[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11664-11680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04070]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0869; FRL-9503-01-R9]
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request; Nogales PM2.5
Planning Area; Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the ``FINAL SIP Revision: Nogales PM2.5 Maintenance
Plan and Redesignation Request (2006 Fine Particulate NAAQS)''
(``Nogales Maintenance Plan'' or ``Plan'') as a revision to the state
implementation plan (SIP) for the State of Arizona. The Nogales
Maintenance Plan includes, among other elements, an emissions inventory
consistent with attainment, a maintenance demonstration, contingency
provisions, and a motor vehicle emissions budget for the ten-year
maintenance period. The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of
Arizona's request to redesignate the Nogales area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS
or ``standard'') for particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less
(PM2.5). The EPA is proposing these
[[Page 11665]]
actions because this SIP revision meets the applicable Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') requirements for maintenance plans and because the
State has met the requirements under the Act for redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment with respect to the Nogales area.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before April 1, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0869 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, or if you need assistance in a language
other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (ARD-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
972-3958, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
B. The Nogales Area and Regulatory Actions
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Redesignations and
Maintenance Plans
II. Submissions from the State of Arizona to Redesignate the Nogales
Area to Attainment of the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Summary of State Submissions
B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of
SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of Arizona's Redesignation Request for the Nogales
Area
A. Evaluation of Whether the Nogales Area Has Attained the PM2.5
NAAQS
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Meeting the
Requirements Applicable for the Purposes of Redesignation Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
C. The Area Must Show that the Improvement in Air Quality is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under
CAA Section 175A
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPA sets the NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels
required to protect human health and the environment. Particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers, or PM2.5, is one of these ambient air
pollutants for which the EPA has established health-based standards. On
July 18, 1997, the EPA established the first NAAQS for PM2.5
(``the 1997 PM2.5 Standards''), including an annual standard
of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on a three-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
(or daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a three-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.\1\ The EPA established
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating the serious health effects
associated with exposures to PM2.5. Subsequently, on October
17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
revising it to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 38652.
\2\ 71 FR 61144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Nogales Area and Regulatory Actions
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by the CAA to promulgate designations for areas throughout the
U.S. in accordance with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. Effective
December 14, 2009, the EPA established the initial air quality
designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ Among these areas so designated in 2009, the
EPA designated the Nogales planning area (``Nogales area'') as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on
monitoring data from 2004 through 2007. The Nogales area covers 76.1
square miles and is in southern Santa Cruz County, Arizona, adjacent to
the international border with Mexico and the city of Nogales, Sonora,
Mexico.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\4\ The legal nonattainment area boundaries for the Nogales area
are described in 40 CFR 81.303. ADEQ provided a map portraying these
boundaries in the Nogales Maintenance Plan, 5, Figure 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified as ``Moderate'' all areas that
were designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5
standards at the time under subpart 4 of part D of CAA title I,
including the Nogales area.\5\ The EPA also established a due date of
December 31, 2014, for states to submit SIP revisions related to
attainment and nonattainment new source review required for these areas
pursuant to subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 79 FR 31566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2013, the EPA issued a determination under our clean
data policy (a ``clean data determination'') for the Nogales area in
relation to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on three
years of complete, quality-assured, and certified data for the 2009-
2011 time frame.\6\ The EPA's clean data determination for the Nogales
area suspended, for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, CAA requirements in sections 172 and 189 for an
attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measure (RACM)
demonstration, and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration; it
also suspended the contingency measure provisions in section 172.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 78 FR 887.
\7\ For a discussion of the clean data determination for the
Nogales area and our clean data policy, see our October 30, 2012
proposed rulemaking (77 FR 65656). Also, the EPA codified the clean
data policy in regulation as part of the PM2.5
implementation rule finalized on August 24, 2016; 81 FR 58010
(codified at 40 CFR 51.1015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the EPA's clean data determination suspended certain CAA
requirements for the State, the requirement to submit PM2.5
emissions inventories consistent with CAA section 172(c)(3) remained.
Consequently, in September 2013, Arizona submitted to the EPA emissions
inventories for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
(oxides of nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2),\8\ and ammonia
(NH3)). The EPA approved
[[Page 11666]]
these PM2.5 and precursor emissions inventories on February
9, 2015.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ SO2 is commonly used as the indicator for all
gaseous sulfur oxides (SOX).
\9\ 80 FR 6907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2017, as required by the CAA, the EPA determined that the
Nogales area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2015, the date specified by the Act.\10\ The EPA relied on
2013-2015 ambient PM2.5 data in making this determination
that the Nogales area attained the NAAQS by the applicable date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 82 FR 21711 (May 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Redesignations and Maintenance
Plans
The CAA establishes the criteria that must be met for the EPA to
redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment of a given NAAQS.
Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) sets forth the following criteria:
(1) The EPA must determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the EPA must have fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k); (3) the EPA
must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions; (4) the EPA must have fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 175A; and, (5) the state must have met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and title I, part D (``part
D'') of the CAA. Section 110 identifies a comprehensive list of
elements that must be included in SIPs and part D establishes the SIP
requirements for nonattainment areas. Part D is divided into six
subparts. The generally applicable SIP requirements for nonattainment
areas are found in subpart 1 of part D, and the particulate matter-
specific SIP requirements are found in subpart 4 of part D.
The EPA provided guidance on redesignations in a document titled
``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published in the
Federal Register on April 16, 1992,\11\ and supplemented on April 28,
1992 (collectively referred to herein as the ``General Preamble'').\12\
The EPA issued additional guidance in two memoranda: A September 4,
1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, titled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (referred to herein as the ``Calcagni memo''); and, a 1994
memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, titled ``Part D New Source Review
(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment'' (``Nichols memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 57 FR 13498.
\12\ 57 FR 18070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's approval of a state's maintenance plan is one of the CAA
prerequisites for redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment.
Section 175A of the CAA provides the general framework for a state's
maintenance plans. A state's initial 10-year maintenance plan must
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation and include any additional control measures necessary to
ensure such maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans must contain
contingency provisions necessary to assure the prompt correction of a
violation of the NAAQS during the maintenance period. At a minimum,
these contingency provisions must include a requirement that a state
will implement all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP
prior to redesignation. Because a state's maintenance plan submittals
are SIP revisions, the EPA is obligated under CAA section 110(k) to
approve them or disapprove them depending upon whether they meet the
applicable CAA requirements for such plans outlined above.
For the reasons described in section III of this proposal, the EPA
is proposing to approve the Nogales Maintenance Plan and to approve
Arizona's request for redesignation of the Nogales area to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's proposed
approvals are based on our conclusion that Arizona has satisfied all
the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
II. Submissions From the State of Arizona To Redesignate the Nogales
Area To Attainment of the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Summary of State Submissions
On April 13, 2021, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA its redesignation request and the Nogales
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP.\13\ This document
addresses all of the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment of the NAAQS and
includes the required maintenance plan elements. The Nogales
Maintenance Plan is organized into seven chapters and five appendices
with the maintenance plan elements found in Chapters 5 and 6. The five
appendices provide support for the Plan and are divided into the
following categories: Technical support and documentation for emissions
inventories (appendices B-D); and SIP adoption authority, public notice
and hearing documentation (appendices A and E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter dated April 7, 2021, from Daniel Czecholinski,
Director, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX. Subsequently, Arizona made an electronic submittal of the
Nogales Maintenance Plan on April 13, 2021, via the EPA's State Plan
Electronic Collection System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of SIP
Revisions
CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require a state to provide
reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to
the adoption and submission of a SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this
procedural requirement, a state must include evidence that it provided
adequate public notice and an opportunity for a public hearing,
consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
ADEQ provided public notice and opportunity for public comment on
the Nogales Maintenance Plan. On December 29, 2020, ADEQ released a
draft of the Nogales Maintenance Plan for public review and published a
notice of public meeting to be held on January 28, 2021, to consider
adoption of the Nogales Maintenance Plan.\14\ Following a virtual
public hearing on January 28, 2021,\15\ ADEQ adopted the Nogales
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP on April 7, 2021, and
submitted the Plan to the EPA on April 13, 2021. On October 13, 2021,
the Nogales Maintenance Plan became complete by operation of law
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Public
Comment Period and Hearing'' published in the Nogales International
on December 29, 2020, and January 1, 2021; Exhibit E-III, Appendix
E, Nogales PM2.5 Maintenance Plan. A similar public
notice appeared on the ADEQ website.
