requirements that were amended, 
(see 57 FR 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1993), many are duplicative of 
other requirements of the Act. EPA has analyzed the SIP and determined 
that it is consistent with the requirements of amended section 
110(a)(2). The SIP contains enforceable emission limitations, requires 
monitoring, compiling and analyzing of ambient air quality data, 
requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and 
major modifications to existing ones, provides for adequate funding, 
staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its 
requirements, and requires stationary source emission monitoring and 
reporting.
    Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C), and (E) concerning plan 
enforcement and implementation requirements are addressed in Chapter 
Eight, page 8-146 and Chapter 11, page 11-1 of the Revised Serious Area 
Carbon Monoxide Plan (``Revised 1999 CO Plan''). EPA approved this plan 
in a final rule on March 9, 2005 (see 70 FR 11553). In order to comply 
with these CAA sections, a State law was passed in 1992 which provides 
an approach for assurances that State and local committed measures will 
be adequately implemented (see Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 
Sections 49-406 I. and J.) A.R.S. Section 49-406 G. (passed by the 
Arizona Legislature in 1992) requires that each agency which commits to 
implement any control measure contained in the SIP must describe the 
commitment in a resolution. The resolution must be adopted by the 
appropriate governing body of the agency. State law also requires the 
entity to specify the following information in the resolutions: (1) Its 
authority for implementing the limitation or measure as provided in 
statute, ordinance, or rule; (2) a program for the enforcement of the 
limitation or measure; and (3) the level of personnel and funding 
allocated to the implementation of the measure.
    Chapter 11 of the Revised 1999 CO Plan includes resolutions from 
the MAG member agencies and other implementing entities. These 
resolutions indicate specific commitments to implement various control 
strategies which reduce CO as well as ozone precursor emissions. 
Generally, the authorities of the cities and towns to implement the 
types of measures that they have committed to in their respective 
resolutions are provided under A.R.S. section 9-240 Powers of Common 
Council. The general authorities of the County to implement the 
measures in the commitments are provided under A.R.S. section 11-251 
and A.R.S. section 49-478. Copies of these local and county government 
authorities were included in Chapter 11 of the Revised 1999 CO Plan.

[[Page 13431]]

    If any State, County, local government, regional agency, or other 
entity failed to implement a committed measure, the County would file 
an action in Superior Court to have the Court order that the measure be 
implemented. Likewise, the Director of ADEQ will backstop the County if 
it fails to implement a committed measure or if the County fails to 
backstop the local governments and regional agencies (see Appendix C, 
Exhibit 2, Revised 1999 CO Plan).
2. Part D: Provisions for Nonattainment Areas
    Before an area may be redesignated to attainment, it must have 
fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D of title 
I of the CAA, an area's ozone classification determines the 
requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the 
basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of 
part D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas 
classified under table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA.
    As described in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I 
of the CAA, specific requirements of subpart 2 may override or modify 
general provisions in subpart 1 (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). 
Therefore, in order to be redesignated, the States must meet the 
applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 
172(c) and 176, as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of 
part D.
    EPA believes that Arizona has met the requirements of subpart 1 of 
part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176, insofar as applicable, as 
well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D of the CAA 
for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, as 
described below.
    a. Section 172 Requirements. This section contains general 
requirements for nonattainment area SIPs. A thorough discussion of the 
requirements contained in section 172(c) may be found in the General 
Preamble for Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
    EPA has interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(1) (non-
RACT reasonably available control measures-RACM), 172(c)(2) (reasonable 
further progress-RFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) 
(contingency measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request 
because they only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the 
standard. See the General Preamble of April 16, 1992, and the Calcagni 
Memorandum. Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options 
that would trigger sections 172(c)(4) (identification of certain 
emissions increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these 
provisions are also not relevant to this redesignation request. The 
other plan provisions under section 172(c) are discussed below.
    Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Nonattainment plans 
must, at a minimum, require the implementation of RACT for stationary 
sources. These requirements are discussed below under Section 182 
Requirements.
    Emissions Inventories. The plan needs to include a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the 
relevant pollutant as determined necessary by the Administrator to 
assure that the requirements of part D of the CAA are met. These 
requirements are discussed below under Section 182 Requirements.
    Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources. For the 
section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA 
requires all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements regarding 
NSR, including provisions to ensure that increased emissions will not 
result from any new or modified major stationary sources and a general 
offset rule.
    We have determined that areas being redesignated from nonattainment 
to attainment do not need to comply with the requirement that an NSR 
program be approved prior to redesignation provided that the area 
demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D nonattainment 
NSR in effect. The rationale for this decision is described in the 
Nichols memo.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment'', Memorandum from Mary 
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 
14, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix 
ozone nonattainment area indicates expected additional VOC and 
NOX emissions due to major source growth. Thus, we find that 
the maintenance demonstration for the Phoenix metropolitan area does 
not rely on nonattainment NSR, and the State need not have a fully-
approved nonattainment NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request.
    Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) is the replacement 
program for NSR, and part of the obligation under PSD is for a new 
source to review increment consumption and maintenance of the air 
quality standards. The PSD program requires stationary sources to 
undergo preconstruction review before facilities are constructed or 
modified, and to apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT). This 
program will apply to any major source wishing to locate in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area once the area is redesignated to attainment. 
Effective November 22, 1993, we delegated PSD authority to Maricopa 
County via a PSD Delegation Agreement (59 FR 1730, January 12, 1994).
    Compliance With Section 110(a)(2). The plan must contain provisions 
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (see the 
discussion of section 110 requirements above).
    b. Section 176 Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 
States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally 
supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals 
in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies 
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or 
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federally 
supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
    Section 176 further provides that State conformity revisions must 
be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required 
the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the 
conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d). The rationale for this is 
based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit 
SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA 
continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment, since 
such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, 
the EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of 
conformity analyses in the absence of Federally approved State rules. 
Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements 
regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must 
implement conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet 
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as 
not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this 
interpretation.
    The State of Arizona has fully adopted general conformity 
procedures, approved by EPA on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19916). The State-
adopted transportation conformity procedures are found in A.R.S. Title 
18, Chapter 2, Article 14. We have not yet approved transportation 
conformity procedures in

[[Page 13432]]

