[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55645-55653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22029]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686; FRL 9916-12-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona;
Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa Area to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a
revision to the Arizona state implementation plan, a request from the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to redesignate the Phoenix-
Mesa ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') because
the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under
the Clean Air Act. EPA is also approving the State's plan for
maintaining the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area for 10
years beyond redesignation, and the inventories and related motor
vehicle emissions budgets within the plan, because they meet the
applicable requirements for such plans and budgets.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential Business
Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3964, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Determination That the Area Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS
[[Page 55646]]
B. Determination That the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Meeting
Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section
110 and Part D
C. Determination That the Improvement in Air Quality in the Area
Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the Area Under CAA
Section 175A
II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On March 26, 2014 (79 FR 16734), we proposed to take several
related actions. First, under Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') section
110(k)(3), EPA proposed to approve a March 23, 2009 submittal from the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) of the Maricopa
Association of Governments' (MAG's) plan titled ``MAG Eight-Hour Ozone
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa
Nonattainment Area,'' (February 2009) (``Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan'') as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan
(SIP).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is
sometimes referred to as the Maricopa nonattainment area. The
precise boundaries of the area are found at 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA
proposed to find that the maintenance demonstration showing that the
area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS \2\ for 10
years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency
provisions meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. EPA also proposed
to find adequate and approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan because we found that
they meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements under
40 CFR 93.118(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. Ground-level ozone is an
oxidant that is formed from photochemical reactions in the
atmosphere between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve
ADEQ's request that accompanied the submittal of the maintenance plan
to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We did so based on our
proposed approval of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, and our
conclusion that the area has met the criteria for redesignation under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion was based on our determination
that the area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that relevant
portions of the Arizona SIP are fully approved, that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, and that Arizona has met all the section 110 and part D
requirements of the CAA that are applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area for purposes of redesignation.
For the purposes of this final rule, we have summarized the basis
for our findings in connection with the proposed approvals of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and redesignation request. For a more
detailed explanation as well as background information concerning the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA requirements for redesignation, and
the ozone planning history of the Phoenix-Mesa area, please see our
March 26, 2014, proposed rule.
A. Determination That the Area Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS
Prior to redesignating an area to attainment, CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that we determine that the area has attained
the NAAQS. For our proposed rule, consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air
monitoring data for the monitoring period from 2010 through 2012, as
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database, and determined,
based on the complete, quality-assured, and certified data for 2010-
2012, that the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because the design value \3\ is
less than 0.084 ppm.\4\ We also reviewed preliminary data from 2013 and
found that it was consistent with continued attainment of the standard
in the Phoenix-Mesa area. See pages 16737-16739 of our March 26, 2014
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The design value for the 8-hour standard is the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentration at the worst-case monitoring site in the area. When
the design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I) at each
monitoring site within the area, the area is meeting the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
\4\ Our proposed rule also includes a table (at page 16743,
table 2) that shows that design values have been consistent with
attainment of the 1997 ozone standard since the 2005-2007 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed rule, we anticipated that by the time we took final
action, data for year 2013 would be certified, and that preliminary
data for a portion of year 2014 would be available. In anticipation of
the newly certified and available data, we also indicated that, in our
final action, we would update our attainment determination for the
Phoenix-Mesa area based on complete, certified data for 2011-2013 and
would review preliminary data for 2014. As expected, the relevant
certifications have been submitted,\5\ and based on review of complete,
certified data for 2011-2013, we find that the 8-hour ozone design
value for 2011-2013 for the Phoenix-Mesa area is 0.081 parts per
million (ppm) based on the data from the monitoring site (North
Phoenix) recording the highest design value among the various
monitoring sites within the nonattainment area. Like the design value
for 2010-2012 documented in the proposed rule, the design value for
2011-2013 is below 0.084 ppm, and is, thus, consistent with attainment
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data for 2014 are also consistent
with continued attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See letters from Michael Sundblom, Air Quality Director,
Pinal County Air Quality Control District, dated April 21, 2014;
Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, dated May 30,
2014; and Dennis Dickerson, Acting Director, Maricopa County Air
Quality Department, dated June 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Determination That the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Meeting
Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110
and Part D
Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA require EPA to
determine that the area has a fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) that meets all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D for the purposes of redesignation. For the reasons
summarized below, we find that the Phoenix-Mesa area has a fully
approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that meets all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes of
redesignation. See pages 16739-16741 of our March 26, 2014 proposed
rule.