\15\ ``Public Hearing Presiding Officer Certification'' signed
by Zachary Dorn, Presiding Officer, notarized and dated February 17,
2021, Appendix E, Nogales Maintenance Plan. The hearing transcript,
the public comments, and State responses are also found in Appendix
E of the Nogales Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the SIP submission and summarized
in this proposal, the EPA proposes to find that the submittal of the
Nogales Maintenance Plan meets the procedural requirements for public
notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
[[Page 11667]]
III. Evaluation of Arizona's Redesignation Request for the Nogales Area
A. Evaluation of Whether the Nogales Area Has Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA, for a nonattainment
area to be redesignated to attainment, the EPA must determine that the
area has attained the relevant NAAQS. The EPA interprets this
requirement to mean that the area must have an attaining design value
based on the most recently available and quality-assured air quality
monitoring data, collected in accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 58.\16\ These requirements include quality assurance
procedures for monitor operation and data handling, siting parameters
for instruments or instrument probes, and minimum ambient air quality
monitoring network requirements.\17\ State, local, or tribal agencies
that operate air monitoring sites in accordance with 40 CFR part 58
must enter the ambient air quality data and associated quality
assurance data from these sites in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database.\18\ These monitoring agencies certify annually that these
data are accurate to the best of their knowledge, taking into
consideration the quality assurance findings.\19\ Accordingly, the EPA
relies primarily on AQS data when determining the attainment status of
an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 57 FR 13563.
\17\ 40 CFR 58.2(a).
\18\ 40 CFR 58.16. AQS is the EPA's national repository of
ambient air quality data.
\19\ 40 CFR 58.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, generally the EPA's
finding of attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must
be based upon complete, certified data gathered at eligible monitoring
sites in the nonattainment area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
entered in AQS.\20\ For the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, Appendix
N section 1.0(c) defines eligible monitoring sites as those that meet
the technical requirements in 40 CFR 58.11. Under 40 CFR 50.13 and in
accordance with part 50, Appendix N, an area meets the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when the design value at each eligible
monitoring site within the area is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0.
\21\ The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the
three-year average of 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have a valid design value showing attainment of the
PM2.5 standard at a given monitoring site, the ambient air
quality data must meet data completeness or substitution requirements
for each year under consideration. The completeness requirements are
met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each
quarter have valid data.\22\ In determining whether data are suitable
for regulatory determinations, the EPA uses a ``weight of evidence''
approach, considering the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A
``in combination with other data quality information, reports, and
similar documentation that demonstrate overall compliance with Part
58.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b).
\23\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, section 1.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Monitoring Network Review, Quality Assurance, and Data Completeness
ADEQ is the governmental agency with the authority and
responsibilities under the State's laws for collecting ambient air
quality data for the Nogales area. As a result, ADEQ submits annual
monitoring network plans to the EPA.\24\ These plans document the
status of ADEQ's air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR
58.10. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with
the specific requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to
PM2.5, we have found that the annual network plans submitted
by ADEQ meet these requirements under 40 CFR part 58, including minimum
monitoring requirements.\25\ The Nogales Post Office monitoring site
(AQS ID: 04-023-0004) is the only PM2.5 monitoring site in
the Nogales area.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We have included in our docket copies of Arizona's
monitoring network plans for 2018-2020, e.g., ``State of Arizona Air
Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2020.''
\25\ We have included in our docket our reviews of ADEQ's annual
network plans and the correspondence transmitting these reviews,
e.g., correspondence dated October 28, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Daniel
Czecholinski, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ.
\26\ See, e.g., ``State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan
for the Year 2020,'' Table 2.2-1, ``SIP Network Monitoring
Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, ADEQ certifies annually that the
previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are
completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are
accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings.\27\
Along with the certification letters, ADEQ submits a summary of the
precision and accuracy data for all ambient air quality data.\28\ The
EPA's evaluations of the relevant quality assurance data are reflected
in the associated AQS design value reports.\29\ These reports include a
certification evaluation and concurrence (``Cert&Eval'') flag
indicating the overall quality of the corresponding monitoring data.
Over the period 2018-2020, the associated Cert&Eval flag in the design
value report was ``Y'' for the Nogales Post Office PM2.5
monitoring site, meaning that ``[t]he certifying agency has submitted a
certification letter, and EPA has no unresolved reservations about data
quality (after reviewing the letter, the attached summary reports, the
amount of quality assurance data submitted to AQS, the quality
statistics, and the highest reported concentrations).'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ We have included in our docket ADEQ's annual data
certifications for 2018, 2019, and 2020, e.g., correspondence dated
April 26, 2021, from Daniel Czecholinski, Director, Air Quality
Division, ADEQ, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, EPA Region IX. Annual data certification requirements can be
found at 40 CFR 58.15.
\28\ 40 CFR 58.15(c).
\29\ AQS, Design Value Report (AMP480), dated November 19, 2021.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nogales area Design Value Report also included a validity
indicator (``Valid Ind.'') that reflects whether the design value is
valid (i.e., calculated using data that meet the applicable
completeness criteria). For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed
the data for the 2018-2020 period for completeness and determined that
the PM2.5 data collected by ADEQ met the 75 percent
completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the PM2.5
monitoring site in the Nogales area.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA conducts regular technical systems audits (TSAs)
where we review and inspect state and local ambient air monitoring
programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning
the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air
quality data. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the
findings from the EPA's 2018 TSA of ADEQ's ambient air monitoring
program.\32\ In Finding 11 of the 2018 TSA, the EPA noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Technical Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring
Program: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, April 2--April
6, 2018; Final Report dated April 2019 (``2018 TSA''). The 2018 TSA
is attached to its transmittal letter dated April 25, 2019, from
Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA Region IX, to Timothy J. Franquist, ADEQ.
[[Page 11668]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The distance between collocated PM2.5 monitors were
not being met at Nogales Post Office (AQS ID: 04-023-0004). The
primary Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 monitor was
4.5 meters from the collocated FRM PM2.5 monitor and
therefore not meeting the requirement of 2 to 4 meters between
monitors. Additionally, the collocated FRM PM2.5 monitor
was closer to the side of the building than the primary FRM
PM2.5 monitor and was close to not meeting siting
requirements. Since the collocated FRM PM2.5 monitor was
4.5 meters closer to the side of the building than the primary FRM
PM2.5 monitor, the monitor pair could measure different
concentrations.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 24.
To address this finding, ADEQ moved the collocated monitor to 2.2
meters from the primary FRM monitor on February 2, 2019.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Letter dated July 2, 2019, from Daniel Czecholinski,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager,
Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, Attachment: Finding
Corrective Action Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA did not recommend invalidating any data from the Nogales
Post Office monitoring site based on this TSA finding.\35\ The purpose
of distance requirements for collocated PM2.5 monitors is to
ensure that the two monitors measure similar concentrations so that
data from the monitors can be compared to estimate the precision of the
measurements.\36\ Under the EPA's weight of evidence approach for
evaluating the suitability of data for regulatory purposes, the
precision of PM2.5 measurements is considered a systematic
criterion,\37\ meaning that it is important for the correct
interpretation of the data, but it does not usually affect the validity
of a sample or group of samples.\38\ Accordingly, the fact that the
collocated monitors were 4.5 meters apart does not affect the validity
of the data collected at the Nogales Post Office monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 2018 TSA Report, 24.
\36\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, sections 3.2.3 and 4.2.1.
\37\ EPA, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems (``QA Handbook''), Vol. II, Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Program, appendix D, March 2017, 28.
\38\ Id., 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, based on the EPA's reviews of the relevant monitoring
network plans, certifications, quality assurance data, and 2018 TSA, we
propose to find that the PM2.5 data collected at the Nogales
Post Office monitoring site are suitable for determining whether the
Nogales area has attained 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS based on
the most recent certified data available in AQS.
3. Evaluation of Attainment
Table 1 shows the calculated 24-hour PM2.5 design value
at the Nogales Post Office monitoring site within the Nogales area for
the 2018-2020 period.\39\ The data show that the 24-hour design value
for the 2018-2020 period, 26 [mu]g/m\3\, was equal to or less than 35
[mu]g/m\3\, the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS; \40\ and,
preliminary data for 2021 continue to show that the Nogales area is
meeting the NAAQS.\41\ Consequently, based upon three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified data from 2018-2020, the EPA
proposes to determine that the Nogales area has attained and continues
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ We calculated the design value for the 2018-2020 period as
the average of the annual 98th percentiles for each of the three
years according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, section 4.5.
\40\ AQS, Design Value Report, dated November 19, 2021.
\41\ AQS, Combined Site Sample Values Report, dated November 19,
2021.
Table 1--Nogales Area 2020 Design Value for the 2006 PM2.5 24-Hour NAAQS With Annual 98th Percentile
Concentrations
[[mu]g/m\3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentile
Monitor AQS site ID ------------------------------------------------ 2018-2020
No. 2018 2019 2020 design value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nogales Post Office............. 04-023-0004 21.8 24.7 32.2 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AQS, Design Value Report, dated November 19, 2021.