the SIP. For the reasons stated above, EPA believes the approval of 
conformity rules into the State's SIP is not a prerequisite for 
redesignation. Federal transportation conformity rules continue to 
apply.
    c. Section 182 Requirements. For purposes of this redesignation, 
the part D, subpart 2, section 182(a), (b) and (c) requirements for a 
nonattainment area apply to the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 
area.
    EPA has interpreted the requirements of sections 182(c)(2) 
(attainment and RFP demonstrations), 182(c)(5) (transportation 
control), and 182(c)(9) (contingency measures) as being irrelevant to a 
redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that 
is not attaining the standard. See the General Preamble of April 16, 
1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum. The other plan provisions under 
section 182 are discussed below.
    1990 Base Year Inventory and Periodic Emissions Inventory Updates. 
Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended in 1990, 
require States to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory 
of actual emissions from all sources in the ozone nonattainment area 
and to submit updates of those inventories every three years until 
redesignation.
    Arizona submitted a complete and accurate 1990 emissions inventory 
for VOC and NOX for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 
area as noted in EPA's final approval of the emissions inventory on May 
27, 1998 (63 FR 28898). Arizona submitted updated periodic emissions 
inventories for 1993, 1996, and 1999. The final 1993 ozone SIP 
inventory was submitted to us on November 25, 1996. The 1996 base year 
(July-September 1996) ozone inventory was submitted as part of the 
Serious Area Ozone Plan, Appendix E.\2\ We are proposing to approve the 
1996 ozone inventory submitted as part of the Serious Area Ozone Plan. 
The 1999 periodic ozone emissions inventory for the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area was originally submitted to EPA in 
August 2002 and then re-submitted to EPA as part of the Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan, in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The Appendix 
contains a complete description of the sources and methodologies used 
to calculate ozone emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ADEQ held a public hearing for the Serious Area Ozone Plan 
on April 26, 2000. ADEQ adopted the Serious Area Ozone Plan on 
December 14, 2000 and submitted it to us on the same date. We find 
that ADEQ thereby satisfied the requirements for notice and public 
hearing on all SIP revisions under section 110(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan also 
contains a description of the 1998 and 1999 base year inventories, the 
interim year 2006, and the maintenance year 2015 ozone precursor 
emissions inventories for use in Urban Airshed Model (UAM) simulations.
    In MAG's emissions inventories, emissions sources are grouped into 
five major categories: Point sources, area sources, nonroad mobile 
sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic emissions. Point sources 
include such categories as industrial, manufacturing, and electric 
power generation facilities. Area sources include residential 
woodburning, industrial fuel combustion, on-site incineration, and open 
burning. Biogenic emissions come from natural vegetation. Nonroad 
mobile sources include utility, lawn and garden, construction, farm and 
recreational equipment, and aircraft and locomotives. On-road mobile 
sources include cars, motorcycles, various sizes of trucks, and buses. 
Collectively, these sources contributed a total of 256 metric tons per 
day of NOX and 360 metric tons per day of VOC in 1999.
    We propose to approve the 1996 and 1999 periodic emissions 
inventories and find that the State has complied with the inventory 
requirements of section 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). We also propose to 
approve the 1998 and 1999 base year inventories, the interim year 2006 
inventory, and maintenance year 2015 inventory in connection with the 
maintenance demonstration discussed elsewhere in this notice.
    Emissions Statement Requirements. Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the Act 
requires States to submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators 
of stationary sources of VOC or NOX to provide the State 
with estimates of actual emissions from such sources. Arizona's SIP 
includes regulations requiring annual emissions statements from major 
sources. Specifically, to comply with this requirement, the State 
submitted Maricopa County (MC) Rule 100.503 to EPA on February 4, 1993. 
We approved this rule by direct final action published on February 10, 
2005. See 70 FR 7038 (February 10, 2005). Assuming no adverse comments 
are submitted in connection with this direct final rule, our final rule 
published on February 10, 2005 will be effective on April 11, 2005. If 
adverse comments are timely submitted, then we will withdraw the direct 
final rule and consider those comments prior to taking a final action. 
See our proposed rule (70 FR 7069) also published on February 10, 2005. 
We will finalize our action on MC Rule 100.503 prior to taking final 
action on this proposal.
    15 Percent ROP Plan Requirements. Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA 
requires the submission of a 15 percent ROP plan. This plan is to 
provide for VOC emission reductions in the nonattainment area of at 
least 15 percent, from the 1990 baseline emissions levels, by no later 
than November 15, 1996. Arizona submitted its initial 15 percent ROP 
plan for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area on November 15, 
1993 and supplemented it on April 8, 1994. On April 13, 1994, we found 
the initial plan incomplete because it failed to include, in fully 
adopted and enforceable form, all of the measures relied upon in the 15 
percent demonstration. This incompleteness finding started the 18-month 
sanctions clock in CAA section 179 and the two-year clock under section 
110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP covering the 15 percent ROP 
requirements. In November 1994 and April 1995, Arizona submitted an 
attainment plan for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area which 
updated the 15 percent ROP demonstrations.
    On May 12, 1995, we found the revised 15 percent plan and the 
attainment plan complete, turning off the sanctions clock; however, 
under section 110(c), the FIP clock continued until EPA approved the 15 
percent plan. In August 1996, we were sued by the American Lung 
Association of Arizona and others, American Lung Association of 
Arizona, Inc. et al. v. Browner, No. CIV 96 1856, PHX ROS (D. Arizona) 
to enforce EPA's obligation under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a 
FIP for the 15 percent ROP requirement. On July 8, 1997, a consent 
decree was filed in the case establishing a schedule of January 20, 
1998 for proposing and May 18, 1998 for promulgating a 15 percent ROP 
plan. Under the consent decree, EPA's obligation to promulgate a 15 
percent ROP plan was relieved to the extent that we had approved State 
measures. EPA determined in its final rule that the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area had in place or would have in place 
sufficient control measures to meet the 15 percent ROP requirement for 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor emission to ozone, under 
CAA section 182(b)(1)(A) as soon as practicable. See 63 FR 28898 (May 
27, 1998), as amended at 64 FR 36243 (July 6, 1999).
    VOC RACT Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA specifies that 
SIPs must provide for the implementation of all RACM including all RACT 
as

[[Page 13433]]

expeditiously as practicable to attain the NAAQS. Sections 182(a)(2)(A) 
and 182(b)(2) further provide that, at a minimum, the SIPs must require 
the implementation of RACT for two classes of VOC sources. The VOC 
source classes are: (a) All sources covered by a Control Techniques 
Guideline (CTG) document issued by the Administrator by the date of 
attainment of the ozone standard; and (b) all other major non-CTG 
stationary sources.
    Arizona's redesignation request, submitted on April 21, 2004, 
describes how the State of Arizona has met the VOC RACT requirements 
under sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Act for nearly all of the 
CTG source categories and VOC major sources either through adoption of 
Maricopa County air pollution control regulations or negative 
declarations and how the State intends to fulfill the RACT requirement 
for the few remaining CTG source categories and VOC major sources. EPA, 
through a number of rulemakings, has approved these RACT rules and 
negative declarations as revisions to the Arizona SIP as documented in 
Table 3.

         Table 3.--Maricopa County VOC RACT Rules and SIP Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         MC Rule(s), SIP Status, and, if
          VOC RACT requirement              approved, Federal Register
                                                     Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Control Techniques Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Loading Terminals.............  MC Rules 350 and 351: MC Rule
                                          350 adopted July 13, 1988,
                                          revised April 6, 1992;
                                          revision approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024). MC Rule
                                          351 adopted February 15, 1995,
                                          approved February 9, 1998 (63
                                          FR 6489).
Gasoline Bulk Plants...................  MC Rule 350: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised April 6, 1992;
                                          revision approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024).
Service Stations--Stage I..............  MC Rule 353: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised April 6, 1992;
                                          approved February 1, 1996 (61
                                          FR 3578).
Fixed Roof Petroleum Tanks.............  MC Rule 350: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised April 6, 1992;
                                          revision approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024).
Miscellaneous Refinery Sources.........  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Cutback Asphalt........................  MC Rule 340: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised June 22, 1992,
                                          revised September 21, 1992;
                                          approved February 1, 1996 (61
                                          FR 3578).
Solvent Metal Cleaning.................  MC Rule 331: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised June 22, 1992,
                                          revised June 19, 1996, revised
                                          April 21, 2004; approved
                                          February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3578),
                                          approved February 9, 1998 (63
                                          FR 6489), approved December
                                          21, 2004 (69 FR 76417).
Surface Coating of:
    Cans...............................  MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999; approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
    Metal Coils........................  MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999; approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
    Fabrics............................  MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999; approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
    Paper Products.....................  MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999; approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
    Automobile and Light Duty Trucks...  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
    Metal Furniture....................  MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999; approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
    Magnetic Wire......................  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
    Large Appliances...................  MC Rule 336: revised September
                                          21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April
                                          7, 1999; approved September
                                          20, 1999 (64 FR 50759).
Leaks from Petroleum Refineries........  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Miscellaneous Metal Parts Surface        MC Rule 336: revised September
 Coating.                                 21, 1992, June 19, 1996, April
                                          7, 1999; approved September
                                          20, 1999 (64 FR 50759).
Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling..  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Synthetic Pharmaceutical Manufacture...  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Rubber Tire Manufacture................  Negative declaration, submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
External Floating Roof Petroleum Tanks.  MC Rule 350: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised April 6, 1992;
                                          revision approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024).
Graphic Arts...........................  MC Rule 337: adopted November
                                          20, 1996, submitted February
                                          26, 1997, approved February 8,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Perchloroethylene Drycleaning \(a)\....  Perchloroethylene was delisted
                                          as a VOC by EPA (see Footnote
                                          (a)).
Gasoline Truck Leaks and Vapor           MC Rule 352: adopted November
 Collection.                              16, 1992, submitted February
                                          4, 1993, approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024).