With respect to section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements),
we conclude that the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the approved SIP, which
includes rules pertaining to areas and sources under the jurisdiction
of ADEQ, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), and the
Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD), meet all SIP
requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa area that are applicable for purposes
of redesignation. Our conclusion in this regard is based on our review
of the Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona SIP.
[[Page 55647]]
With respect to part D (of title I of the CAA), we reviewed the
Phoenix-Mesa portion of the Arizona SIP for compliance with applicable
requirements for nonattainment areas under both subparts 1 and 2.\6\
First, we note that EPA previously approved the Eight-Hour Attainment
Plan for the Phoenix-Mesa area based upon the determination that it met
all applicable requirements for such plans under subpart 1 of part D,
title 1 of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 35285, June
13, 2012), including the requirements for an emissions inventory, for
contingency measures, and for demonstrations of implementation of
reasonably available control measures, of reasonable further progress,
and of attainment by the applicable attainment date. As to the other
applicable subpart 1 requirements, we find that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements
for all nonattainment areas of any pollutant, including ozone,
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona has met the nonattainment applicable New Source
Review (NSR) requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area because rules meeting the fundamental nonattainment
NSR requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are approved in the
Arizona SIP; and
The requirements for transportation conformity SIPs under
section 176(c) do not apply for the purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d)(3) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding
this interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the requirements associated with subpart 2, we
noted that the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was
initially designated nonattainment under subpart 1 of the CAA, but was
classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
under subpart 2 of part D of the CAA in May 2012,\8\ i.e., after
Arizona's submittal of the redesignation request. Under EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time a redesignation request is submitted, and
in consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might in the future be applied, we determined that
the additional requirements for marginal nonattainment areas do not
apply to the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the
purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Determination that the Improvement in Air Quality in the Area Is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment unless EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable regulations. Based on our review of the
control measures that provided for attainment of the now-revoked one-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan area and the additional
control measures adopted and approved for attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, and based on our consideration of other factors such as
weather patterns and economic activity,\9\ we find that the improvement
in air quality in the Phoenix-Mesa area is the result of permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions from a combination of numerous EPA-
approved State and local stationary source and mobile source control
measures, along with federal motor vehicle and nonroad control
programs. See pages 16741-16742 of our March 26, 2014 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Specifically, we reviewed temperature data to determine if
unusual meteorological conditions could have played a significant
role in attaining the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area
and determined that unusually favorable meteorology did not play a
significant role. We also discussed the economic slowdown affecting
the Phoenix-Mesa area starting in 2008 but noted that the downward
trend in ozone concentrations had already been established well
before that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the Area Under CAA Section 175A
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) precludes EPA from redesignating an area
from nonattainment to attainment unless EPA has fully approved a plan
for maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. The required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment are set forth in CAA section 175A. As explained in the
proposed rule, we interpret this section of the Act to require, in
general, the following core elements: attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued
attainment, and contingency plan.
Based on our review and evaluation of the Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan, we conclude that it contains the core elements and
meets the requirements of CAA section 175A. See pages 16742-16748 of
our proposed rule. Our conclusion was based on the following findings:
The base year emissions inventory for 2005 is
comprehensive, the methods and assumptions used by MAG to develop the
2005 emission inventory are reasonable, and the inventory reasonably
estimates actual ozone season emissions in an attainment year.
Moreover, we found that the 2005 emissions inventories reflect the
latest planning assumptions and emissions models available at the time
the plan was developed, and provide a comprehensive and reasonably
accurate basis upon which to forecast ozone precursor emissions for
years 2019 and 2025;
MAG's photochemical modeling adequately demonstrates
maintenance for at least 10 years after redesignation to attainment;
The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan indicates that ADEQ
and MCAQD will continue to operate an appropriate air quality
monitoring network to verify the continued attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS;
The continued operation of an ozone monitoring network and
the requirement that MCAQD, with input from ADEQ, Arizona DOT, and MAG,
must inventory emissions sources and report to EPA on a periodic basis
\10\ are sufficient for the purpose of verifying continued attainment;
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (``Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency provisions of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
identify specific contingency measures,\11\ contain tracking and
triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are
needed, contain a sufficient description of the process of recommending
and implementing contingency measures, and contain specific timelines
for action, and will, therefore, be adequate to ensure prompt
correction of a violation and comply with the contingency-related
requirements under CAA section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan includes both
specific contingency measures (such as the Gross Polluter Option for
I/M Program Waivers, Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options, and
Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Emissions Standards, among others)
that have already been adopted and are being implemented early, and
a mechanism to trigger the adoption of additional measures as
needed. See pages 3-21 and 3-22 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, we find adequate and are approving the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan because
[[Page 55648]]
we find that they meet the transportation conformity adequacy
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Specifically, we find
that, among other things, the MVEBs, when considered with emissions
from all other sources, would be consistent with maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area for ten years beyond
redesignation.
II. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule
EPA's March 26, 2014 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period. During this period, we received two comment letters. One
comment letter was from a member of the public who supports EPA's
proposed actions. The other letter, from Sierra Club, opposes the
proposed actions. A summary of Sierra Club's comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
Comment: The Sierra Club contends that EPA must disapprove the
State of Arizona's redesignation request for the Phoenix-Mesa 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area because the inclusion of State and
Maricopa County rules in the Arizona SIP that provide an affirmative
defense potentially applicable to violations due to excess emissions
that occur during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (``SSM events'')
prevents EPA from determining that all applicable Clean Air Act
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations have been
met. Specifically, Sierra Club contends that the affirmative defense
provisions in the Arizona SIP prevent EPA from determining:
That the improvement in air quality is due to enforceable
reductions as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) because the
affirmative defense provisions applicable during SSM events make
emission reductions unenforceable;
that the maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS as required under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(a) when
emissions can increase above the emission inventory and allowable
levels during SSM events; and
that the State has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D as required under sections
107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(a)(2)(A) because the emission limits in the
SIP, at least during SSM events, are not enforceable because of the
affirmative defense provisions.
In support of this claim, the Sierra Club notes that EPA has found
in other actions \12\ that illegal SSM provisions related to emissions
during SSM events constituted grounds for denying redesignation
requests. Moreover, the Sierra Club notes that EPA has proposed a SIP
call for both the State and Maricopa County affirmative defense
provisions applicable during startup and shutdown events based on a
finding that such provisions are inconsistent with the CAA. Sierra Club
also cites a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 18,
2014--``Cement Kiln Decision''),\13\ as standing for the principle that
affirmative defense provisions, even those applicable only during
malfunctions, are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act because such provisions purport to alter or eliminate the
jurisdiction of federal courts to assess penalties for violation in
contravention of sections 113 and 304. Lastly, Sierra Club includes a
recent District Court opinion as an example of a citizen enforcement
action undermined by the presence in a SIP of affirmative defense
provisions applicable during malfunction events.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The commenter cites two Federal Register documents: a
proposed disapproval of redesignation requests and maintenance plans
for Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City, Utah
PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR 62717, December 1, 2009),
and a final rule requiring Utah to revise SSM provisions in its SIP
(76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011).
\13\ The Cement Kiln Decision involved a challenge to EPA's
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance
for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12, 2013), in
which EPA included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for
violations of emissions standards that result from unavoidable
malfunctions. In the Cement Kiln Decision, the Court vacated the
portion of the 2013 rule pertaining to the affirmative defense.
\14\ Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. W-12-cv-
108, W.D. Tex., memorandum opinion and order filed March 28, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA does not agree that the affirmative defense
provisions in the State and Maricopa County portions of the Arizona SIP
provide a basis for disapproving the redesignation request for the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for
the reasons set forth below.
The CAA sets forth the general criteria for redesignation of an
area from nonattainment to attainment in section 107(d)(3)(E). These
criteria include a determination by EPA that the area has attained the
relevant standard [section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)] and that EPA has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area for purposes
of redesignation [section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)]. EPA must also
determine that the improvement in air quality is due to reductions that
are permanent and enforceable [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)], and that the
EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under section
175A [section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. EPA addressed all these criteria in
the proposal to redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone area. The commenter alleges that EPA's analysis is
flawed because inclusion of the affirmative defense in the SIP makes
the Agency's determination under redesignation criteria at CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii), (iv), and (v) invalid.