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Meeting the Requirements
Applicable for the Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part
D of the CAA
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v), the EPA must have fully
approved the applicable SIP for the nonattainment area under CAA
section 110(k) and the state containing such an area must have met all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. We
interpret the references to the ``applicable implementation plan'' and
``applicable requirements'' in section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and in
107(d)(3)(E)(v), respectively, to mean that a SIP must be fully
approved only with respect to requirements that are applicable for
purposes of redesignation. The CAA section 110 and part D requirements
that are linked to a particular nonattainment area's designation and
classification (except those directly related to attainment, as
discussed in section II.B.2 of this proposal) are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. Requirements that
apply, regardless of the designation of an area of a state, are not
applicable requirements for the purpose of redesignation, and the state
will remain subject to these requirements after the nonattainment area
is redesignated to attainment.
For example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain
certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in another state; these SIPs are
often referred to as ``transport SIPs.'' Because the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for transport SIPs are not linked to a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification, but
apply regardless of the area's attainment status, these are not
applicable requirements for the purpose of redesignation, under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). This is consistent with the EPA's existing policy
on applicability of the conformity SIP requirement for
redesignations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 75 FR 36023, 36026 (June 24, 2010) and citations within.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request,\43\ and any additional measure or element we may
approve in conjunction with our redesignation action.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Calcagni Memo, 3; Wall v. EPA, F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001);
and Southwest Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 114 F.3d 984,
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998).
\44\ 68 FR 25418, 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations within.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11669]]
1. State Implementation Plan Requirements Under Section 110
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in CAA section
110 include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP
that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a
source permitting program; provisions for the implementation of part C
requirements for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD);
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for
nonattainment new source review permit programs; provisions for air
pollution modeling; and, provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emissions control rule development.
On numerous occasions, ADEQ has submitted, and the EPA has
approved, provisions addressing the basic CAA section 110 provisions.
The Arizona SIP contains enforceable emissions limitations; requires
monitoring, compiling, and analyzing of ambient air quality data;
requires preconstruction review of new or modified stationary sources;
provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources
necessary to implement its requirements; and, provides the necessary
assurances that the State maintains responsibility for ensuring that
the CAA requirements are satisfied in the event that local or regional
agencies are unable to meet their CAA obligations. Relevant to this
proposal, on November 5, 2012, the EPA approved SIP revisions submitted
by the state of Arizona with respect to the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 77 FR 66398. The EPA approved the submittals as satisfying
most requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), but disapproved the
submittals with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (J), and (K) because of a deficiency with respect to PSD
requirements in Maricopa and Pima counties. We also partially
disapproved the submittals with respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), but
this disapproval pertained only to Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal
counties and thus has no relevance to the Nogales area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we find that there are no outstanding or disapproved
applicable SIP submittals that prevent redesignation of the Nogales
area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, we
propose to conclude that the ADEQ has met all SIP requirements for the
Nogales area that are applicable for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA.
2. State Implementation Plan Requirements Under Part D
Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the CAA contain air quality
planning requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Subpart
1 contains general requirements for all nonattainment areas of any
pollutant governed by a NAAQS, including PM2.5. The subpart
1 requirements include, in relevant part, provisions for implementation
of RACM, a demonstration of RFP, emissions inventories, a program for
preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified major
stationary sources, contingency measures, and transportation
conformity.
Subpart 4 contains specific planning and scheduling requirements
for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The requirements described in
CAA section 189(a), (c), and (e) apply specifically to Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and include the following: An
approved permit program for construction of new or modified major
stationary sources; provisions for RACM; an attainment demonstration;
quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date; and, provisions to ensure that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM2.5
also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors,
except where the Administrator has determined that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
NAAQS in the area.
As noted in section I.B of this proposal, in 2013 the EPA issued a
clean data determination for the Nogales area, based on 2009-2011 data.
As part of this determination, we found that the following CAA
requirements in sections 172 and 189 would not apply to the Nogales
area for so long as the area continued to attain the PM2.5
standard or until the area was redesignated to attainment: An
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, and contingency measures.
Moreover, in the context of evaluating the area's eligibility for
redesignation, there is a separate and additional justification for
finding that requirements associated with attainment are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Prior to and independent of the clean
data policy, and in the context of redesignations specifically, the EPA
has interpreted CAA SIP submittal requirements associated with
attainment of the NAAQS (such as attainment and RFP demonstrations) as
not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.\46\ Similarly, the
Calcagni memo provides that requirements for RFP and other measures
needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they
have meaning and applicability only where areas do not meet the
NAAQS.\47\ With respect to contingency measures, the EPA explained that
the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date; consequently, these
requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standards
and is eligible for redesignation. In addition, CAA section 175A(d)
provides requirements for specific maintenance plan contingency
provisions that effectively supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these maintenance areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ General Preamble, 13564.
\47\ Calcagni memo, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the EPA has concluded that the requirements associated with
attainment do not apply for purposes of evaluating whether an area
attaining the standards qualifies for redesignation. The EPA has
enunciated this position since the General Preamble was published in
1992, and it represents our interpretation of what constitutes
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E). The courts have
recognized the scope of the EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable
requirements'' in the redesignation context.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The Seventh Circuit decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding the EPA's redesignation of the
St. Louis metropolitan area to attainment) is one such example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining applicable part D requirements for Moderate
PM2.5 areas include the following: (1) An emissions
inventory under section 172(c)(3); (2) a permit program for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
of PM2.5 under sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A); (3)
control requirements for major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors under section 189(e), except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the standards in the area; (4)
requirements under section 172(c)(7) that meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2); and, (5) provisions to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP under section 176(c). We discuss
each of these requirements next.
a. Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of PM2.5 and
[[Page 11670]]
precursor pollutants for the baseline year from all sources within the
nonattainment area. As noted earlier in section I.C, we approved the
Nogales area emissions inventories under CAA section 172(c)(3) in 2015.
b. Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources
CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) require that states submit
SIP revisions that establish certain requirements for new or modified
major stationary sources in nonattainment areas, including provisions
to ensure that major new sources or major modifications of existing
sources of nonattainment pollutants incorporate the highest level of
control (referred to as the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)),
and that increases in emissions from such stationary sources are offset
to provide for RFP towards attainment in the nonattainment area. The
major source threshold for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
areas is 100 tons per year of PM2.5.\49\ The process for
reviewing permit applications and issuing permits for new or modified
stationary sources of air pollution is referred to as new source review
(NSR). With respect to nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas,
this process is referred to as nonattainment NSR (NNSR). Areas that are
designated as attainment or unclassifiable for one or more NAAQS are
required to submit SIP revisions that ensure that major new stationary
sources or major modifications of existing stationary sources meet the
federal requirements for PSD, including application of best available
control technology for each applicable pollutant emitted in significant
amounts, among other requirements.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ CAA section 302(j).
\50\ PSD requirements control the growth of new source emissions
in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for a NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ has air permitting responsibilities in Santa Cruz County and
the Nogales area. ADEQ has an EPA-approved NNSR program for
PM2.5.\51\ With respect to sources subject to ADEQ's
jurisdiction, EPA-approved regulations include rules for the review of
applications for new or modified stationary sources. The EPA has not
approved ADEQ regulations specifically meeting the NNSR requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A). The EPA interprets section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, however, such that final approval of an
NNSR program is not a prerequisite to approving a state's redesignation
request. The EPA has determined in past redesignations that an NNSR
program does not have to be approved prior to redesignation provided
that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standards without part D
NNSR requirements in effect.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015); 83 FR 19631 (May 4, 2018);
86 FR 31927 (June 16, 2021).
\52\ See, generally, the Nichols memo; see also, the more
detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings:
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996); and San
Joaquin Valley, California (73 FR 22307, 22313, April 25, 2008 and
73 FR 66759, 66766-66767, November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demonstration of maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Nogales Maintenance Plan relies on projections of future emissions
based on various growth factors. For the types of stationary sources
that are subject to ADEQ jurisdiction, future emissions are projected
based on either the operational history of the facility or population
growth projections and do not take credit for future control technology
requirements, such as LAER, or for imposition of emissions offsets.\53\
Thus, we find that the maintenance demonstration for the Nogales area
does not rely on an NNSR program, and that the area need not have a
fully-approved NNSR program prior to approval of the PM2.5
redesignation request for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ In Section III.D of this proposal, we discuss the point
source emissions projections with respect to the Valencia Power
Plant, the sole operating point source in the Nogales area and
include perquisite citations to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we finalize the redesignation action as proposed herein, the
requirements of the PSD program will apply with respect to
PM2.5.\54\ With respect to the PSD requirements, ADEQ has an
EPA-approved PSD program under CAA sections 160 through 165 of the CAA,
except for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the EPA has delegated to ADEQ
the authority to administer the federal PSD program for GHGs under 40
CFR 52.21.\55\ These programs will apply to PM2.5 emissions
from new major sources and major modifications upon redesignation of
the area to attainment. Thus, new major sources and major modifications
to existing major sources with significant PM2.5 emissions,
as defined under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, will be required to obtain a
PSD permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ With respect to other criteria pollutants, PSD requirements
already apply in the Nogales area.
