
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63185-63190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26405]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0645; FRL-9935-80-Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; Phoenix, Arizona; Second 10-Year Carbon 
Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Arizona. On March 9, 2005, the EPA redesignated Phoenix, 
Arizona from nonattainment to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and approved the State's 
plan addressing the area's maintenance of the NAAQS for ten years. On 
April 2, 2013, the State of Arizona submitted to the EPA a second 
maintenance plan for the Phoenix area that addressed maintenance of the 
NAAQS for an additional ten years. The EPA is also proposing to find 
adequate and approve a transportation conformity motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEB) for the year 2025 and beyond.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0645, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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. If you need to include CBI as part of your 
comment, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for instructions. 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.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, Planning Office (Air-2), 
Air Division, Region 9, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 947-4151, 
kelly.johnj@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials AADT mean or refer to Annual Average Daily 
Traffic.
    (iii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality.
    (iv) The initials ANP mean or refer to Annual Monitoring Network 
Plans, commonly known as Annual Network Plans or ANP.
    (v) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vii) The initials MAG mean or refer to the Maricopa Association of 
Governments.

[[Page 63186]]

    (viii) The initials MCAQD mean or refer to the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department.
    (ix) The initials MVEB mean or refer to Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budget.
    (x) The initials mtpd mean or refer to metric tons per day.
    (xi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.
    (xii) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
    (xiii) The initials RTP mean or refer to Regional Transportation 
Plan.
    (xiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xv) The initials TIP mean or refer to Transportation Improvement 
Plan.
    (xvi) The initials TSA mean or refer to an air monitoring program 
Technical Systems Audit.
    (xvii) The words Arizona and State mean or refer to the State of 
Arizona.

I. Background

A. Phoenix (Maricopa County), Arizona Attainment Status

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Phoenix 
metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (hereinafter referred to 
as Phoenix, the Phoenix area or the area) was designated and classified 
as a moderate CO nonattainment area. On July 29, 1996, the EPA found 
that the area had not attained the CO NAAQS by the moderate attainment 
date and the area was reclassified to serious nonattainment by 
operation of law, effective August 28, 1996. 61 FR 39343.
    The primary CO NAAQS are attained when ambient concentration design 
values do not exceed either the 1-hour 35 parts per million (ppm) 
standard or the 8-hour 9 ppm standard more than once per year. 40 CFR 
50.8(a). There have been no violations in Phoenix of the 1-hour CO 
standard since 1984 and no violations of the 8-hour standard since 
1996. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 1-1. The EPA determined in 2003 that 
the area had attained the CO NAAQS by the area's December 31, 2000 
attainment deadline. 68 FR 55008, September 22, 2003. This 
determination did not affect the designation of the area as 
nonattainment or its classification as a serious area.
    On May 30, 2003, the State of Arizona submitted a request to the 
EPA to redesignate Phoenix from nonattainment to attainment for the CO 
NAAQS. Along with this request, the State submitted a CAA section 
175A(a) maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area would 
maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 years following our approval of 
the redesignation request (``2003 CO Maintenance Plan''). We approved 
the State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan on March 
9, 2005, effective April 8, 2005. 70 FR 11553. For a detailed history 
of the CO planning efforts in the area up to 2004, please see the 
Technical Support Document that accompanied the EPA's proposal to 
approve the first 10-year maintenance plan for the area. 69 FR 60328, 
October 8, 2004.

B. 2013 CO Maintenance Plan

    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA 
section 175A(b) requires the State to submit a subsequent maintenance 
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ The second 
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS 
during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of the 
CAA, Arizona submitted the second 10-year update of the Phoenix area CO 
maintenance plan to the EPA on April 2, 2013. The plan was developed by 
the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and is titled ``MAG 2013 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Area'' 
(hereinafter, ``2013 Maintenance Plan''). MAG is the State's delegated 
Agency with authority to develop SIPs for Maricopa County. With this 
action, we are proposing to approve the 2013 Maintenance Plan as a 
revision to the Arizona SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended 
through 2015. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP's 
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such 
standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean 
that no Federal transportation activity will: (1) Cause or contribute 
to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the 
frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any 
area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required 
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The 
Federal transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets 
forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are 
developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of 
Federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws. 49 
U.S.C. chapter 53.
    The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment 
and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the transportation conformity 
rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with MVEBs, the expected 
emissions from planned transportation activities must be consistent 
with such established budgets for that area.
    With this action, the EPA proposes to find adequate and approve a 
CO transportation conformity MVEB for the year 2025 and beyond.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of Arizona's Submittal