[[Page 13434]]

 
Manufacture of High-Density              MC Rule 358: Polystyrene Foam
 Polyethylene Polypropylene, and          Manufacturing, proposed
 Polystyrene Resins.                      approval was signed by
                                          Regional Administrator for EPA
                                          Region 9 on March 8, 2005.
                                          This proposal is expected to
                                          be published in the Federal
                                          Register by mid-March 2005.
Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic        Negative declaration, submitted
 Organic Chemical, Polymer, and Resin     December 14, 2000, Aapproved
 Manufacturing Equipment.                 August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners...........  MC Rule 333: adopted June 19,
                                          1996, submitted February 26,
                                          1997, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Air Oxidation Processes--Synthetic       Negative declaration, submitted
 Organic Chemical Manufacturing           December 14, 2000, approved
 Industries.                              August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/        Negative declaration: submitted
 Gasoline Processing Plants.              December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Synthetic Organic Chemical               Negative declaration: submitted
 Manufacturing Industries (SOCMI)--       December 14, 2000, approved
 Distillation and Reactor Processes.      August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Volatile organic liquid storage........  MC Rule 350: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised April 6, 1992;
                                          revision approved September 5,
                                          1995 (60 FR 46024).
SOCMI batch processes..................  Negative declaration: submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Industrial Wastewater..................  Negative declaration: submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Plastic Parts Coating (for business      MC Rule 336: adopted July 13,
 machines and automobiles).               1988, revised September 21,
                                          1992, June 19, 1996, April 7,
                                          1999, approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
Cleaning solvents......................  MC Rule 331: adopted July 13,
                                          1988, revised June 22, 1992,
                                          revised June 19, 1996, revised
                                          April 21, 2004, submitted July
                                          28, 2004; approved February 1,
                                          1996 (61 FR 3578), approved
                                          February 9, 1998 (63 FR 6489),
                                          approved December 21, 2004 (69
                                          FR 76417).
Offset lithography.....................  MC Rule 337: adopted November
                                          20, 1996, submitted February
                                          26, 1997, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Shipbuilding and ship repair coatings..  Negative declaration: submitted
                                          December 14, 2000, approved
                                          August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54741).
Wood Furniture.........................  MC Rule 342: adopted November
                                          20, 1996, submitted February
                                          26, 1997, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Aerospace..............................  MC Rule 348: adopted April 7,
                                          1999, submitted August 4,
                                          1999, approved September 20,
                                          1999 (64 FR 50759).
Architectural and industrial             MC Rule 335 adopted July 13,
 maintenance (AIM) coatings.              1988, submitted January 4,
                                          1990, approved January 06,
                                          1992 (57 FR 354)
----------------------------------------
                      Major Sources Subject to RACT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing..........  Negative declaration: submitted
                                          April 21, 2004, approved by
                                          direct final rule on February
                                          10, 2005 (70 FR 7038) if no
                                          adverse comments are received
                                          by March 14, 2005.
Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing.......  MC Rule 334: adopted June 19,
                                          1996, submitted February 26,
                                          1997, approved February 2,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Metal Casting..........................  MC Rule 341: adopted August 5,
                                          1994, submitted August 16,
                                          1994, approved February 12,
                                          1996 (61 FR 5287).
Commercial Bread Bakeries..............  MC Rule 343: adopted February
                                          15, 1995, submitted August 31,
                                          1995, approved March 17, 1997
                                          (62 FR 12544).
Semiconductor Manufacturing............  MC Rule 338: adopted June 19,
                                          1996, submitted February 26,
                                          1997, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes.....  MC Rule 339: adopted November
                                          16, 1992, submitted February
                                          04, 1993, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Coating Wood Millwork..................  MC Rule 346: adopted November
                                          20, 1996, submitted February
                                          26, 1997, approved February 9,
                                          1998 (63 FR 6489).
Ferrous Sand Casting...................  MC Rule 347: adopted March 4,
                                          1998, submitted August 4,
                                          1999, approved June 12, 2000
                                          (65 FR 36788).
Vitamin Manufacturing..................  MC Rule 349: adopted April 7,
                                          1999, submitted August 4,
                                          1999, approved June 8, 2001
                                          (66 FR 30815).
Automotive Windshield Wiper Fluid......  MC Rule 344: adopted April 7,
                                          1999, submitted August 4,
                                          1999, approved November 30,
                                          2001 (66 FR 59699).
Fiberboard for Expansion Joints........  VOC RACT by permit (W.R.
                                          Meadows): proposed approval
                                          was signed by Regional
                                          Administrator for EPA Region 9
                                          on March 3, 2005. This
                                          proposal is expected to be
                                          published in the Federal
                                          Register by mid-March 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = not applicable.
\(a)\ Perchloroethylene was delisted as a VOC effective March 8, 1996
  (see 61 FR 4588, February 7, 1996).


[[Page 13435]]