\55\ 40 CFR 52.144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conclude that the Arizona SIP adequately meets the requirements
of section 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of redesignation of
the Nogales area.
c. Control Requirements for PM2.5 Precursors
Section 189(e) of the CAA provides that control requirements for
major stationary sources of direct PM10 (including
PM2.5) also apply to PM precursors from those sources,
except where the EPA determines that major stationary sources of such
precursors do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels
that exceed the standards in the area. The CAA does not explicitly
address whether it would be appropriate to include a potential
exemption from precursor controls for all source categories under
certain circumstances. In implementing subpart 4 for PM10,
the EPA has allowed states to determine that a precursor was
``insignificant'' where the state could show in its attainment plan
that it would attain the NAAQS expeditiously without adoption of
emissions reduction measures aimed at that precursor. This approach was
upheld in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA.\56\ Subsequently,
the EPA included this approach within the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule.\57\ A state may develop its attainment plan and
adopt RACM that target and control only those precursors that are
necessary for the purpose of timely attainment.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
\57\ See generally 81 FR 58017-58026.
\58\ Id at 58020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because the section 189(e) requirement is primarily
actionable in the context of addressing precursors in an attainment
plan, a precursor exemption analysis under section 189(e) and the EPA's
implementing regulations is not an applicable requirement that needs to
be fully approved in the context of a redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed earlier in our proposal, for areas that
are attaining the standards, the EPA does not interpret the
requirements of subpart 1 and subpart 4 that are associated with
attainment to be applicable requirements for the purpose of
redesignating the area to attainment.
As previously noted, the EPA determined in 2013 and more recently
in 2017 that the Nogales area had attained the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\59\ Therefore, no additional controls of any pollutant,
including any PM2.5 precursor, are necessary to bring the
area into attainment. In section III.A of this proposal, we propose to
find that the area continues to attain the NAAQS. In section III.C, the
EPA proposes to determine that the Nogales area has
[[Page 11671]]
attained the standard due to permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions. Also, as presented in section III.D, we propose to find
that the Nogales Maintenance Plan demonstrates continued maintenance of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2032. Taken together, these
factors support our conclusion that PM2.5 precursors are
controlled adequately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Also, the Nogales area has recorded ambient air quality
data under the PM2.5 NAAQS continuously since 2009; refer
to Nogales Maintenance Plan, 15, Figure 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Compliance With Section 110(a)(2)
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As described in section
III.B.1 of this proposal, we conclude that the Arizona SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) that are applicable for purposes of
this redesignation.
e. General and Transportation Conformity Requirements
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, states are required to revise
their SIPs to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects in nonattainment areas and
former nonattainment areas subject to a maintenance plan (referred to
as ``maintenance areas'') conform to the air quality planning goals in
the applicable SIP. Section 176(c) further provides that state
conformity provisions must be consistent with federal conformity
regulations that the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate. The EPA's
conformity regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A
(referred to herein as ``transportation conformity'') and subpart B
(referred to herein as ``general conformity''). Transportation
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded, and approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53), and general conformity applies to
all other federally supported or funded projects. SIP revisions
intended to address the conformity requirements are referred to herein
as ``conformity SIPs.'' In 2005, Congress amended section 176(c) of the
CAA. Under the amended conformity statutory provisions, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIPs for general conformity, and
the conformity SIP requirements for transportation conformity have been
reduced to include only those relating to consultation, enforcement,
and enforceability.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not approved a transportation conformity SIP for the
Nogales area. We consider it reasonable, however, to interpret the
conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of a
redesignation request under section 107(d) because the conformity SIP
requirement continues to apply post-redesignation (conformity applies
in maintenance areas as well as nonattainment areas) and because the
federal conformity rules (set forth in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and
subpart B) apply where the EPA has not approved a state's rule.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Area Must Show That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
To approve a redesignation to attainment, under section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, the EPA is required to determine that a
nonattainment area's improvement in air quality is due to emissions
reductions that are permanent and enforceable, and that the improvement
results from the implementation of the applicable SIP, applicable
federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable regulations. Under this criterion, a state must be able to
reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions. Attainment resulting from temporary
reductions in emissions rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdown due
to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable
meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Calcagni memo, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Nogales area, federal programs have been the primary
measures contributing permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
leading to attainment of the NAAQS. Increasingly stringent federal
motor vehicle standards for cars and trucks, federal requirements for
lower sulfur content in diesel fuel, and capital improvements to ports
of entry (POE), and expansion of the Mariposa POE have contributed to
reducing ambient PM2.5 concentrations since the Nogales area
was classified as nonattainment in 2009.
The federal motor vehicle program and federal fuel standards for
sulfur content in diesel have contributed to attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Nogales area by reducing emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, such as
SO2 and NOX.\63\ Federal tier 2 and 3 motor
vehicle standards implemented from 2004 to 2014 helped to reduce on-
road mobile source PM2.5 emissions in the Nogales area by 53
percent, from 2008 to 2017.\64\ Federal sulfur content standards for
diesel fuel were implemented in conjunction with the federal motor
vehicle program standards. Lower sulfur content fuel has reduced
SO2 emissions and allowed pollution control equipment to
operate more effectively to reduce emissions of other pollutants as
well. Taken together these federal programs contributed to
NOX emission reductions of 56 percent in the Nogales area,
in addition to the PM2.5 emissions reduction discussed
above.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 22-24.
\64\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 22.
\65\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in 2010, the Mariposa POE, located 1.7 miles west of the
Nogales Post Office monitor, underwent a series of capital improvements
to expand this POE, to divert truck traffic from the DeConcini POE
located in downtown Nogales, and to facilitate faster vehicle
inspections resulting in less truck idling and faster throughput at the
Mariposa POE.\66\ These capital improvements included significant
increases in the number of inspection facilities for both commercial
trucks and motor vehicles. These POE capital improvements contributed
to reduced PM2.5 emissions associated with truck crossings
at the U.S./Mexico border.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 19-22.
\67\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the connection between the emissions reductions and
the improvement in air quality, we also conclude that the air quality
improvement in the Nogales area is not the result of a local economic
downturn, temporary emissions reductions, or unusual or extreme weather
patterns. Our conclusion is based on the observation that the
PM2.5 design value for the Nogales area has been below 35
[mu]g/m\3\, the level of the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, since
2009 and has been consistently between 25-30 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2011 to
2020.\68\ In sum, ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the
Nogales area have been consistently below the NAAQS for a lengthy
period of time, and have not been subject to large swings and disparate
observations that a sudden facility closure or an extreme weather
pattern might produce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id. at 15, Figure 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we find that the improvement in ambient air quality
in the Nogales area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors,
resulting from control measures such as (1) implementation of the
federal motor vehicle program and diesel fuel
[[Page 11672]]
standards; and (2) facility capital expansions and processing
improvements leading to reduced motor vehicle idling times and faster
vehicle throughput at federal POEs. Therefore, we propose to find that
Arizona has satisfied the criterion for redesignation set forth at CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under CAA
Section 175A
Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA, to approve a
redesignation to attainment, the EPA must fully approve a maintenance
plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA. Section 175A specifies the required elements of a maintenance plan
for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the EPA approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, a state
must submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued
attainment for the subsequent 10-year period following the initial 10-
year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency
provisions as the EPA deems necessary to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The Calcagni
memo provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan should include an attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring and
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Based on
our review and evaluation of the Nogales Maintenance Plan, we are
proposing to approve the Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A.
1. Attainment Inventory
A maintenance plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should include an
``attainment emissions inventory'' of direct PM2.5 emissions
and PM2.5 precursors in the area to identify a level of
emissions sufficient to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\69\
The attainment emissions inventory should be consistent with the EPA's
most recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas
available at the time it was developed and should represent emissions
during the timeframe associated with the ambient air quality monitoring
data showing attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA has provided guidance for
developing PM emissions inventories in ``Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (July 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Calcagni Memo, 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nogales Maintenance Plan's demonstration that the area attained
the standard is based on monitoring data from 2017-2019, the three most
recent years with certified air quality data available at the time of
adoption and submittal of the Plan.\70\ Consistent with this timeframe,
ADEQ selected 2017 for the attainment emissions inventory. Appendix B
of the Nogales Maintenance Plan is a technical support document (TSD)
detailing the emissions data and development of the emissions inventory
for the Plan.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The Plan was submitted to the EPA on April 13, 2021, prior
to certification of 2020 monitoring data on April 26, 2021.