As EPA stated in its proposed rule, CAA SIP requirements that are
not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and
classification, including certain section 110 requirements, are not
``applicable'' for purposes of evaluating compliance with the specific
redesignation criteria in CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 79 FR
at 16739, FN 22. EPA maintains this interpretation because these
requirements remain applicable after an area is redesignated to
attainment. For at least the past 15 years, EPA has applied this
interpretation with respect to requirements to which a state will be
subject after the area is redesignated. See, e.g., 73 FR 22307, 22312-
22313 (April 25, 2008) (proposed redesignation of San Joaquin Valley;
EPA concluded that section 110(a)(2)(D) transport requirements are not
applicable under section 110(d)(3)(E)(v) because they ``continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state''); 62 FR 24826, 24829-24830 (May 7, 1997)
(redesignation of Reading, Pennsylvania, Area; EPA concluded that the
additional controls required by section 184 were not ``applicable'' for
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) because ``they remain in force
regardless of the area's redesignation status''). Courts reviewing
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' in the context of requirements
applicable for redesignation have agreed with the Agency. See Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001). With respect to the affirmative defense
provisions in the Arizona SIP, redesignation of the area to attainment
will in no way relieve the State and Maricopa County of their
responsibilities to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the
SIP, if EPA later takes action to require correction of the Arizona SIP
with respect to the affirmative defense provisions.\15\ Because we
conclude that
[[Page 55649]]
the affirmative defense provisions are not applicable requirements for
purposes of this redesignation action, the existence of the affirmative
defense provisions in the SIP does not undermine our conclusion that
the redesignation criteria under section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) have
been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA has proposed, under CAA section 110(k)(5), to find a
number of SIPs, including the Arizona SIP, substantially inadequate
to meet CAA requirements because the SIP provides an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during certain SSM events. See 78 FR
12460, at 12533-12536 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The affirmative defense provisions at issue provide an affirmative
defense to monetary penalties for violations due to excess emissions
for certain categories of stationary sources during qualifying SSM
events.\16\ The Sierra Club maintains that the inclusion of these
provisions in the SIP renders the emissions limits in the nonattainment
SIP and maintenance plan that are subject to the affirmative defense
provision unenforceable, thus undermining the Agency's conclusion that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii),
and the conclusion that the maintenance plan will ensure maintenance of
the NAAQS prospectively as required under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). The
Sierra Club did not explain the precise basis for its claim that
potential assertion of the affirmative defenses at issue would render
the existing EPA approved SIP inconsistent with the criteria under
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv), and thus, in effect, invites EPA to
determine that the existence in the SIP of affirmative defense
provisions, without regard to the types of sources relied upon for
attainment and maintenance, per se means that EPA may not make a
positive determination with respect to the redesignation criteria under
CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv). We do not believe that the
redesignation criteria must be interpreted so narrowly, but may be
interpreted to account for the larger planning context in a given area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA approved the State's SSM affirmative defense rules
prior to designating the Phoenix-Mesa Area non-attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. See [Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)
R18-2-310 (``Affirmative Defenses for Excess Emissions Due to
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'')] at 66 FR 48087 (September
18, 2001) and Maricopa County's SSM affirmative defense rule
[Maricopa County Rule 140 (``Excess Emissions'') at 67 FR 54957
(August 27, 2002). At the time EPA approved the affirmative defense
provisions as a part of the SIP, the Agency believed them to be
consistent with CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona
SIP purport to allow sources to avoid monetary penalties for violations
of an applicable emissions limit under certain limited circumstances,
but those provisions do not prohibit the state, EPA or citizens from
seeking injunctive relief to force a source that is violating the
applicable SIP emission limitations to take steps to address the non-
compliance. Penalties are not the only means to address exceedances of
a SIP emission limitation, even though the possibility or threat of
penalties provides deterrence against violations and may cause a source
to agree more readily to correct a problem prospectively. The continued
availability of injunctive relief supports EPA's contention that the
emissions limits in the SIP are sufficiently enforceable for purposes
of redesignation, even though EPA now believes that such affirmative
defense provisions in SIPs are not consistent with the CAA and must be
revised.
Second, attainment of the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa
area and maintenance of the standard through 2025 primarily rely upon
emission limits on mobile and area sources to which the affirmative
defense provisions in the Arizona SIP do not apply. For example, all of
the specific control measures relied upon by the state for numeric
credit for attainment and maintenance planning purposes, with very
minor exceptions, apply to mobile and area sources. See figures ES-3
and ES-4 on pages ES-4 and ES-5 in the approved Eight-Hour Ozone Plan
for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2007); and figures ES-2 and
ES-3 on pages ES-5 and ES-6 in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
These control measures relate to nonroad equipment standards, fuel
formulations, and inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements rather
than stationary source controls.