    As shown in Table 3, the VOC RACT requirements under sections 
172(c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2) have been met for the vast 
majority of CTG source categories and major sources either through 
establishment of Maricopa County (MC) regulations or by submittal of 
negative declarations. At this time, we propose to find that Arizona 
has met the RACT requirement for the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
area contingent upon our full final approval of (1) MC Rule 358 
(establishes RACT requirements for major VOC sources in the emissions 
source category of Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing), (2) W.R. Meadows' 
permit conditions (establishes RACT requirements for a specific major 
VOC source), and (3) the negative declaration for the one major VOC 
source in the emissions source category of Fiberglass Boat 
Manufacturing. The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 signed rules 
in early March 2005 proposing approval of MC Rule 358 and W.R. Meadows' 
permit conditions as meeting the RACT requirement for the affected 
sources, and these proposals are expected to be published in the 
Federal Register in mid-March. EPA approved the negative declaration 
for the one major VOC source in the emissions source category of 
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7038) by 
direct final action. If no adverse comments are received on that direct 
final action by March 14, 2005, then the approval of the negative 
declaration will become effective April 11, 2005, but if such comments 
are received then the direct final rule will be withdrawn and EPA will 
taken final action after consideration of the comments.
    Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements. Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA 
requires States to submit Stage II vapor recovery rules. The Stage II 
vapor recovery regulations for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 
area were submitted to us on May 27, 1994 by the State. These rules had 
been adopted by the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (ADWM) 
on August 27, 1993. We approved the program on November 1, 1994, 
effective January 3, 1995 (see 59 FR 54521). Subsequent State 
legislation (House Bill (HB) 2001, in 1997) required the ADWM to adopt 
rules to enhance enforcement of the program. These rules can be found 
at A.R.S. 41-2134. The regulations in the Arizona SIP fully adopt and 
implement the Stage II vapor recovery requirements in Arizona.
    Vehicle I/M Requirements. Section 182(c)(3) and EPA's final I/M 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S require States with 
``serious'' ozone nonattainment areas to submit a fully adopted 
``enhanced'' I/M program. EPA approved revisions to Arizona's enhanced 
vehicle I/M program for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area as 
part of the Arizona SIP on January 22, 2003 (see 69 FR 2912). ADEQ 
implements an enhanced I/M program in Area A, which includes and goes 
beyond the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA 
believes that the Arizona SIP for the Phoenix 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area satisfies all of the Section 182(c)(3) requirements 
of the CAA.
    Clean Fuel Vehicle Programs. Sections 182(c)(4)(A) of the CAA 
requires States to submit a SIP revision for each serious 1-hour 
nonattainment area that includes such measures necessary to ensure the 
effectiveness of clean-fuel vehicle program prescribed under part C of 
title II of the Act. In particular, SIPs for serious ozone 
nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 or more must 
establish a clean-fuel vehicle program for centrally fueled fleets 
(referred to herein as the ``clean fuel fleet'' (CFF) program). CAA 
section 246. Under the CFF program, a specified percentage of vehicles 
purchased by fleet operators for covered fleets shall be clean-fuel 
vehicles and shall use clean alternative fuels when operating in the 
covered area. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act allows States such as 
Arizona to ``opt-out'' of all or a portion of the clean-fuel vehicle 
program including the CFF program by submitting for EPA approval a SIP 
revision consisting of a program or programs not otherwise required by 
the Act that will result in at least equivalent long term reductions in 
ozone-producing and toxic air emissions.
    On December 7, 1998, Arizona submitted to EPA a SIP revision opting 
out of the CFF program. The opt-out SIP requested EPA approval of its 
interim Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program, which EPA had already 
approved into the SIP (see 63 FR 6653, February 10, 1998), as a 
substitute program.\3\ On June 7, 1999, the revision was found to be 
complete by operation of law pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria 
set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In the 1998 opt-out SIP 
submittal, ADEQ had estimated that the CBG program would provide 9 
metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOC reductions in 2010 compared to 0.5 to 
1.8 mtpd in that same year that would have been achieved by a CFF 
program.\4\ ADEQ also estimated that the CBG program would provide 5.0 
mtpd of NOX reductions in 2010 compared to 0.6 to 2.5 mtpd 
in that same year that would have been achieved by a CFF program. See 
also, Arizona's modeled emission reductions from the four control 
programs, the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, CBG, Tier 2 
and the CFF Program, in 2015 in Metropolitan Phoenix.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has since approved additional revisions to the Arizona 
CBG program.
    \4\ ADEQ noted that its estimates of the emissions reductions 
benefit from a CFF program were likely overstated because the 
estimates did not account for the National Low Emission Vehicle 
(NLEV) program, which was expected to be implemented in Arizona and 
to lead to the availability of lower-emitting (conventional) light 
duty vehicles beginning with the 2001 model year.
    \5\ EPA promulgated the NLEV program on June 6, 1997 under which 
vehicle manufacturers voluntarily agreed to market light duty 
gasoline vehicles with emissions substantially lower than Tier 1 
vehicles. (62 FR 31193, (June 6, 1997)). On February 10, 2000, EPA 
promulgated the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur standards that established 
more stringent exhuast emissions standards for light and medium duty 
gasoline vehicles. (65 FR 6698, (February 10, 2000)).

  Table 4.--Emissions Reductions From Four Control Programs in 2015 in
                          Metropolitan Phoenix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Emissions reductions
                                                     (tons per day)
                    Program                    -------------------------
                                                     HC          NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2........................................         18.3         86.4
CBG...........................................          8.0          5.0
NLEV..........................................          2.2          3.9
Federal Clean Fuel Fleet......................      0.5-1.8      0.7-2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBG program is not explicitly required by the CAA in the 
Phoenix metropolitan ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, the 
resulting reductions of ozone-producing emissions from this program 
(VOCs and NOX) meet or exceed the emissions reductions that 
would have occurred if the CFF program were implemented. EPA will be 
approving only those emissions reductions needed to meet the CFF 
program. Finally, because reductions in toxic air emissions are 
proportional to the reduction in VOC emissions, any substitute plan 
which reduces VOCs will also reduce toxic air emissions in the same 
proportion. Therefore, Arizona's substitute plan will meet the CFF 
program requirement for air toxics emissions.
    Based on the above evaluation, we propose to approve, under section 
182(c)(4)(B) of the Act, ADEQ's submittal of the CBG program as a 
substitute measure achieving equivalent long-term emissions reductions 
of ozone-producing and toxic air pollutants as would have been achieved 
by implementation of a CFF program. In

[[Page 13436]]

doing so, we find that the State has provided sufficient documentation 
of compliance with the notice and hearing requirements for SIP 
revisions under section 110(l) of the Act (see Exhibit 4 of the State's 
December 7, 1998 SIP revision submittal).
    NOX Emission Control Requirements. Section 182(f) 
establishes NOX requirements for ozone nonattainment areas 
which require the same provisions for major stationary sources of 
NOX as apply to major stationary sources of VOCs. However, 
section 182(f) also provides that these requirements do not apply to an 
area if the Administrator determines that NOX reductions 
would not contribute to attainment.
    For the Phoenix metropolitan ozone nonattainment area, EPA granted 
a waiver from the section 182(f) requirements for NOX. The 
basis for the waiver was that Arizona demonstrated using UAM that 
additional NOX emission controls in the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area would not contribute to the attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in the area. See 60 FR 19510 (April 19, 1995).
    Enhanced Monitoring. As a result of the reclassification of the 
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to ``serious,'' 
the area became subject to the CAA section 182(c)(1) requirement that 
the area establish and implement a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring 
Station (PAMS) network. The Serious Area Ozone Plan describes the steps 
that the State has taken to comply with section 182(c)(1) (see page 2-8 
of the Serious Area Ozone Plan). In the Serious Area Ozone Plan, ADEQ 
indicated that, in 1999, the PAMS network was not yet fully implemented 
but that it was being phased-in over a five year period in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58.44 and 40 CFR part 58. We propose to find that the 
State has met the requirements for enhanced monitoring under section 
182(c)(1).
    When EPA finalizes today's proposal for the serious area plan 
revision to the Arizona SIP as well as the three separate rulemakings 
previously discussed, the Arizona ozone SIP will meet the applicable 
requirements of section 110 and part D.

E. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the 
Requirements of Section 175A

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA requires, as a pre-condition to 
being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment, that the 
Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act.
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides for maintenance of 
the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, 
provides additional guidance on the required content of a maintenance 
plan.
    A 1-hour ozone maintenance plan should address the following five 
areas: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, 
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a 
contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the 
emissions level in the area that is sufficient to attain the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS, based on emissions during a three-year period which had no 
monitored violations. To demonstrate maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS, the results from UAM modeling analyses should not show predicted 
1-hour maximum ozone concentrations equivalent to or greater than 0.125 
ppm anywhere in the modeling domain for the episode modeled. Provisions 
for continued operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring 
network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The State must show 
how it will track and verify the progress of the maintenance plan. 
Finally, the maintenance plan must include a list of potential 
contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any violation of 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
1. Emissions Inventory
    MAG selected 1999 as the attainment year for purposes of 
demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Modeling episodes 
in both 1998 and 1999 were used; therefore, MAG developed modeling 
inventories for both of the base years (i.e., 1998 and 1999), as well 
as an interim year 2006 and the maintenance year of 2015. These 
emissions inventories all include on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, 
point, area, and biogenic sources. The 1998 inventory was developed for 
a July 16-17 modeling episode, and the 1999 inventory was developed for 
an August 23-24 modeling episode. Both base year inventories reflect 
control strategies in place at that time. The future year emission 
inventories include projected emissions reductions from control 
measures that were implemented and enforceable after 1998 and 1999. 
Sections III and VI of MAG's Technical Support Document for Ozone 
Modeling in Support of the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for the Phoenix metropolitan Nonattainment Area, 
November 2003 (included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A of the Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan) describe the inventories in more 
technical detail.
    Emissions for point, area, and nonroad mobile sources were 
developed for a base year and then projected to 2006 and 2015 using 
appropriate growth factors. The growth factors were based on the 2015 
population projections approved by the MAG Regional Council in June 
1997 and developed from the 1995 Special Census. The 2015 employment 
factors by Standard Industrial Classification SIC) code were 
extrapolated from projections prepared by the Arizona Department of 
Economic Security (DES) in August 1997. Growth factors based on 2000 
Census Data were not available at the time the modeling demonstration 
was begun. On-road vehicle activity was increased by eight and twelve 
percent for 2006 and 2015, respectively, because of expected increases 
in population and employment projections for Phoenix metropolitan.
    In the 1998 and 1999 base cases, on-road mobile sources contribute 
28 to 30 percent of VOC emissions and 51 to 52 percent of 
NOX emissions and represent the largest emissions source 
category for both NOX and VOC. With the implementation of 
the measures in the maintenance plan and stricter federal controls on 
vehicles and fuels, on-road mobile source NOX emissions 
decrease by about 19 percent between 1999 and 2006, and 58 percent 
between 1999 and 2015. On-road mobile source VOC emissions decrease by 
32 percent between 1999 and 2006, and 54 percent between 1999 and 2015.
    Due to anticipated regional population growth, area sources become 
the largest source category for NOX and VOC emissions in 
2015. Area source NOX emissions increase by 25 percent 
between 1999 and 2006, and 56 percent between 1999 and 2015. Area 
source VOC emissions increase by 22 percent between 1999 and 2006, and 
49 percent between 1999 and 2015.
    As a result of expected increases in power plant emissions, point 
source NOX emissions increase from 1999 to 2015. Point 
source NOX emissions increase 48 percent between 1999 and 
2006, and 59 percent between 1999 and 2015. Point source VOC emissions 
increase by 13 percent between 1999 and 2006, and 32 percent between 
1999 and 2015. With the implementation of the federal nonroad vehicle 
and engine standards, nonroad mobile NOX emissions decrease 
by about 14 percent between 1999 and 2006. Nonroad

[[Page 13437]]

mobile VOC emissions decrease by about 23 percent between 1999 and 
2006, and about 63 percent between 1999 and 2015.
    Biogenic emissions are determined by land use type. Residential 
land use has a higher emission factor for biogenic VOC than 
agricultural land, while the opposite is true for biogenic 
NOX emissions. Since it is anticipated that the residential 
land area will continue to increase as the Phoenix metropolitan area 
grows, and agricultural land uses will decline, biogenic VOC emissions 
are forecast to increase less than 1 percent between 1999 and 2006, and 
about 12 percent between 1999 and 2015, while biogenic NOX 
emissions decrease by about 3 percent between 1999 and 2006, and about 
15 percent between 1999 and 2015.
    By implementing the emissions control measures in the maintenance 
plan, total NOX emissions will decrease by about 5 percent 
between 1999 and 2006, and by about 17 percent between 1999 and 2015. 
Total VOC emissions will decrease by about 8 percent between 1999 and 
2006, and about 14 percent between 1999 and 2015.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    a. Introduction. To demonstrate maintenance of the ozone standard 
through a ten-year maintenance period, MAG projected VOC and 
NOX emissions for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment 
area to 2006 and 2015 and used these emissions estimates in UAM. The 
2006 emission estimates were generated to test a midpoint in the ten-
year maintenance period. This interim year 2006 was developed for the 
purposes of transportation conformity.
    Table 5 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions estimates 
for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area for 1999, 2006, and 
2015.
    Comparison of base and future year inventories, as shown in Table 
5, indicates an 18-21 percent decrease in NOX emissions 
between the 1998/1999 base case inventories and 2015. VOC emissions 
decrease between 9 and 15 percent during this same time period.

          Table 5.--Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment Area 1999, 2006, and 2015 VOC and NOX Emissions
                               [Emissions in metric tons per ozone season weekday]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1999*                   2006                  2015
               Source category               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 VOC         NOX        VOC         NOX        VOC        NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................       15.3       16.5        17.4       24.5        20.2       26.3
Area Sources................................       82.6       43.0       101.4       54.1       123.5       67.4
On-Road Mobile Sources......................      106.9      129.8        71.9      104.8        48.7       53.6
Nonroad Mobile Sources......................       78.5       59.3        61.0       50.9        28.7       57.2
Biogenics...................................       76.7        7.3        77.2        7.1        85.8        6.2
                                             ------------
    Total...................................      360.0      255.9       328.9      241.4       306.9      210.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * Emissions from 1999 are for the Tuesday in August base case modeling day. Data are from pages ES-5, ES-
  6, 3-11 and 3-12 of the maintenance plan.

    b. Modeling Procedure. In developing the maintenance demonstration, 
MAG followed EPA's Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban 
Airshed Model (EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991; available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt25.htm; hereafter ``GRAUAM''). This involves 
using UAM, a photochemical grid model, to simulate ozone production 
during selected recent ozone episodes. These ``base case'' simulations 
incorporate meteorological and emissions data corresponding to the 
episode days. Future case ozone simulations are then created using 
future emissions, which are estimated using information about control 
measures, as well as socioeconomic projections. The goal is to show 
that ozone concentrations continue to be below the standard in the 
future, so that NAAQS maintenance is demonstrated.
    Documentation about the redesignation request's application of UAM 
is contained principally in the MAG SIP submittal's Appendix A, Exhibit 
2, ``Technical Support Document for Ozone Modeling in Support of the 
One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 
Phoenix metropolitan Nonattainment Area'' (hereafter ``MAG TSD''). 
Development of the application of UAM followed a protocol, per GRAUAM 
(the EPA guideline), which is included in the Appendix I of the MAG 
TSD. This protocol describes procedures to be followed in developing 
model inputs and in judging model performance, as well as the size of 
the modeling domain and the particular ozone episodes to be modeled. 
The protocol was reviewed and agreed to by both EPA and ADEQ prior to 
submission of the maintenance plan.
    c. Model Inputs. The modeling domain used by MAG for the 
maintenance modeling demonstration was larger than in earlier UAM 
applications for the Phoenix metropolitan area. It was extended to 
include some large point sources to the west (and generally upwind) of 
the main metropolitan area, and also to the east to include more of the 
ozone plume that had been seen in previous simulations as well as urban 
areas which are growing rapidly. This expanded domain ensured that all 
the relevant source and receptor areas were included in the simulation, 
even beyond the nonattainment area itself.
    After analysis of 32 high ozone days spread among 21 episodes, two 
ozone episodes were chosen for modeling: July 16-17, 1998 and August 
23-24, 1999. While there have been no recent NAAQS exceedances, these 
episodes have among the highest ozone concentrations observed; their 
peak concentrations are 118 ppb and 124 ppb, respectively (the NAAQS is 
0.12 ppm, or 120 ppb, but values below 125 ppb are rounded down and not 
considered exceedances). These episodes are representative of the two 
meteorological ``regimes'' observed for the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area; simulating both ensures that the NAAQS will be 
maintained under the various meteorological conditions that can occur 
in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Both regimes involve a low pressure 
center over southwestern Arizona, with relatively high temperatures and 
low wind speeds. But the regime type of the July 1998 episode tends to 
have high ozone in the metropolitan center and extending northwest. The 
regime type of the August 1999 episode is less common, but has a 
different spatial pattern; high ozone tends to occur more to the east. 
It also tends to have longer-