\71\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, Appendix B--``Emissions Inventory
Technical Support Document for the 2006 Nogales PM2.5
Maintenance Area''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attainment emissions inventory in the Nogales Maintenance Plan
includes PM2.5, NOX, SOX, VOC, and
NH3 estimates from all relevant source categories, which the
Plan divides among point, nonpoint, on-road mobile, non-road mobile,
and fugitive road dust.\72\ ADEQ developed the emissions estimates for
each source type using appropriate sources and methods.\73\ Point
source emissions were based on ADEQ's State and Local Emissions
Inventory System (SLEIS) database and facility permit data.\74\ Non-
point source emissions were based on the county-level data in the EPA's
2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) projected to 2017 and allocated
to the smaller nonattainment area.\75\ On-road mobile source emissions
were derived from running the MOVES2014b \76\ emissions factor model
with the appropriate vehicle population and vehicle miles traveled
data.\77\ Non-road mobile source emissions were derived from the same
MOVES2014b model and county-level data, again allocated to the smaller
nonattainment area.\78\ Fugitive road dust emissions, from paved and
unpaved roads, were derived from the county-wide 2014 NEI estimates,
projected to 2017 using Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, and allocated to the Nogales
area using population share.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 38, section 5.1 and Table 5-1.
\73\ TSD, 25, Table 3-1.
\74\ Id. at 25, Section 3.1.
\75\ Id. at 27, Section 3.3.
\76\ EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-
of-the-science emission modeling system.
\77\ Id. at 25, Section 3.2.1.
\78\ Id. at 25, Section 3.2.2.
\79\ Id. at 27, Section 3.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 presents a summary of actual annual PM2.5
emissions estimates for the 2017 attainment year for sources in the
Nogales area.\80\ Based on the emissions estimates for 2017 in Table 2,
combined fugitive road dust (unpaved and paved roads) accounts for
approximately 59 percent of total PM2.5 emissions in the
area. The next highest source category is non-point sources at 30
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ As we discuss in section III.D.2 of this proposal, the
winter day emissions inventories for the maintenance demonstration
include winter daily emissions estimates and daily average emissions
estimates scaled from the annual emissions estimates.
Table 2--2017 Nogales Area PM2.5 and Precursor Compound Emissions Inventories by Source Category
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 0.17 7.8 0.054 0.066 ..............
Non-Point Sources............... 57.0 39.0 2.4 432.0 3.7
On-Road Mobile Emissions........ 10.2 414.4 1.8 245.1 6.0
Non-Road Mobile Emissions....... 9.3 123.2 0.48 77.0 0.188
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust...... 96.2 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Paved Road Fugitive Dust........ 13.6 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 186.5 584.4 4.7 754.2 9.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD, 41, Table 4-9. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding.
[[Page 11673]]
Based on our review of the attainment emissions inventory in the
Nogales Maintenance Plan, including the supporting information in the
TSD, we find that the attainment year inventory is comprehensive, the
methods and assumptions used by ADEQ to develop the inventories are
reasonable, and the 2017 inventory reasonably estimates actual
PM2.5 emissions in that year. We also find that the 2017
emissions inventory is appropriate for use as the attainment inventory
for the Nogales Maintenance Plan because the year 2017 is within the
2017-2019 period during which the area was attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 15, Table 2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan
``provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air
quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.'' A state may generally
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of
the attainment inventory, or by conducting modeling that shows that the
future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS.\82\ Assumptions concerning emissions rates in maintenance
demonstrations should generally reflect permanent, enforceable
measures.\83\ Therefore, the analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels), unless
evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Calcagni memo, 9-11.
\83\ Calcagni memo, 9.
\84\ Id. at 4. See also, Memorandum dated November 30, 1993,
from Kent D. Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, Subject: Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for ten years from redesignation, ADEQ projected annual and
winter emissions inventories for PM2.5, NOX,
SOX, VOC, and NH3 for 2026, the interim
maintenance year, and 2032, the ten-year maintenance demonstration
year.\85\ Given that almost all recorded exceedances of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the recent past have occurred during the
winter months of December and January,\86\ ADEQ based its maintenance
demonstration on a winter day emissions inventories analysis.
Furthermore, because the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a daily
standard it is appropriate for the maintenance demonstration to be in
the form of a daily emissions inventory comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, section 5 and TSD.
\86\ TSD, 20-22, Section 2.3 and Table 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Annual Emissions Inventories Comparisons
Using the 2017 emissions inventories as a baseline and growth
factors described in the TSD, ADEQ projected emissions inventories for
2026 and 2032. These projections were based primarily on Arizona's
forecasts of population and VMT or in some cases, information
particular to a given source or source category. To estimate mobile
source emissions, ADEQ used an EPA on-road emissions model (i.e.,
MOVES2014b).\87\ Table 3 summarizes ADEQ's 2017 attainment year
PM2.5 emissions and projected PM2.5 emission
levels for 2026 and 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The EPA announced the release of a new version of MOVES in
the Federal Register on January 7, 2021. 86 FR 1106. In that
document, we explained that state and local agencies that had
already completed significant work on a SIP with a version of
MOVES2014 could continue to rely on the earlier version of MOVES.
Id. at 1108. As of January 7, 2021, ADEQ had already released a
draft of the Nogales Maintenance Plan for public review. Therefore,
we consider the Plan's reliance on MOVES2014b to be appropriate.
Table 3--2017, 2026, and 2032 Nogales Area PM2.5 Emissions Inventories by Source Category
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Category 2017 2026 2032 change from
2017 to 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 0.17 1.23 1.23 +1.06
Non-Point Sources............................... 57.0 57.9 57.6 +0.6
On-Road Mobile Emissions........................ 10.2 2.2 1.4 -8.8
Non-Road Mobile Emissions....................... 9.3 6.0 5.2 -4.1
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust...................... 96.2 98.8 100.6 +4.4
Paved Road Fugitive Dust........................ 13.6 14.0 14.2 +0.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 186.5 180.1 180.2 -6.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD 41, Table 4-9; TSD 60-63, Tables 6-4 through 6-8. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding.
Despite expected population growth in the Nogales area,\88\ the
Plan's projected PM2.5 annual emissions through 2032 are
lower than the 2017 attainment year inventory emissions. The decrease
in annual PM2.5 emissions from 2017 to 2032 most likely
reflects continued implementation of the federal motor vehicle program,
cleaner motor vehicle fuels, and ongoing vehicle fleet turnover,
whereby newer and cleaner vehicles are substituted for older more
polluting vehicles as they are retired. A comparison of precursor
compound totals from 2017 to 2032 in Table 4 suggests a similar
conclusion. VOC and NOX emissions are projected to decrease
due to large reductions in the on-road mobile source category.\89\
SOX emissions are projected to increase, largely due to
emissions in the point source category from the Valencia Power Plant
(VPP), an electrical generation facility located north of the City of
Nogales.\90\ To address this projected increase in SOX
emissions in the annual and winter daily inventories, ADEQ provided
additional analyses to demonstrate that VPP operations are unlikely to
cause or contribute to future violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
We review the VPP analyses before proceeding to our review of the
winter daily emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 8, Table 1-5.
\89\ Id. at 39, Table 5-2.
\90\ Nogales Maintenance Plan Section 5.2.3; TSD Section 5.1;
TSD-Appendix D. TSD 19, Figure 2-2 provides a map showing the
location of the Valencia Power Plant in relation to the City of
Nogales and the Nogales Post Office air quality monitoring station.
[[Page 11674]]
Table 4--2017, 2026, and 2032 Nogales Area Emissions Inventories for PM2.5 and Precursor Pollutant Totals
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Pollutant 2017 2026 2032 change from
2017 to 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................................... 186.5 179.9 180.2 -6.3
NOX............................................. 584.4 307.4 250.6 -333.8
SOX............................................. 4.7 9.8 9.8 +5.1
VOC............................................. 754.3 665.8 650.0 -104.3
NH3............................................. 9.8 8.3 7.9 -1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Plan 39, Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding.