This is not to say that controls on stationary source are not an
important part of the overall ozone control strategy in the Phoenix-
Mesa area. Rather, the point is that the extent to which individual
stationary sources, which might assert an affirmative defense for an
SSM event that would likely have occurred even in the absence of an
affirmative defense, can affect regional ozone concentrations in the
Phoenix-Mesa area is likely limited. For instance, based on the
emissions inventory for this area, the highest-emitting individual
stationary sources in the Phoenix-Mesa area emit approximately 0.80
metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOC and 2.55 mtpd of NOX based
on the individual facility data for 2005 compiled in appendix A,
exhibit 1 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. Such emissions
constitute approximately 0.12% and 0.94% of the overall regional
inventory for VOC and NOX, respectively.
Moreover, overall point source \17\ emissions in the Phoenix-Mesa
area constitute only 1.7% and 4.0% of VOC and NOX emissions,
respectively, based on the 2005 inventories presented on pages ES-8 and
ES-9 of the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. These values underscore
the importance of mobile and area (and biogenic) sources, to which the
affirmative defense provisions do not apply, to the regional inventory,
and by extension, to regional ozone concentrations. The current design
value for the Phoenix-Mesa area, meanwhile, which is equal to the
projected design value, is 0.081 ppm, five percent below the applicable
NAAQS. Thus, the hypothetical potential for any one individual point
source, or even small subset of such sources, to cause a violation of
the 1997 ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area due to higher
emissions that would likely have occurred in the absence of the
affirmative defense provisions, is quite low. For these reasons, we
conclude that the affirmative defense provisions in the Arizona SIP do
not make the emission limits relied upon for attainment and maintenance
unenforceable for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and
(iv) or otherwise undermine EPA's approval, finalized herein, of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and related grant of ADEQ's
redesignation request for the Phoenix-Mesa area for the 1997 ozone
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan defines ``point
sources'' as stationary sources that emit 25 (English) tons per year
or more of carbon monoxide, 10 tons per year or more of ozone
precursors, or 5 tons or more of PM10 or ammonia
compounds. See page 11 of appendix A, exhibit 1 of the Eight-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Club also contends that EPA has previously found in other
actions that illegal SSM provisions constitute grounds for denying
redesignation requests and references EPA's December 1, 2009 proposed
disapproval of Utah's redesignation requests for Salt Lake County, Utah
County, and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment areas (74 FR
62717). However, this aspect of the proposed disapproval, which was one
of many deficiencies identified by EPA, was based on the state's
inclusion in the submittal of new SIP revisions that would provide
blanket exemptions from compliance with emission standards during SSM
events. In the redesignation at issue here, the state did not seek to
create new SIP provisions that are inconsistent with CAA requirements
as part of its redesignation request or
[[Page 55650]]
maintenance plan, and the already existing affirmative defense
provisions do not purport to preclude all potential forms of
enforcement, or to provide a blanket exemption from compliance.
A more analogous action by EPA is the Agency's final redesignation
of the Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland (OH-WV-KY) nonattainment
area to attainment for the fine particulate matter standard
(PM2.5) standard. See 77 FR 76883 (December 31, 2012). In
response to comments challenging the proposed redesignation due to the
presence of certain SSM provisions in the Ohio SIP, EPA concluded that
the SSM provisions in the Ohio SIP did not provide a basis for
disapproving the redesignation request. Id., at 76891, 76892. In so
concluding, EPA noted that the SSM provisions and related SIP limits at
issue in that state were approved into the SIP and thus were permanent
and enforceable for the purposes of meeting the criteria for
redesignation, and that EPA had other statutory mechanisms for
addressing any problems associated with the SSM measures. EPA
emphasizes that the redesignation of the area to attainment does not
relieve Arizona of the responsibility to remove legally deficient SIP
provisions either independently or pursuant to a SIP call. To the
contrary, EPA maintains that it may determine that the affirmative
defense provisions are contrary to CAA requirements and take action to
require correction of those provisions even after the area has been
redesignated to attainment. This interpretation is consistent with
prior redesignation actions. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. EPA, 114 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998) (Redesignation of
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area determined valid even though the Agency
subsequently proposed a SIP call to require Ohio and other states to
revise their SIPs to mitigate ozone transport to other states).