[[Page 13438]]

lasting southwesterly winds during the day than the other regime.
    Standard procedures were followed in developing the meteorological 
and emissions inputs. The Diagnostic Wind Model (DWM) was used for wind 
inputs, as it often is with the UAM IV model, and gave reasonable wind 
fields. Mixing heights were prepared using MIXEMUP, also a fairly 
standard procedure for use with UAM. MIXEMUP inputs were upper air 
temperature soundings from Tucson (the only ones available) combined 
with Sky Harbor (Phoenix) Airport surface temperatures; also, local 
temperature and wind data from monitoring sites were used to generate a 
spatially-varying mixing height that better reflected the differing 
land uses (and hence heating and mixing characteristics) across the 
domain.
    Emissions inputs were developed using EPA's EPS2.0 for spatially 
and temporally allocating area source emissions; MOBILE6 was used for 
vehicle emissions, in conjunction with MAG traffic data and the EMME/2 
transportation model. Biogenic emissions, which are roughly 20% of 
total VOC emissions, were estimated using MAGBEIS2, a localized version 
of EPA's Biogenic Emissions Inventory Software (BEIS2) and 
incorporating emission factors from EPA's BELD3 database.
    d. Model Testing and Performance. A number of sensitivity and 
diagnostic tests were carried out to test the effect of alternative 
inputs to improve model performance, and to test whether the model 
responds in a physically reasonable way to various input changes. This 
process helps avoid spurious good performance due to fortuitously 
compensating input errors. The test simulations included several 
alternative boundary concentrations, zeroing of emissions for various 
broad emissions categories, doubling on-road emissions, and reducing 
wind speeds by 20 percent. This set of simulations is comparable to the 
recommendations in EPA guidelines, and helped elucidate the functioning 
of the model.
    Model performance statistics for peak error, overall bias, and 
overall error were all well within EPA-recommended targets. For 
example, the July 1998 predicted peak was 119 ppb, while the peak 
observation was 118 ppb. For August 1999, the predicted peak was 125, 
while peak observation was 124 ppb. Despite this good agreement, there 
appears to be a spatial mismatch between some predictions and 
observations for the August 1999 episode. High ozone appears to persist 
longer and to be more in the north of the central business district 
rather than to the east-northeast as indicated by monitored 
observations. The explanation for this discrepancy appears to be that 
the wind field used in the model may be shifted slightly relative to 
the actual winds, so that the ozone plume was shifted relative to the 
monitors. The model still predicts a comparable ozone peak, both in 
timing and in concentration, but it just does not happen to be at the 
monitor locations. This conclusion is supported by the sensitivity 
simulations with reduced wind speed, since the model responded as 
expected to this change, and also has a fairly large sensitivity to 
this as opposed to other variables.
    A second anomaly of the August 1999 episode was a persistent 
moderately high ozone level south of the central business district that 
was not apparent in the observations and did not seem to match what 
would be expected from the wind directions and the location of 
emissions. This did not affect the peak prediction of the model at all, 
and appeared to be a localized effect that might have been caused by 
the proximity of South Mountain, which blocks transport toward the 
south and southeast, and by alternation of morning and afternoon slope 
flows that cause recirculation of pollutants in the area. Despite these 
issues, both episodes meet EPA performance criteria and provide an 
acceptable basis for a maintenance demonstration.
    e. Maintenance Demonstrated. The maintenance demonstration itself 
involves projecting emissions to 2015, including the effect of 
controls, using similar procedures as for the base case episodes. The 
model is then re-run on the two episodes with the new emissions to test 
whether the future controlled emissions are still consistent with NAAQS 
attainment. As shown in Tables 3-3 though and 3-6 of the Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan (pages 3-9 through 3-12), point and area 
source emissions increase over the 1998-2015 period, but this is more 
than made up for by emissions decreases in nonroad mobile and on-road 
mobile sources. This resulted in predicted ozone peaks decreasing by 
2015 from 119 to 116 ppb for the July 1998 episode, and from 125 to 120 
for the August 1999 episode. Since these levels are both at or below 
124 ppb, maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been demonstrated.
3. Monitoring Network
    The Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan addresses the 
requirements for continued operation of an ozone monitoring network. 
ADEQ and MCESD have committed to continue the operation of the monitors 
in the area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. See also section IV.A.1 
and IV.A.2 of this proposed rule for more detail on Arizona's 
monitoring network for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    ADEQ, MAG, Maricopa County, and the local jurisdictions have the 
legal authority to implement and enforce the requirements of the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. This includes the authority 
to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emission control 
contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone 
attainment problems. To implement the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan, as 
noted above, ADEQ and MCESD will continue to monitor ozone levels in 
the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. To track progress on the 
Maintenance Plan, Maricopa County has also committed to update the 
emissions inventory for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area 
every three years for the duration of the maintenance plan with input 
and assistance from ADEQ and MAG. The ozone monitoring data and the 
updated emissions inventories will be used through the State's 
contingency plan to assure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard.
5. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires maintenance plans to contain 
contingency provisions. EPA guidance on the requirements for the 
contingency plan is provided in the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memo 
(Calcagni 1992a). As set forth in the Calcagni memo, we interpret 
section 175A(d) of the CAA not to require fully adopted measures in the 
contingency plan. However, the plan should contain clearly identified 
contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule, and a specific time 
limit for action by the State. In addition, specific triggers should be 
identified which will be used to determine when the contingency 
measures need to be implemented. The contingency plan portion of the 
State's maintenance plans delineate the State's planned actions in the 
event of increasing ozone levels threatening a subsequent violation of 
the ozone standard.
    MAG followed the August 13, 1993 EPA guidance memorandum entitled 
``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas''. The contingency plan described in 
MAG's maintenance plan contains

[[Page 13439]]