As noted, the EPA generally recommends use of permitted ``maximum
potential to emit'' (``PTE'') levels or maximum historical emissions in
maintenance demonstrations, unless a state presents evidence that such
an assumption is unrealistic. ADEQ examined past VPP emissions levels
to determine if the facility has approached its PTE. Facility records
from 2000 to 2018 show that VPP has operated at levels significantly
below its PTE.\91\ For instance, from 2000-2018, the VPP's highest
annual particulate matter emissions was 1.23 tons per year (tpy) in
2001 compared to its PM2.5 PTE of 45.52 tpy.\92\ Emissions
levels from VPP have been even lower since 2014, due to a reduction in
operating hours that resulted from improvements to transmission lines
in the area.\93\ Given that VPP's 2001 emissions represent the highest
level of facility emissions since 2000, ADEQ used this data set as the
basis for projecting conservative annual emissions estimates of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for VPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Id. at 44, Table 5-4.
\92\ Id. at Tables 5-3 and 5-4.
\93\ Id. at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, because VPP can legally emit at its PTE, ADEQ conducted an
analysis to determine the ambient air quality effects for direct
PM2.5 in the Nogales area if VPP were to operate at PTE
levels.\94\ VPP emissions of NOX and SOX are well
below the Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors recommended in EPA
guidance, and so we would not be expect them to cause or contribute to
a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.\95\ ADEQ used AERSCREEN, an
EPA screening-level air quality model to estimate VPP's worst case 24-
hour PM2.5 concentration when operating at PTE for direct
PM2.5 emissions. AERSCREEN \96\ provides conservatively high
concentration estimates by using worst case meteorology from among a
range of wind speeds, degrees of cloud cover, temperatures, and other
meteorological parameters. ADEQ post-processed AERSCEEN model output to
exclude locations inside the facility boundary because they are not
considered ambient air subject to the NAAQS. The analysis covered
distances out to 10 kilometers; the highest concentrations were near
the facility boundary, decreasing with distance from the boundary.
ADEQ's analysis estimated that the highest ground level ambient
PM2.5 concentration that would result from VPP operating at
its PTE, including background PM2.5 concentrations, would be
30.9 [micro]g/m\3\, which is below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 [micro]g/m\3\.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ TSD-Appendix D: Valencia AERSCREEN Modeling Overview
Technical Memo, from Kamran Khan, ADEQ, to Scott Bohning, EPA-Region
IX, December 19, 2018.
\95\ A Modeled Emission Rate for Precursors (MERP) is the
precursor emission rate that is likely to cause an impact that may
cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation. The VPP PTE emissions of
240 tpy NOX and 200 tpy SOX are far below the
MERP levels for annual impacts for the southwestern U.S., roughly
11,000 tpy for each; also, VPP PTE emissions are also far below the
MERPs for 24-hour impacts (i.e., 6514 tpy for NOX and
1508 tpy for SOX). ``Guidance on the Development of
Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1
Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD
Permitting Program,'' EPA 454/R-19-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
April 2019, available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
\96\ EPA, 2011. ``AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended
Screening Model''. Memorandum dated April 11, 2011, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Available at web page https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models#aerscreen.
\97\ TSD, 43 and TSD-Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the AERSCREEN analysis, ADEQ examined the Nogales
area meteorological data and wind patterns and determined that
prevailing winds blow from south to north and that in cold weather with
stagnant wind conditions, cold air masses move south to north.\98\
Given that VPP is well north of the Nogales Post Office monitor, usual
Nogales wind patterns and air movement are likely to move VPP emissions
away from the monitor and the urbanized area in the southern portion of
the nonattainment area. Furthermore, peak electrical power consumption
in the desert southwestern U.S. is during the summer months, making
this the most likely period VPP is to be operational, whereas the
winter months have the highest PM2.5 concentrations in the
Nogales area.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ TSD, 18, 19; Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively.
\99\ Id. at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, as a conservative estimate of annual emissions levels
at VPP, ADEQ utilized 2001 emissions data, the highest historical
emissions levels in the 2000-2018 period. In addition, ADEQ estimated
the worst case 24-hour PM2.5 concentration for VPP and
determined that at PTE levels the facility's PM2.5 emissions
are unlikely to cause or contribute to a violation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. This conclusion is further buttressed by
prevailing wind direction and meteorological data for the Nogales area.
b. Winter Daily Emissions Inventories Comparisons
In determining the need for winter daily emissions inventories as a
basis for an attainment year (2017) to maintenance year (2032)
comparison, ADEQ reviewed the 2014-2016 ambient air quality data sets.
ADEQ found the ambient PM2.5 concentrations rose as
temperature dropped with the onset of the winter season, November
through January.\100\ December had the highest ambient PM2.5
concentrations and concentrations rose as ambient temperatures dropped,
particularly on days where the daily low temperature was less than
40[deg] F. Given the data, ADEQ selected November-January as the
Nogales area winter season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ TSD, 64, Section 7.1 and Appendices B & C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a few exceptions, the winter daily emissions inventories are
based on the annual emission inventories.\101\ More precisely, most
winter daily source category emissions estimates are average daily
emissions estimates
[[Page 11675]]
(annual emissions estimates divided by 365 days per year), except for
the seasonal calculations for residential fuel combustion (RFC). The
annual RFC emissions estimate was allocated to the 92-day November
through January winter season. The winter daily emissions estimates for
VPP were not based on winter operations, but were conservative in that
all estimated annual VPP emissions were assigned to the 92-day winter
season. The 2017 daily emissions estimate was based on 2013-2018 VPP
operational data. The projected 2026 and 2032 daily emissions estimates
were conservative estimates based on 2013-2018 data and operational
maximums from 2013.\102\ Then, ADEQ compared the ``winter daily''
projected 2026 and 2032 PM2.5 estimate for VPP (i.e., 1.8
tpy or 44 pounds per day) with the historical 2001 high
PM2.5 value (i.e., 1.2 tpy), and found it to be a relatively
more conservative estimate.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Id. at 64-66, Section 7.2.
\102\ ADEQ used 0.0000964 ton of PM per megawatt hour (i.e.,
0.1928 pounds of PM per megawatt hour) as an emissions level and a
gross daily load of 228 megawatt hours per day as an activity level,
both values representing the highest operational data from 2013-
2018. TSD, 65-66, Equation 7-2, within Section 7.2.1.
\103\ TSD, 66. ADEQ calculated 1.8 tpy by multiplying 44 pounds
per day by 83 days; 83 days are the maximum number of VPP operating
days in the 2013-2018 period. In generating its 2032 projected VPP
emissions, ADEQ is assuming that all 83 operational days are
occuring during the winter season at the facility's highest recent
rate; hence, their assertion that this is a conservative estimate of
VPP emissions, given that VPP is more likely to be operational
during the summer months during peak periods of energy demand.
Table 5--2017, 2026, and 2032 Nogales Area PM2.5 Emissions Inventories by Source Category
[Pounds per winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Category 2017 2026 2032 change from
2017 to 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 13.8 44.0 44.0 +30.2
Non-Point Sources............................... 164.0 181.9 190.9 +26.9
Residential Fuel Consumption.................... 561.0 500.0 463.0 -98.0
On-Road Mobile Emissions........................ 56.3 12.0 8.2 -48.1
Non-Road Mobile Emissions....................... 51.2 32.7 28.5 -22.7
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust...................... 527.2 541.5 551.0 +23.8
Paved Road Fugitive Dust........................ 74.5 76.5 77.8 +3.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 1,448.0 1,388.0 1,363.0 -84.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD, 67-70, Tables 7-2 and 7-4. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding.
A review of the total daily PM2.5 emissions in Table 5
shows that overall emissions are expected to decrease from 2017 to
2032. Like the annual emissions inventories estimates, mobile source
emissions show the largest decreases and offset smaller increases in
fugitive dust. RFC emissions are projected to decrease because of
households switching to cleaner burning fuel sources over time.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ TSD, 31, 32, 64. Section 3.3.2.2 describes how the annual
RFC per capita emissions factor was generated and applied to get an
annual RFC emissions estimate. This annual estimate was then
converted to a winter daily missions estimate by dividing the annual
emissions estimate by the number of winter days from November
through January, 92 days.
Table 6--2017, 2026, and 2032 Nogales Area Emissions Inventories for PM2.5 and Precursor Pollutants
[Pounds per winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Pollutant 2017 2026 2032 change from
2017 to 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................................... 1,448 1,388 1,363 -85
NOX............................................. 3,821 2,882 2,594 -1,227
SOX............................................. 45 82 83 +38
VOC............................................. 4,672 4,172 4,069 -603
NH3............................................. 105 93 89 -16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD 67-70, Tables 7-2 and 7-3. Numbers may differ slightly due to rounding.
A review of Table 6 shows that PM2.5 and all precursor
compound emissions are decreasing from 2017 to 2032, except for
SOX emissions. SOX emissions are predicted to
increase by 38 pounds per day over this timeframe due to increases in
projected emissions from VPP, the only point source in the Nogales
area.\105\ As discussed, the projected 2032 daily VPP emissions
estimates are very conservative when compared to past historical
operations data, in terms of both magnitude and seasonal intensity,
i.e., assuming all facility emissions occur during the winter season.