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan contains the following major sections:
    1. Introduction. This section contains a general discussion of CO 
plan approvals and the area's redesignation to attainment. 2013 
Maintenance Plan, Chapter 1.
    2. Continued Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS. This section 
includes some historical background, a description of the CO monitoring 
network in Phoenix, monitoring results and the State's demonstration 
that the area has continued to attain the CO standards, and information 
regarding the State's monitoring data quality assurance program. 2013 
Maintenance Plan, Chapter 2.
    3. Maintenance Plan. This section includes control measures, 
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network information and 
verification that the area has continued to attain the CO standards, 
contingency provisions, a transportation conformity budget and 
subsequent maintenance plan revisions. 2013 Maintenance Plan, Chapter 
3.
    The following is the EPA's evaluation of the ambient air monitoring 
information and maintenance plan provided in the State's submittal.

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

    The primary NAAQS for CO are: ``(1) 9 parts per million (10 
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to 
be exceeded more than once per year and (2) 35 parts per million (40 
milligrams per cubic meter) for a 1-hour average concentration not to 
be exceeded more than once per year.'' 40 CFR 50.8. At the time of 
submittal of the 2013 Maintenance Plan in March 2013, there had been no 
violations in Phoenix of the 1-hour carbon monoxide

[[Page 63187]]

standard since 1984 and no violations of the 8-hour standard since 
1996. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 1-1.

       Table 1--CO Design Values for Phoenix, AZ, Years 2005-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Design values (ppm) \2\
------------------------------------------------------       Years
              1-Hour                      8-Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.0...............................                4.6               2005
6.5...............................                4.6               2006
6.0...............................                4.1               2007
4.5...............................                3.0               2008
4.8...............................                3.3               2009
8.9...............................                3.2               2010
3.9...............................                2.9               2011
4.5...............................                2.5               2012
4.2...............................                2.7               2013
4.9...............................                2.8               2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also examined monitoring data for Phoenix from the entire 
period covered by the first maintenance plan. Table 1 shows the 
complete, quality assured and certified ambient air monitoring design 
values for CO in the area for the years 2005 to 2014. The monitoring 
data show the area has not violated the CO standards during the first 
maintenance period. The EPA notes the trend of 8-hour CO design values 
decreasing during this period, as also described in the 2013 
Maintenance Plan for the years 2004 to 2011. 2013 Maintenance Plan, 
figure 2-2, page 2-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Design values were derived from the EPA Air Trends (http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html) Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Plan Control Measures

    The State and MAG commit to continue to implement the nine control 
measures listed in the 2003 Maintenance Plan, and have implemented a 
tenth control measure that had been identified in that plan as a 
contingency measure. 2013 Maintenance Plan, page 3-1. Table 2 lists 
these control measures. 2013 Maintenance Plan, table 3-1, page 3-2.

       Table 2--Maintenance Measures in the 2013 Maintenance Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5% Oxygen Content
 from November 1 through March 31
2. Off-Road Vehicle and Engine Standards
3. Phased-in Emission Test Cutpoints
4. One-Time Waiver from Vehicle Emissions Test
5. Defer Emissions Associated with Government Activities
6. Coordinate Traffic Signal Systems
7. Develop Intelligent Transportation Systems
8. Tougher Enforcement of Vehicle Registration and Emissions Test
 Compliance
9. Clean Burning Fireplace Ordinances
10. Expansion of Area A Boundaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tenth control measure listed in Table 2 is described in the 
2003 Maintenance Plan as a contingency measure. 2003 Maintenance Plan, 
Exhibit 2, Appendix A, Technical Support Document, Section VII-2-2. The 
State has implemented the expansion of Area A boundaries and the EPA 
approved the expansion of Area A boundaries as a revision to the 
Arizona SIP on May 22, 2013. 78 FR 30209.