control measures that are expected to be implemented early. MAG's 
contingency plan contains three measures, Area A Expansion, Gross 
Polluter Option for I/M Program Waivers, and Increased Waiver Repair 
Limit Options. Emissions reduction credit for these measures was not 
taken in the maintenance demonstration.
    MAG defines the trigger for the implementation of the contingency 
plan as when the fourth highest daily maximum hourly measurement over 
the past three years exceeds 0.120 ppm at any ozone monitor. If this 
occurs, additional measures will be considered, which may include the 
strengthening of existing contingency measures. When the trigger is 
activated, additional control measures will be considered according to 
the following schedule: (a) Verification of the monitoring data to be 
completed three months after activation of the trigger; (b) applicable 
measures to be considered for adoption six months after the date 
established in (a); and (c) resulting contingency measure to be 
implemented within six to twelve months, depending on the time needed 
to implement the measure. The State has also committed to continue to 
implement all control measures included in the SIP prior to 
redesignation consistent with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    MAG's Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan adequately 
addresses the five basic components which comprise a maintenance plan 
(attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, 
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan) and, 
therefore, satisfies the maintenance plan requirement.
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires States to submit a subsequent 
maintenance plan revision eight years after the original redesignation 
request and maintenance plan have been approved by EPA. The subsequent 
revision is to provide for maintenance of the air quality standard for 
an additional 10 years following the first 10-year maintenance period. 
As the designated regional air quality planning agency for the Phoenix 
metropolitan area, MAG has committed on page 3-18 of the 1-Hour Ozone 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan to prepare a revised 
maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to attainment.
7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
    In addition to meeting the criteria for redesignation, as a control 
strategy SIP, the maintenance plan must contain MVEBs that, in 
conjunction with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with 
attainment and maintenance. An MVEB is the total allowable VOC and 
NOX emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicle use 
during the maintenance period (highway and transit vehicle use 
emissions impacted by transportation plans are projected to 2015 and 
tested against the 2015 motor vehicle emissions budget). The rules and 
requirements governing transportation conformity require certain 
transportation activities to be consistent with the MVEBs contained in 
emission control SIPs (40 CFR 93.118). The projected emissions 
resulting from the transportation activities must be less than or equal 
to the emissions budget levels (40 CFR 93.118(a)). The review of the 
transportation plan impacts relative to the emissions budgets occurs 
after EPA declares that the emissions budgets meet the adequacy 
criteria of the transportation conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    The MVEBs for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area were 
developed using emission factors generated using EPA's MOBILE6 model. 
Arizona developed MVEBs for the maintenance plan years of 2006 and 
2015. The MVEBs are for both VOC and NOX, as precursors to 
ozone formation, and were applicable for the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area upon the effective date of the MVEB adequacy 
finding.
    We found the budgets in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan adequate in a letter to Nancy Wrona, Air Division Director, ADEQ 
and Dennis Smith, Executive Director of MAG, dated August 3, 2004. (See 
also 69 FR 51079, August 17, 2004.) The adequacy finding on the 
maintenance plan budgets was effective as of September 1, 2004.
    EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs included in Arizona's 
maintenance plans for conformity purposes. EPA believes that the 
submitted MVEBs are consistent with the control measures identified in 
the SIP, and that the SIP as a whole demonstrates maintenance with the 
1-hour ozone standard. The 2006 and 2015 motor vehicle emission budgets 
included in the MAG maintenance plan are summarized in Table 6 below.

  Table 6.--Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment Area 2006 and 2015 Motor
                        Vehicle Emission Budgets
         [Emissions in metric tons per ozone season summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                            VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006..............................................       71.9      104.8
2015..............................................       48.7       53.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Conclusion
    We propose to approve the State's submittal (dated April 21, 2004) 
of MAG's Resignation Request and Maintenance Plan as a revision to the 
Arizona SIP. In doing so, we find that ADEQ and MAG have provided 
sufficient documentation of compliance with the notice and hearing 
requirements for SIP revisions under section 110(l) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MAG and ADEQ held a joint public hearing for the 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan on March 1, 2004. The MAG 
Regional Council adopted the Redesignation and Maintenance Plan on 
March 25, 2004 and ADEQ adopted the Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan on April 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Revision of Boundary of the Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

    At the request of the Gila River Indian Community and based on the 
evaluation provided below, EPA is proposing to change the boundary of 
the Phoenix Metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the 
Gila River Indian Reservation (``Reservation'').

A. Background

1. Current Area Boundary, Designation, and Classification
    Areas of the country were originally designated as attainment, 
nonattainment or unclassifiable following enactment of the 1977 
Amendments to the CAA. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). These 
designations were generally based on monitored air quality values 
compared to the applicable NAAQS. EPA originally designated all of 
Maricopa County as a nonattainment area for the photochemical oxidant 
NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, 8968 (March 3, 1978). The following year, EPA 
approved a request by the State of Arizona to reduce the size of this 
nonattainment area to include only the Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) Urban Planning Area (see 44 FR 16388, March 19, 
1979), which included the Phoenix metropolitan area and also the 
northern quarter of the Gila River Indian Reservation (most of the 
reservation lies

[[Page 13440]]

within Pinal County). We refer to this area in this notice as the 
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Also in 1979, we 
established a new ozone NAAQS to replace the photochemical oxidant 
NAAQS (see 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979) but retained the designation 
of ``nonattainment'' for the new ozone NAAQS for the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour nonattainment area.
    Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the designation of 
``nonattainment'' for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area was carried forward by operation of law, and 
pursuant to the 1990 amended Act, the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area was further classified as ``moderate'' 
nonattainment. See 56 FR 56694, 56717 (November 6, 1991). The 
nonattainment area boundary remained the same, i.e., the MAG Urban 
Planning Area. On November 6, 1997, the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
area was reclassified to serious due to a failure to attain the 1-hour 
ozone standard by November 15, 1996. The reclassification was effective 
February 13, 1998. See 62 FR 60001 (November 6, 1997) and 63 FR 7290 
(February 13, 1998).
    Area boundaries and area classifications have been amended over the 
years under the applicable CAA provisions, either by request of a 
state, by operation of law, or by EPA initiative. For the State of 
Arizona, the current area designations and classifications are codified 
at 40 CFR 81.303.
2. Gila River Indian Community's Request for a Boundary Change
    On March 2, 2005, the Gila River Indian Community (``Community''), 
a federally-recognized tribal government,\7\ submitted a request to EPA 
to correct the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to exclude the Reservation.\8\ The Community's 
request included background information and analysis of air quality 
data existing at the time of and subsequent to the designation in 1978 
as well as the nature of the ozone sources on the Reservation 
demonstrated that the Reservation has not had a monitored or predicted 
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS since, and that no significant 
sources of ozone precursor emissions exist on the Reservation. The 
Community's request and supporting documentation are included in the 
docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 67 FR 46328, 46329 (July 12, 2002).
    \8\ As noted previously, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area includes the portion of the Reservation that lies 
within Maricopa County, approximately the northern 25 percent of the 
Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA Review of the Community's Request

1. EPA's Authority to Change Boundaries
    The Community requested that EPA act under section 110(k)(6) to 
correct the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area, and while we agree that a revision to the boundary 
to exclude the Reservation is warranted, we have decided to redesignate 
the boundary of the area under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act rather 
than to correct the boundary under section 110(k)(6). Under section 
107(d)(3)(A), EPA has the authority to revise the boundary of a 
nonattainment area on the basis of air quality data, planning and 
control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations 
the Administrator deems appropriate.
2. The Gila River Indian Reservation Airshed
    The Gila River Indian Reservation consists of approximately 374,000 
acres in south central Arizona, south of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 
Currently, the MAG 1-hour ozone nonattainment area includes the 
northern 92,000 acres of the Reservation. The Reservation is physically 
separated from the Phoenix metropolitan area by the Sierra Estrella and 
South Mountain Ranges. The Sierra Estrella Mountain Range runs north 
and south along the western edge of the Reservation. The South Mountain 
Range runs diagonally in a northeasterly direction, between one and 
five miles beyond the northern Reservation boundary. These mountain 
ranges act as a physical barrier between the two airsheds.
    A segment of the northern border of the Reservation adjacent to 
Chandler does not have a topographical barrier to air pollution 
transport. However, the prevailing winds flow to the northeast, sending 
ozone emissions from Chandler away from the Reservation. Along the 
northeastern border of the Reservation, the Santan Mountain Range 
separates the Reservation from Gilbert and Apache Junction.
    The Reservation has a population of approximately 11,250 people, 
with a population density of approximately 20 people per square mile. 
There are no major population centers within the Reservation. By 
comparison, Maricopa County (including vast rural areas west of the 
urban area, which are not part of the nonattainment area) has a 
population of over 3 million, with a population density of over 230 
people per square mile.
3. Ozone and the Reservation
    In general, ambient ozone concentrations are caused by on-road and 
nonroad mobile emissions sources, area sources, large stationary 
sources and biogenic sources that emit VOCs and NOX. The 
level of mobile source emissions, often the largest part of the 
inventory in a major metropolitan area, can be generally correlated to 
population density and land use patterns. The Community population 
density of 20 people per square mile is minor compared to all of 
Maricopa County, which has a density of over 230 people per square 
mile. Commuting patterns on the Reservation are virtually nonexistent. 
Approximately 2,200 cars, trucks and vans commute to work within the 
Reservation, compared to 1,250,000 in Maricopa County. There is little 
economic integration with commercial development in metropolitan 
Phoenix, and the Reservation remains largely rural and agricultural. 
The Community plans to expand its agricultural base by investing 
millions of dollars in agricultural infrastructure.
    There is only one major source of emissions in the Community, an 
aluminum extrusion facility. Based on an inventory prepared by the 
Community for year 1997 and the fact that sources within the Community 
have not changed in any significant way since then, the Community 
estimates that total annual emissions of ozone precursor pollutants are 
approximately 1,000 tons of VOCs and 1,900 tons of NOX for 
the entire Community. For the purposes of comparison with the other 
emissions estimates cited in this notice, total Community emissions are 
approximately 2.5 metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOCs and 4.7 mtpd of 
NOX on an annual average basis. In that part of the 
Community that is within the Phoenix nonattainment area, the Community 
estimates that there are 250 tons of VOC and 490 tons of NOX 
per year (equivalent to 0.6 mtpd of VOC and 1.2 mtpd of 
NOX). Emissions of VOCs from the Community portion of the 
nonattainment area represent less than 0.002% and 0.006% of VOC and 
NOX emissions, respectively, of total estimated emissions 
generated within the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area. Thus, 
total emissions from the Community are not sufficient to cause or 
contribute to violations of the 1-hour standard or otherwise have a 
measurable impact on rest of the Phoenix metropolitan