Also, ADEQ has examined the effect on ambient PM2.5
concentrations if VPP emitted PM2.5 at PTE levels and
determined that the facility's direct PM2.5 emissions are
unlikely to cause a violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
even at such high and historically unachieved emissions levels. Lastly,
the Nogales area meteorology and wind pattern make it unlikely that VPP
emissions would have a significant effect on ambient PM2.5
concentrations at the Nogales Post Office monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 43, Table 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Evaluation and Conclusion
Based on our review, we find that ADEQ used reasonable methods,
growth factors, and assumptions to project direct PM2.5 and
precursor compound emissions to 2026 and 2032. ADEQ's emissions
inventory projections show that future emissions through 2032 will be
below estimated actual emissions in
[[Page 11676]]
2017, the attainment year, for PM2.5 and all relevant
precursor pollutants, except SOX. ADEQ's projected 2032
SOX emissions increase represents a small percentage of the
overall emissions inventory compared to PM2.5 and
precursors, whether compared individually or collectively.\106\ Also,
the projected SOX emissions estimates reflect conservative
assumptions concerning VPP future operations when considered against
the facility's historical record and most likely future operating
scenario. ADEQ provided additional analyses and information to
demonstrate that VPP is unlikely to cause a violation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS if VPP were to emit PM2.5 at PTE
levels. In conclusion, we find that ADEQ has provided an adequate basis
to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS within
the Nogales area through 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Our conclusion is further supported by the meteorological
data (TSD, 17-24) and chemical speciation data (Plan, 44) that ADEQ
has presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 175A requires that maintenance plans provide for
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years
after redesignation. If this redesignation becomes effective in 2022,
the projected 2032 emissions inventory demonstrates that the Nogales
area will maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years beyond
redesignation. Moreover, the projected interim emissions inventory for
2026, i.e., the milestone year between the 2017 attainment inventory
and the 2032 maintenance plan horizon year, sufficiently demonstrates
that the Nogales area will maintain the standards throughout the period
from redesignation through 2032. Therefore, we propose to find that the
Nogales Maintenance Plan adequately demonstrates maintenance of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2032.
3. Verification of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the state should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area.\107\
Data collected by the monitoring network are also needed to implement,
if triggered, the contingency provisions of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Calcagni memo, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.A of this proposal, PM2.5 is
currently monitored by ADEQ within the Nogales area. In section 5.2 of
the Nogales Maintenance Plan, ADEQ commits to continue operating a
PM2.5 air quality monitoring network in the Nogales area
consistent with federal regulations and to consult with the EPA via the
annual network review process regarding any potential changes to the
network. We find that the Nogales Maintenance Plan contains adequate
provisions for continued ambient PM2.5 monitoring to verify
continued attainment of the NAAQS through the maintenance period.
In addition to the ambient air monitoring program, the EPA also
recommends that the State verify continued attainment through methods
other than ambient air quality monitoring to show no significant change
in projected activity levels or emissions factors, e.g., periodic
reviews of key data and assumptions used to develop the attainment
inventory.\108\ In the Nogales Maintenance Plan, ADEQ commits to
perform a comprehensive review of the factors and assumptions used to
develop the attainment and projected inventories to determine whether
significant changes have occurred.\109\ ADEQ's review will be conducted
for the 2026 interim projection year and may include the following
elements: Permit applications and source reports, population data,
agricultural activity information, wildfire/prescribed burning data,
and motor vehicle activity data.\110\ In the Plan, ADEQ also identifies
the legal authority under which the State collects the needed
information to conduct the comprehensive review of the factors and
assumptions used in developing the attainment and projected emissions
inventories. We find that ADEQ's commitment to verify continued
attainment of the NAAQS through a comprehensive review of the factors
and assumptions used to develop the emissions inventories in the
Nogales Maintenance Plan is acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Id.
\109\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 46, Section 5.4.
\110\ Id. at 45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Contingency Provisions
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans contain
contingency provisions, as the EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct
any violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Such provisions must include a requirement that the state will
implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant
concerned that were contained in the SIP prior to the area being
redesignated to attainment. These contingency provisions are
distinguished from contingency measures required for nonattainment
areas under CAA section 172(c)(9) in that they are not required to be
fully-adopted measures that will take effect without further action by
the state for the maintenance plan to be approved. The contingency
provisions of a maintenance plan are, however, an enforceable part of
the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures are adopted
expeditiously once the Plan's contingency provisions are triggered by a
specified event. Thus, a state should identify the specific indicators
or triggers that will be used to determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. Next, the maintenance plan should
clearly identify the measures to be adopted, include a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures, and contain
a specific timeline for action by a state.
The State has adopted a contingency plan to address possible future
PM2.5 air quality problems in the Nogales area. The
contingency provisions are included in section 5.5 of the Plan. Upon a
monitored violation of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, ADEQ commits
to the following steps:
1. Within 60 days of the NAAQS violation trigger, ADEQ will
begin analyzing the cause(s) of the exceedances that led to the
violation. The analysis will include review and validation of
ambient air quality and meteorological data, evaluation to determine
if any of the exceedances qualifies as an exceptional event per the
EPA's Exceptional Event Rule (EER),\111\ and assessment of emissions
sources contributing to elevated PM2.5 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If an exceedance qualifies as an exceptional event, ADEQ will
prepare and submit to the EPA an exceptional event demonstration.
If, during its evaluation, ADEQ determines that new measures are
needed to satisfy the requirements of the exceptional events rule,
ADEQ will adopt and implement new measures that are permanent and
enforceable and meet the ``reasonable'' level of control described
in the EER.
3. If the exceedance does not qualify as an exceptional event,
ADEQ will determine which source(s) contributed to the exceedance,
identify existing control measures for the source(s), verify
source(s) compliance with existing measures, and if necessary,
develop, adopt and implement new permanent and enforceable measures
or strengthen existing measures.
Under the contingency plan, if new control measures are needed,
then the adoption process will begin within 12 months and final
adoption will be completed within 18 months of the triggering event
(i.e., a monitored violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS). The State
would require compliance with new control measures within six months of
final adoption of the contingency measures.
[[Page 11677]]
The Nogales Maintenance Plan includes a list of contingency
measures considered for implementation if the contingency plan is
triggered focusing on the principal source categories contributing to
PM2.5 emissions in the Nogales area.\112\ The source
categories include stationary sources, fugitive dust sources, and
residential wood burning devices. In addition to the contingency plan,
ADEQ commits to initiate a review of VPP operations to reduce emissions
and implement control measures, as needed, if the facility's direct
PM2.5 emissions exceed 20 percent of PTE as shown in the VPP
annual facility emissions report.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 47.
\113\ Id. at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From our review, we find that the State has established a
contingency plan for the Nogales area that clearly contains the
following: (1) Tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when
contingency measures are needed; (2) a description of the process for
developing and implementing contingency measures; (3) specific
timelines for action; and (4) identifies specific source categories for
review, including a specific review process and trigger for the VPP
facility. Thus, we propose to conclude that the contingency provisions
of the Nogales Maintenance Plan are adequate to ensure prompt
correction of a NAAQS violation and satisfy the requirements of the CAA
section 175A(d).
5. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not cause or contribute to
violations of the NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation,
or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations in
nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air
quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, FHWA, and FTA to
demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'') contained in
all control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Control strategy SIPs refer to RFP and attainment
demonstration SIPs. 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans typically set
budgets for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. Budgets are established for specific
years and specific pollutants or precursors and must reflect the motor
vehicle control measures contained in the RFP plan and the attainment
or maintenance demonstration. Under the transportation conformity rule,
budgets must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors subject to
transportation conformity analyses.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Section 93.102(b)(2)(iii) of the conformity rule
identifies VOC and NOX as PM10 precursor
pollutants that are presumed insignificant unless the SIP makes a
finding that the precursor is significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria.\116\ To meet these requirements in maintenance
plans, the budgets must be consistent with the maintenance requirements
and reflect all the motor vehicle control measures contained in the
maintenance demonstration.\117\ The EPA's process for determining
adequacy of a budget consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing
public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the
opportunity to comment on the budget during a public comment period;
and (3) making a finding of adequacy or inadequacy.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
\117\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
\118\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Nogales Maintenance Plan, ADEQ described the process the
State followed for developing the budgets and has enumerated a budgets
for the Nogales area.\119\ The 2032 conformity budgets for
PM2.5 and NOX for the Nogales area are provided
in Table 7 on a pounds per day basis consistent with the maintenance
demonstration emissions inventories discussed this proposal. Because
the Nogales area experiences high volumes of commercial trucking
crossing the international border with Mexico, ADEQ included a
NOX budget because NOX emissions are a mobile
source related PM2.5 precursor. ADEQ did not include
emissions from road construction and maintenance. Upon reviewing the
emissions inventories, the State determined that road construction and
maintenance emissions were de minimis and unlikely to cause or
contribute to violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Nogales Maintenance Plan, 49-52.