C. Emissions Inventories

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan provides a comparison of actual CO 
emissions in the Phoenix maintenance area in 2008 with projected 
emissions in 2025. 2003 Maintenance Plan, page 3-4, table 3-3. These 
emissions are for an average weekday during the winter season, the 
months November to January. The 2008 emissions are taken from the 
latest periodic emissions inventory for the area, the 2008 periodic 
emissions inventory, which is included in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 of the 
2013 Maintenance Plan. Emissions for the year 2025 used growth factors 
for the area derived from the 2005 special U.S. census conducted in the 
area and EPA models for estimating onroad emissions and nonroad 
equipment emissions, as well as the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling 
System and the Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast 
system database for all airports except Luke Air Force Base (AFB). 
Emissions of CO from the Luke AFB were derived from two documents: the 
first, titled ``2008 Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for Luke Air 
Force Base,'' prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc. for the Air Education 
and Training Command, U.S. Air Force, Randolph AFB, Texas, in June 
2010; the second document is titled ``F-35A Training Basing 
Environmental Impact Statement, Final Volume 1,'' prepared by the U.S. 
Air Force in 2012.
    Several emissions reductions are credited in the projected 
emissions for the year 2025. The first two control measures listed in 
Table 2, California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline with 3.5 percent 
Oxygen Content from November 1 through March 31, and Off-Road Vehicle 
and Engine Standards, are estimated to produce reductions of CO 
emissions of 128.9 mtpd and 15 mtpd, respectively. These reductions 
represent about a 19 percent reduction of emissions by 2025. The State 
and MAG commit to continued implementation of all other control 
measures listed in Table 2. However, their collective reduction is 
expected to be less than one percent of 2025 emissions, and therefore 
no numeric credit was taken for those measures in the State's 
projections of CO emissions in 2025.
    Details regarding the technical inputs and assumptions used in 
preparing the emissions inventories are provided in Chapter II of the 
technical support document for the 2013 Maintenance plan, in Appendix 
A, Exhibit 2. The results of MAG's inventory of actual emissions in 
2008 and projected emissions in 2025 are provided in Table 3.

[[Page 63188]]



   Table 3--Average Weekday Emissions during the Winter Season in the
       Phoenix CO Maintenance Area, in metric tons per day (mtpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CO Emissions
             Source category             -------------------------------
                                               2008            2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................             0.7            19.8
Area....................................            37.8            47.3
Nonroad.................................           281.5           213.1
Onroad..................................           581.6           359.4
    Total...............................           901.6           639.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compared to emissions in 2008, projected emissions in 2025 show a 
downward trend. Total CO emissions projected in the year 2025, 639.6 
mtpd, represent approximately 70 percent of the actual emissions in the 
year 2008.

D. Maintenance Demonstration

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan relies on a series of technical analyses 
to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS through the year 2025. MAG 
performed three different modeling analyses to project CO emissions out 
to the year 2025 and estimate their impact on maximum ambient CO 
concentration. In addition, MAG conducted two weight-of-evidence 
evaluations using actual trends in air quality and meteorological data 
to reinforce the modeling analyses. MAG also developed a modeling 
protocol to detail the technical approaches and assumptions to be used 
in demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS. 2013 Maintenance Plan, 
Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Technical Support Document.
    MAG's first modeling analysis was based on an emissions inventory 
comparison. MAG developed two sets of CO emissions inventories: one 
representing the CO modeling domain in 2006, 2008, 2015 and 2025; 
another representing the maintenance area in 2008 and 2025. The 
modeling domain covers 792 square miles, including the busiest 
intersections in the area and the ambient air monitors with the highest 
readings, while the maintenance area is 1,814 square miles. MAG 
calculated the ratio of the total emissions expected in 2025 to the 
total emissions in a prior year (2006 for the modeling domain and 2008 
for the maintenance area). MAG then multiplied these ratios by the 
maximum concentration in the earlier year to yield a predicted 2025 
concentration. The maximum 8-hour CO concentration at West Indian 
School monitor in 2006 was 5.3 ppm. When multiplied by the ratio of 
2025 emissions for the maintenance area (403.9 mtpd) divided by 2006 
emissions (803.0 mtpd) for the maintenance area, or 0.503, the 
predicted concentration in 2025 at the West Indian School monitoring 
site is 2.7 ppm, well below the 9 ppm level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
    MAG's second modeling analysis involved updating the modeling of CO 
concentrations performed in the 2003 Maintenance Plan using the EPA-
approved Urban Airshed Model (UAM) and the intersection hotspot model 
(CAL3QHC). In particular, MAG updated the projections of concentrations 
for the years 2006 and 2015 in the 2003 Maintenance Plan by adjusting 
by the ratio of new to old emissions inventory totals and then scaling 
them for the year 2025. The highest concentrations in 2025 predicted at 
the two busiest intersections in Phoenix (at the Phoenix Grand Avenue 
and West Indian School monitors) using these models was 4.0 ppm, less 
than half of the level of the 8-hour standard.
    MAG's third modeling approach in the 2013 Maintenance Plan was an 
intersection hotspot analysis. The three intersections projected to 
have the highest traffic volumes and the three intersections projected 
to have the worst traffic congestion were identified using the MAG 
TransCAD traffic assignment for the year 2025. MAG used CAL3QHC to 
determine the maximum 8-hour concentration at these intersections in 
2025, then added the expected background concentration, 1.3 ppm CO. The 
highest CO concentration expected in 2025 was 1.7 ppm at two 
intersections, 16th Street and Camelback Road, and Priest Drive and 
Southern Avenue. This level is also well below the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
    In addition to the above three modeling exercises, MAG conducted 
two weight-of-evidence evaluations to support the maintenance 
demonstration. In one, historical trends of 1-hour and 8-hour monitored 
CO concentrations were applied to a regression analysis to project 
concentrations in 2015 and 2025. The monitoring data used was from the 
period 1980 to 2011. Projecting forward the trend lines using 
regression analysis for each monitoring site, the West Phoenix site has 
the highest projected 8-hour CO concentration, 2.7 ppm in 2015 and 1.6 
ppm in 2025.
    In a second weight-of-evidence evaluation, MAG conducted a 
meteorological analysis to assess whether unusually favorable 
meteorology played a role in continued maintenance of the CO standard. 
In particular, MAG assessed long-term values of key meteorological 
parameters, including temperature, wind speed, wind direction, 
atmospheric stability and mixing height and compared these values to CO 
monitored concentration trends during the same period. Four 
meteorological analyses were performed, comparing later meteorological 
data to the data from the 1994 episode used in the evaluation, when 
there was an exceedance of the 8-hour CO standard, with the following 
results: (1) The maximum 8-hour CO concentrations have continued to 
decline, while meteorological conditions have not differed 
significantly from the 1994 episode; (2) 8-hour CO concentrations 
declined while daily variations in wind speeds, temperatures and mixing 
heights have not varied significantly over time; (3) 1-hour CO 
concentrations have continued to decrease over time regardless of 
meteorological conditions; and (4) daily maximum 8-hour CO 
concentrations below the CO NAAQS were predominant during the period 
1997 through 2011 under the same range of wind speeds and mixing 
heights.
    The EPA finds that the three modeling exercises and two weight-of-
evidence evaluations provide compelling evidence that the Phoenix area 
will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS.