[[Page 13441]]

nonattainment area. High 1-hour ozone concentrations in the Phoenix 
metropolitan nonattainment area are associated almost exclusively with 
summertime temperatures and meteorological patterns. During the summer 
months, the natural wind patterns in the Salt River Valley are from the 
west toward the northeast, causing air pollutants from Phoenix to be 
transported away from the Gila River Indian Reservation. Therefore, 
there is substantial basis for concluding that the Reservation is an 
insignificant generator of ozone emissions.
4. Ozone Planning Issues
    Attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan 
area was achieved by Arizona through the SIP planning process. It is 
important to note that, under the CAA, the State and local air 
pollution control agencies do not have authority to administer air 
regulatory programs over the Reservation; consequently, the SIP rules 
that were applied to the metropolitan area and resulted in attainment 
of the NAAQS did not apply to the Reservation. Furthermore, due to the 
Reservation's lack of ozone precursor sources, it was never considered 
necessary to apply ozone precursor limits to sources on the 
Reservation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA could have applied VOC or NOX limits to 
sources on the Reservation, as it has authority under CAA 301(d) to 
promulgate regulations for Indian country as necessary or 
appropriate ``to achieve the appropriate purpose'' of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Just as it was clear that it was not necessary for an attainment 
plan to be applicable to the Reservation for the Phoenix metropolitan 
nonattainment area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it is clear to EPA 
that it will not be necessary for a maintenance plan to be applicable 
to the Reservation for the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area to 
maintain attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

C. Conclusion and Effect of Revising the Boundary of the Phoenix 
Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

    In view of the above considerations, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to exercise discretionary authority under section 
107(d)(3)(A) and to propose to revise the boundary of the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River 
Indian Reservation. Geographical and meteorological factors support the 
conclusion that the Reservation is not significantly affected by 
emissions generated in the Phoenix metropolitan area nor is the Phoenix 
metropolitan area affected by emissions generated within the 
Reservation. The effect of this proposed action would be to attach the 
Maricopa County portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation to the 
pre-existing ``unclassifiable/attainment'' area for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS that consists of all of those portions of the State of Arizona 
(including the rest of the Reservation that lies in Pinal County) that 
are not designated as a ``nonattainment'' area or as an ``attainment'' 
area that is subject to a maintenance plan. Also, this proposed action 
would eliminate any remaining obligations to develop plans or measures 
to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or to implement 
nonattainment NSR within the Maricopa County portion of the Gila River 
Indian Reservation.
    We note that this proposed action to revise the boundary of the 
Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the 
Gila River Indian Reservation is consistent with EPA's 2004 rule 
establishing an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the metropolitan 
Phoenix area, i.e., in both instances the Gila River Indian Reservation 
is excluded from the ozone nonattainment area. See 69 FR 23858, 23878 
(April 30, 2004). Finally, we propose to interpret our proposed action 
herein to eliminate the requirement to develop a section 110 
maintenance plan that would otherwise have been required for the 
Maricopa County portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation because of 
its 1-hour NAAQS designation (i.e., nonattainment) at the time when the 
8-hour ozone designations final rule was signed by the EPA 
Administrator (April 15, 2004). See 69 FR 23951, 23999 (April 30, 
2004).

VI. Proposed Action

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed SIP 
rulemaking action. We will consider your comments in deciding our final 
action if your comments are received by April 20, 2005.
    We are proposing, under the Clean Air Act, to fully approve three 
revisions to the Arizona SIP submitted to us by ADEQ and related to the 
Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 
First, under sections 182(c)(4)(B) and 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA, or ``the Act''), we are proposing to approve the State of 
Arizona's request to ``opt-out'' of the Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) program 
and to approve the Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program as a 
substitute measure. Second, we are proposing to approve, under section 
110(k)(3) of the Act, the State's submittal of the Final Serious Area 
Ozone State Implementation Plan for Maricopa County as meeting the 
applicable requirements for serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. 
Third, under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and 110(k)(3), we are proposing to 
approve the State's submittal of the One-Hour Ozone Redesignation 
Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 
as meeting CAA requirements for redesignation requests and maintenance 
plans under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. However, this proposal is 
contingent upon final approval by EPA of three separate proposed 
rulemakings involving two Maricopa County rules, a negative 
declaration, and a set of permit conditions imposing reasonably 
available control technology on a specific stationary source. As part 
of our approval of the maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve 
the 2006 and 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and 
NOX in the submitted maintenance plan for transportation 
conformity purposes.
    In addition, we are proposing, under section 107(d)(3)(A) of the 
Act, to revise the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. This 
proposed action would add the Maricopa County portion of the 
Reservation to the current unclassifiable/attainment area within the 
State of Arizona for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and would relieve the 
Agency and Gila River Indian Community from the need to develop plans 
and measures that are not necessary to provide for attainment and 
maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements, reduce the size of a nonattainment area, and redesignate 
the area (as modified) to attainment for air quality planning purposes 
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities under the

[[Page 13442]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 
proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with 
tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not 
issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts 
tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal 
implications. EPA's action will revise the boundary of the Phoenix 
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment maintenance area to exclude the 
Gila River Indian Reservation. However, it will neither impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt 
tribal law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the 
Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with 
representatives of tribal governments early in the process of 
developing this proposal to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. Representatives of tribal governments 
approached EPA two years ago and requested that EPA make this boundary 
change. We agree with the technical and policy rationale the tribes 
provided, and believe that all tribal concerns have been met.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, reduce the size of a nonattainment 
area, and redesignate the area (as modified) to attainment for air 
quality planning purposes and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions and redesignation requests, EPA's role 
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of 
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing 
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 
EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission or redesignation 
request for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission or 
redesignation request, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that 
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 
proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: March 14, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 05-5517 Filed 3-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P