\120\ Id. at 50.
Table 7--2032 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Nogales Area
[Pounds per winter day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX emissions
Source emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct On-Road Mobile Sources (exhaust, 8.2 513.0
tire and brake wear)...................
Paved Road Fugitive Dust................ 77.8 ..............
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust.............. 551.0 ..............
-------------------------------
Totals.............................. 637.0 513.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Plan, 51, 52; Tables 6-3 and 6-4.
[[Page 11678]]
Table 8 shows the 2032 budgets provided by ADEQ on a tons per year
basis, consistent with the annual emissions inventories.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ It should be noted that a transcription error occurred in
Table 6-3 of the Plan where the figures for paved and unpaved road
emissions were inadvertently switched, each for the other in the
tons per day column. Table 8 reflects the correct tons per year
assignment consistent with the pounds per day figures and the annual
emissions inventories figures.
Table 8--2032 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Nogales Area
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX emissions
Source emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct On-Road Mobile Sources (exhaust, 1.4 93.7
tire and brake wear)...................
Paved Road Fugitive Dust................ 14.2 ..............
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust.............. 100.6 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................... 116.2 93.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Plan, 51, 52; Tables 6-3 and 6-4.
ADEQ provided the methodologies to develop the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the TSD and appendices C and D of the Plan. As
discussed in section III.D of this proposal, ADEQ used the EPA's
MOVES2014b model in the development of these budgets; this was the
latest available version of the model at the time the Nogales
Maintenance Plan was developed. Paved road VMT estimates for estimating
direct and fugitive PM2.5 emissions were provided by and in
consultation with ADOT using an interpolation methodology where 2017,
2026, and 2032 VMT were estimated from Nogales area traffic data.\122\
ADEQ used the most recent AP-42 emissions factor equations from the EPA
and National Emissions Inventory data to develop paved and unpaved road
fugitive dust emissions estimates.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ TSD, 46-48, Section 5.3; TSD, 60 61, Section 6.3.
\123\ ADEQ used the appropriate AP-42 guidance in sections
13.2.1 and 13.2.2 to calculate fugitive dust from paved and unpaved
roads. The AP-42 emission factor equation inputs for estimating
paved and unpaved road fugitive dust emissions can be found in
Appendices C and D of the Plan. The most recent EPA revision and
approval of these AP-42 emission factor equations occurred in 2011
and are reflected in the Plan's estimates; 76 FR 6328 (February 4,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our review of the approvability of the motor vehicle
emissions budget in the Nogales Maintenance Plan, we have evaluated the
budgets using the adequacy criteria specified in the transportation
conformity rule.\124\ First and foremost, Section 93.118(e)(4)(iv)
requires that a budget, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, be consistent with applicable requirements for RFP,
attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to a given
implementation plan submission). In this case, the Nogales area budget
is consistent with the requirements for maintenance, as discussed in
Sections III.D of this proposal. Second, the Nogales budget is
presented in a daily format consistent with a maintenance plan intended
to meet the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as an annual and
tons per year basis consistent with the emissions inventories. Third,
Section 93.118(e)(4)(iii) requires that the budget be clearly
identified and precisely quantified. ADEQ has done so in Section 6.3.3
of the Plan. Fourth, ADEQ developed the budgets in consultation with
ADOT, the regional transportation agency for the Nogales area. Lastly,
prior to their submission to the EPA, ADEQ submitted the budgets for
public inspection and comment as discussed in Section II.B of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Nogales
Maintenance Plan and find that they meet applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.1118(e)(4) and (5). We will complete the adequacy review concurrent
with our final action on the Nogales Maintenance Plan. The EPA is not
required under the transportation conformity rule to find budgets
adequate prior to our proposing approval of them.\125\ In this proposed
rule, the EPA is announcing that the adequacy process for these budgets
begins, and the public has 30 days to comment on the budgets presented
here and in the Nogales Maintenance Plan.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Under the transportation conformity regulations, the EPA
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the
submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
\126\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a finding of adequacy and approval are two separate actions,
reviewing the budgets for their adequacy against the criteria in the
transportation conformity rule informs the EPA's decision to propose
approval of the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of the
Nogales Maintenance Plan and are proposing herein to approve the
maintenance demonstration in section III.D, and we have reviewed the
budgets in the Nogales Maintenance Plan and find that they are
consistent with this maintenance demonstration. Furthermore, the
budgets are based on control measures that have been adopted and
implemented, and they meet all other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.1118(e)(4) and (5). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2032
maintenance year budgets in the Nogales Maintenance Plan. We may either
finalize the adequacy process and find the budgets adequate for the
purposes of transportation conformity or approve the budgets for the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Nogales area as proposed,
whichever occurs first. We may also finalize an adequacy finding and
approval of the budgets in our final action on the Nogales Maintenance
Plan, per 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii).
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.\127\
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 directs federal government agencies
to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies
perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people
of color and other underserved groups,\128\
[[Page 11679]]
and Executive Order 14008 directs federal agencies to develop programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities.\129\ To identify environmental burdens and susceptible
populations in underserved communities in the Nogales area, we
performed a screening-level analysis using the EPA's environmental
justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\130\ Our
screening-level analysis indicates that the Nogales area scores high
when compared to the national average for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic
Index,'' which is the average of an area's percent minority and percent
low income populations, i.e., the two demographic indicators explicitly
named in Executive Order 12898.\131\ As discussed in the EPA's EJ
technical guidance, people of color and low-income populations often
experience greater exposure and disease burdens than the general
population, which can increase their susceptibility to adverse health
effects from environmental stressors.\132\ Underserved communities can
also experience reduced access to health care, nutritional, and fitness
resources, further increasing their susceptibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
\128\ 86 FR 7009 (January 25, 2021).
\129\ 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021).
\130\ ``EJScreen for NogalesAZ NAA 2006 FinePM NAAQS
18Jan2022.xlsx'' in the docket for this proposal. The EPA used
EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic indicators
representing the Nogales area. EJSCREEN provides a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and
demographic indicators and is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
\131\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air
toxics cancer risk, lead paint exposure, and traffic proximity and
volume) and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low
income, and linguistically isolated populations). Depending on the
indicator, a community that scores highly for an indicator may have
a higher percentage of its population within a demographic group or
a higher average exposure or proximity to an environmental health
hazard compared to the state, region, or national average. EJSCREEN
also reports EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single
environmental indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For
additional information about environmental and demographic
indicators and EJ indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN
Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' section 2, September 2019.
\132\ EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4, June 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.A, the Nogales area meets the health-
based 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on the
2018-2020 design value and continues to meet the NAAQS based on
preliminary data for 2021. This proposed action would redesignate the
Nogales area to attainment. Redesignation to attainment would not, in
and of itself, create any new requirements. Rather, it would result in
the applicability of requirements already contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Thus, we believe that
our proposed action will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-
income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive
Order 12898.
V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons presented above,
the EPA is proposing to approve the Nogales Maintenance Plan submitted
by ADEQ on April 13, 2021, as a revision to the Arizona SIP. In doing
so, we are proposing to approve the maintenance demonstration and
contingency provisions as meeting all of the applicable requirements
for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section
175A, and to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets and find that
these budgets are adequate.
In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to
approve Arizona's request to redesignate the Nogales area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. We are doing so based on our conclusion that the State has met
all the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
Specifically, we propose to make the following findings:
The Nogales area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS based on the most recent three-year period (2018-2020) of
quality-assured, certified, and complete PM2.5 data;
The relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are fully
approved;
The improvement in Nogales area ambient air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in direct and precursor
PM2.5 emissions;
Arizona has met all requirements applicable to the Nogales
area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA; and
The Nogales area has a fully approved maintenance plan
meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A, including motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the year 2032.
We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public for 30 days following publication of
this proposal in the Federal Register and will consider any relevant
comments before taking final action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographic 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, the EPA's role is to
approve state choices provided they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to 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, the proposed actions:
Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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
[[Page 11680]]
Will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), as discussed in Section IV of
this proposal.
In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the
Nogales area, and the State plan for which the EPA is proposing
approval does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed action
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor
impair the maintenance of NAAQS in tribal lands.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 18, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-04070 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P