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network

    The Phoenix area has maintained an ambient air quality monitoring 
network consisting of twelve State and Local Air Monitoring Stations 
(SLAMS). Of these twelve monitoring stations, 11 are operated by the 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) and one

[[Page 63189]]

monitor is operated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ). These agencies provide the EPA with Annual Monitoring Network 
Plans (commonly known as Annual Network Plans or ANPs) for the area, 
and have committed to continue to operate an appropriate air quality 
monitoring network in accordance with appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. 
2013 Maintenance Plan, page 3-17.
    The EPA approved the area's ANPs, which describe the monitoring 
network for the area and any changes anticipated for the following 
year. The most recent ANP from the MCAQD was the ``MCAQD 2013 Final Air 
Monitoring Network Review,'' dated December 5, 2014. The most recent 
ANP from ADEQ was the ``State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan 
for the Year 2014,'' dated July 1, 2014. The 2014 MCAQD ANP was 
approved by the EPA on March 31, 2015. Letter from Meredith Kurpius, 
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, to William Wiley, Director, 
MCAQD, dated March 31, 2015. The 2014 ADEQ ANP was approved by the EPA 
on October 30, 2014. Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality 
Analysis Office, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 
dated October 30, 2014.
    The EPA performs Technical Systems Audits (TSA) of ambient air 
monitoring programs in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, section 2.5, 
which requires that the EPA conduct TSAs of primary quality assurance 
organizations every three years. The most recent TSA for the MCAQD was 
conducted by the EPA on September 25 to September 27, 2013. The EPA's 
findings from this TSA are presented in a final report. There were no 
findings that were cause for data invalidation. Letter from Deborah 
Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Phil McNeely, 
Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, dated December 12, 
2014, transmitting ``Technical System Audit, Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department, Ambient Air Monitoring Program, September 25-
September 27, 2013,'' dated December 2014.
    The most recent TSA for ADEQ was conducted by the EPA on April 9 to 
April 13, 2012. The EPA's findings from this TSA are presented in a 
final report. There were no findings that were cause for data 
invalidation. Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 
Air Division, to Eric Massey, Director, ADEQ Air Division, dated 
January 18, 2013, transmitting ``Technical System Audit, Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality, Ambient Air Monitoring Program, 
April 9-April 13, 2012,'' dated January 2013.
    The EPA is confident that the area's air quality monitoring network 
is being implemented in accordance with requirements in the CAA and 
implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 58.

F. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS 
that occurs after redesignation of an area. A maintenance plan's 
contingency measures are not required to be fully adopted. However, the 
plan should contain clearly identified contingency measures to be 
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and 
a specific time limit for action by the State. In addition, specific 
indicators should be identified which will be used to determine when 
the contingency measures need to be implemented. EPA memorandum, 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992.
    Two contingency measures that were included in the 2003 Maintenance 
Plan are included in the 2013 Maintenance Plan: Gross Polluter Option 
for I/M Program Waivers, and Increased Waiver Repair Limit Options. 
These contingency measures have already been implemented in the area. A 
third contingency measure has been added to the 2013 Maintenance Plan: 
Reinstatement of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (VEI) 
Program for Motorcycles. The VEI program for motorcycles was a control 
measure in the area prior to redesignation to attainment, but the State 
subsequently exempted motorcycles from the VEI program. Pursuant to 
section CAA section 175A(d) of the CAA, the contingency provisions of a 
maintenance plan must include all the control measures that were 
included in the SIP for the area before redesignation. Therefore, the 
State is required to include the VEI program for motorcycles as a 
contingency measure in the 2013 CO Maintenance Plan. ADEQ has fulfilled 
this requirement by submitting a SIP revision committing to request 
Legislative action to reinstate emissions testing for motorcycles in 
the Phoenix area should the area experience a violation of the CO 
standards. See 78 FR 30209, May 22, 2013. In addition, as noted above, 
the State has expanded Area A in Maricopa County, which extends 
additional controls beyond the previous boundary for Area A, converting 
this expansion from a contingency measure in the 2003 Maintenance Plan, 
to a control measure in the 2013 Maintenance Plan.
    We propose to find that the contingency plan in the 2013 
Maintenance Plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 
175A(d) of the CAA.

G. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The 
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that 
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and 
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule generally 
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional 
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program 
(TIP) are consistent with MVEBs contained in the control strategy SIP 
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An 
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant 
relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or 
maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance 
area.\3\ The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists 
of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submission; (2) 
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a 
public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or 
inadequacy. See 40 CR 93.118(f). The 2003 Maintenance Plan established 
CO MVEBs (calculated for Friday in December) of 699.7 mtpd in 2006 and 
662.9 mtpd in 2015. The EPA found the CO MVEBs adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes on September 29, 2003, 68 FR 55950, 
and approved the MVEBs on March 9, 2005, 70 FR 11553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations 
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Maintenance Plan establishes a 2025 MVEB of 559.4 mtpd for 
the CO maintenance area. We are not announcing the availability of this 
MVEB through the EPA's Adequacy Web site and providing a separate 
comment period on the adequacy of the

[[Page 63190]]

MVEB. Instead, we are reviewing the adequacy of the MVEB simultaneously 
with our review of the 2013 Maintenance Plan itself. See 40 CFR 
93.118(f)(2). In order to determine whether this MVEB is adequate and 
approvable, we have evaluated whether the MVEB meets the conformity 
adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The details of the 
EPA's evaluation of the MVEB for compliance with the budget adequacy 
criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) are provided in a memo to file for this 
proposed rulemaking. Memo from John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office, EPA 
Region 9, to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0645, dated September 29, 2015. 
Based on this evaluation, we propose to find the 2025 MVEB adequate and 
to approve it. Any and all comments on the adequacy and approvability 
of the 2025 MVEB should be submitted during the comment period stated 
in the DATES section of this document.
    If today's proposed action is finalized, the 2015 MVEB, which is 
already approved for 2015 and later years, would apply only up to the 
year 2024. For the year 2025 and later years, the budget will be 559.4 
mtpd. See Table 4.

   Table 4--Approved and Proposed Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Phoenix CO
                                 Maintenance Area, in metric tons per day (mtpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Approved        Approved        Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                     2006            2015            2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO MVEB.........................................................           699.7           662.9           559.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the 2013 Maintenance Plan submitted 
on April 3, 2012. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA 
requirements and the EPA has determined it is sufficient to provide for 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year 
maintenance period out to 2025.
    The EPA is also proposing to find adequate and approve the CO MVEB 
of 559.4 mtpd for use in the year 2025 and later years.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to 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, the rule 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2015-26405 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