As of this time, the State's and Maricopa County's affirmative
defense provisions are part of the approved SIP, and EPA is not
required to re-evaluate the validity of previously approved SIP
provisions as part of this redesignation.\18\ If approved SIP
provisions are separately determined to be deficient, EPA is able to
evaluate those concerns in the appropriate context, and can, if
necessary, issue a ``SIP call,'' which triggers a requirement for
states to submit a corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See September 4, 1992 memorandum entitled ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, at page 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d, 984, 989-990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); 68 FR 25418,
25426, May 12, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges that we are currently evaluating a petition that
pertains to EPA's SSM Policy that interprets the requirements of the
CAA with respect to the proper treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events in SIP provisions. As part of that process, EPA is separately
evaluating the issue of whether states have authority to create, and
EPA has authority to approve, any affirmative defense provisions in
SIPs. On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club filed a ``Petition to Find
Inadequate and Correct Several State Implementation Plans under Section
110 of the Clean Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and/or
Maintenance Provisions.'' The petition includes interrelated requests
concerning the treatment of excess emissions in state rules by sources
during periods of SSM. On February 22, 2013, EPA proposed to grant in
part and deny in part the request in the petition to rescind its policy
interpreting the CAA to allow states to have appropriately drawn SIP
provisions that provide affirmative defenses to monetary penalties for
violations during periods of SSM (78 FR 12460). EPA also proposed
either to grant or to deny the petition with respect to the specific
existing SIP provisions related to SSM events in each of the 39 states
identified by the Sierra Club as inconsistent with the CAA. In this
context, EPA has proposed to grant the petition with respect to both
the State's and Maricopa County's affirmative defense provisions for
startup and shutdown periods, and to deny the petition with respect to
the arguments concerning the agencies' affirmative defense provisions
for periods of malfunction. Under EPA's February 2013 proposal, a
schedule has been proposed for states to submit corrective SIP
revisions.
The Sierra Club also argues that the Cement Kiln Decision, issued
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18, 2014, prevents EPA
from approving any affirmative defense provisions in SIPs because they
are inconsistent with CAA provisions relevant to citizen enforcement
under sections 113 and 304. In the decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated
affirmative defense provisions applicable to violations due to
unavoidable malfunctions provided in EPA's standard for emissions from
Portland cement plants.\19\ The court concluded that sections 113 and
304 preclude EPA from creating such affirmative defense provision in
its own regulations because it would purport to alter or eliminate the
jurisdiction of federal courts to assess civil penalties for violations
of CAA requirements. EPA is currently analyzing this opinion and is
evaluating its impact on our interpretation of the CAA regarding the
permissibility of affirmative defenses in SIP provisions, including
those applicable to malfunctions. In the event that EPA determines that
no affirmative defense provisions are permissible in SIPs, the Agency
will have the authority and discretion to require the states to remove
deficient provisions from the SIPs pursuant to section 110(k)(5). EPA
maintains that this concern is better addressed through the exercise of
that authority, than through its authority to redesignate areas that
otherwise attain the NAAQS and meet the requirements of section
107(d)(3), consistent with EPA's long standing approach to evaluating
requests for redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 78 FR 10006 (February 12,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, with regard to the redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa
area, Arizona has a fully approved SIP. The provisions that the Sierra
Club objects to do not preclude EPA's determination that the emissions
reductions that have provided for attainment and that will provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area
are permanent and enforceable, as those terms are meant in section
107(d)(3) of the CAA, or that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes of
redesignation. In addition, the area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard since 2007, and has demonstrated it can maintain compliance
with the standard for at least 10 years after redesignation to
attainment. EPA notes, moreover, that it is approving contingency
provisions under section 175A(d) as part of the area's maintenance
plan. The contingency element of the maintenance plan provides
assurance that the area can promptly correct a violation that might
occur after redesignation. Finally, EPA is addressing the affirmative
defense provisions in the Arizona SIP in separate action or actions,
and redesignation of the area to attainment will in no way relieve the
State and Maricopa County of their responsibilities to remove the
affirmative defense provisions from the SIP, if EPA later takes final
action to
[[Page 55651]]
require such revisions to the Arizona SIP.
III. Final Action
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons provided above and
in the proposed rule, EPA is approving ADEQ's submittal dated March 23,
2009 of the MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009) (``Phoenix-
Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan'') as a revision to the Arizona
SIP. In connection with the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plan, EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how the area
will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years beyond
redesignation (i.e., through 2025) and the contingency provisions meet
all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in CAA section 175A.
