[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