EPA is also finding adequate and approving the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) from the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
for transportation conformity purposes because we find that they meet
the applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
93.118(e). The MVEBs are 43.8 metric tons per day (mtpd) of VOC and
101.8 mtpd of NOX. They include a 10% safety margin, and
correspond to the peak episode day (Thursday) in June 2025 that was
used to model maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Phoenix-Mesa area in the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
These new MVEBs become effective on the date of publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)) and must
be used by U.S. Department of Transportation and the Maricopa
Association of Governments for future transportation conformity
analyses for the Phoenix-Mesa area with applicable horizon years after
2024. The existing 2008 VOC and NOX MVEBs established in
MAG's approved Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan also remain in effect.
On-road motor vehicle emissions in any required analysis years up to
and including 2024 cannot exceed levels established by those
previously-approved MVEBs.
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving ADEQ's
request, which accompanied the submittal of the maintenance plan, to
redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\20\ We are doing so based
on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our determination that the area has attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS; that relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are
fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions; that Arizona has met all
requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa area with respect to
section 110 and part D of the CAA; and that the area has a fully
approved maintenance plan meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A
(i.e., the Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan approved herein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As noted in our proposed rule at 79 FR 16736, EPA has
lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard), and has designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as
marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Today's
action redesignates the Phoenix-Mesa area as attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard only. The Phoenix-Mesa area remains
nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard
until redesignated for that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment under section
107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan as a
SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) are actions that affect the status
of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law.
Redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new
requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements
contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
these actions merely approve a State plan and redesignation request as
meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Nonetheless, in
accordance with EPA's 2011 Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Tribes, EPA has discussed the actions with the three Tribes located
within the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area: The Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community,
and the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in
[[Page 55652]]
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: August 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(160) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(160) The following plan was submitted on March 23, 2009, by the
Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009), adopted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 23, 2009,
excluding the appendices.
* * * * *
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. Section 81.303 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the table heading ``Arizona--Ozone (Arizona-1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' and adding in its place
``Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)''; and
0
b. In the newly headed table ``Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary
and Secondary),'' under ``Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:'' revising the entries for
``Maricopa County (part)'' and ``Pinal County (part)''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
Arizona-1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and Secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Category/ classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ:
Maricopa County (part).............. 10/17/2014 Attainment........
[[Page 55653]]
T1N, R1E (except that portion in
Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N,
R3E; T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E;
T1N, R7E; T1N, R1W; T1N, R2W; T1N,
R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W;
T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N,
R4E; T2N, R5E, T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E;
T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N, R10E; T2N,
R11E; T2N, R12E (except that
portion in Gila County); T2N, R13E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T2N, R1W; T2N, R2W; T2N,
R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W;
T2N, R7W; T3N, R1E; T3N, R2E; T3N,
R3E; T3N, R4E; T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E;
T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N,
R10E (except that portion in Gila
County); T3N, R11E (except that
portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T3N, R1W; T3N, R2W; T3N,
R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N, R5W; T3N, R6W;
T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N,
R4E; T4N, R5E; T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E;
T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T4N, R11E (except that
portion in Gila County); T4N, R12E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T4N, R1W; T4N, R2W; T4N,
R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W;
T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E; T5N,
R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; T5N, R7E;
T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E (except that
portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; T5N,
R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W; T6N, R1E
(except that portion in Yavapai
County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N,
R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E;
T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that
portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T6N, R1W (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T6N,
R2W; T6N, R3W; T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W;
T7N, R1E (except that portion in
Yavapai County); T7N, R2E; (except
that portion in Yavapai County);
T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N,
R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E; T7N, R9E
(except that portion in Gila
County); T7N, R1W (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T7N,
R2W (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R2E (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T8N,
R3E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R4E (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T8N,
R5E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R6E (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T8N,
R7E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R8E (except that
portion in Yavapai and Gila
Counties); T8N, R9E (except that
portion in Yavapai and Gila
Counties); T1S, R1E (except that
portion in Indian Country); T1S,
R2E (except that portion in Pinal
County and in Indian Country); T1S,
R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, R6E;
T1S, R7E; T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S,
R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W; T1S, R6W;
T2S, R1E (except that portion in
Indian Country); T2S, R5E; T2S,
R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W; T2S, R2W;
T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S,
R1E; T3S, R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W;
T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W; T4S, 1E; T4S,
R1W; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W;
T4S, R5W.
Pinal County (part)..................... 10/17/2014 Attainment........
Apache Junction: T1N, R8E; T1S, R8E
(Sections 1 through 12)
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-22029 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P