[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1347-1362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29092]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0618; FRL-10018-46-Region 9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; Arizona; West Pinal County; 1987 PM10 
Nonattainment Area Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve in part and to disapprove in part the state implementation plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to meet Clean Air Act 
(CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 1987 PM10 national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standard'') in the West Pinal 
County PM10 nonattainment area. The State of Arizona's 
``2015 West Pinal Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area SIP'' 
(``West Pinal County PM10 Plan'') addresses the CAA 
nonattainment area requirements for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, 
including requirements for an emissions inventory, an attainment 
demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available 
control measures, contingency measures, and motor vehicle emissions 
budgets. The EPA is proposing to approve the base year 2008 emissions 
inventory for direct PM10 and to disapprove the remaining 
elements of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan.

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before February 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0618 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

[[Page 1348]]

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. 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office 
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 947-4111, or by email at wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory Context
    A. PM10 Standard, Area Designations, and SIPs
    B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Moderate PM10 
Nonattainment Area SIPs
II. Submissions From the State of Arizona To Address 1987 
PM10 Standard Requirements in the West Pinal County 
Nonattainment Area
    A. Summary of State Submissions
    B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of 
SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. PM10 Precursors
    C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration
    D. Attainment Demonstration
    E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Regulatory Context

A. PM10 Standard, Area Designations, and SIPs

    The EPA sets the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (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 a nominal ten micrometers, or 
PM10, is one of these ambient air pollutants for which the 
EPA has established health-based standards. On July 1, 1987, the EPA 
promulgated two primary standards for PM10: A 24-hour 
standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\); and an 
annual PM10 standard of 50 [micro]g/m\3\. The EPA also 
promulgated secondary PM10 standards that were identical to 
the primary standards.\1\ Because they are identical, we refer to the 
primary and secondary standards using the singular term, NAAQS. 
Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM10 
NAAQS but retained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987).
    \2\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An area attains the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS when the expected 
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess 
of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) (referred to herein 
as an ``exceedance''), is equal to or less than one as determined in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.\3\ Conversely, a violation 
of the PM10 NAAQS occurs when the number of expected annual 
exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS is greater than one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of Pinal County, Arizona, including what is now the West Pinal 
County PM10 nonattainment area, was included in the ``rest 
of state'' area, which was designated ``unclassifiable'' for the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS by operation of law upon enactment of the 
CAA, consistent with section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). Until recently, this 
area in Arizona remained designated ``unclassifiable'' for the 1987 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS. The CAA, under section 107(d)(3), 
authorizes the EPA to revise the designation of, or ``redesignate,'' 
areas (or portions thereof) based on air quality data, planning and 
control considerations, or any other air-quality-related considerations 
that the EPA deems appropriate.
    On October 14, 2009, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), the EPA 
notified the Governor of Arizona and four tribal leaders (whose areas 
of Indian country are located entirely, or in part, within Pinal 
County) that the designation for Pinal County, and any nearby areas 
that may be contributing to the monitored violations in Pinal County, 
should be revised.\4\ Our decision to initiate the redesignation 
process was due to ambient data for 2006-2008 from PM10 
monitoring sites within the County showing widespread, frequent, and in 
some instances, severe, violations of the PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator to 
Governor Jan Brewer dated October 14, 2009. The EPA notified the 
tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian 
Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe by letters dated December 30, 
2009, and Tohono O'odham Nation by letter dated September 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective July 2, 2012, the EPA designated a portion of state lands 
in Pinal County, Arizona (``West Pinal County'') as nonattainment for 
the 1987 PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data from 2006-
2008.\5\ West Pinal County is located in central Arizona, southeast of 
the Phoenix metropolitan area and northwest of the city of Tucson. 
Pinal County covers 5,365 square miles and has two distinct western and 
eastern regions with different characteristics relevant to pollution 
formation. The West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area is 
located within the western region, characterized by low desert valleys 
and an arid climate. The eastern region is mountainous, with elevations 
up to 6,441 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 77 FR 32024 (May 31, 2012). The precise boundaries for the 
West Pinal County nonattainment area are described in 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the nonattainment designation, EPA classified West 
Pinal County as a ``Moderate'' PM10 nonattainment area. 
Consequently, by January 2, 2014, Arizona was required to submit a 
nonattainment plan SIP revision for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
meeting relevant CAA requirements. The State submitted a SIP revision 
intended to meet these requirements on December 21, 2015, and this 
``2015 West Pinal Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area SIP'' is 
the subject of this proposed action. For a PM10 
nonattainment area classified as Moderate, section 188(c) of the CAA 
provides that the Moderate area attainment date is ``as expeditiously 
as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year 
after the area's designation as nonattainment.'' Consequently, the 
applicable attainment date for the West Pinal County area, designated 
nonattainment in 2012, was as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than December 31, 2018.
    CAA section 188(b)(2) requires the EPA to determine whether a state 
has

[[Page 1349]]

attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in a Moderate 
PM10 nonattainment area by the applicable attainment date 
and requires the EPA to make such a determination within six months 
after that date. If the EPA determines that a Moderate area has not 
attained the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date, then the area is 
reclassified as a Serious area by operation of law. On June 24, 2020, 
the EPA determined that the West Pinal County nonattainment area had 
not attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 
2018, the outermost permissible statutory attainment date for the 
area.\6\ This determination was based on our calculation of the 
PM10 design value for the West Pinal County nonattainment 
area over the 2016-2018 period, using complete, quality-assured, and 
certified PM10 monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 85 FR 37756 (June 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the EPA's June 24, 2020 finding of failure to attain 
the PM10 NAAQS and the margin by which the area failed to 
attain indicate that the Moderate plan's modeled attainment 
demonstration, which incorrectly predicted attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2018, is not approvable. Because 
the modeled attainment demonstration is not approvable, as described in 
section III.D, other elements of the West Pinal County PM10 
Plan that are dependent upon the modeled attainment demonstration are 
likewise not approvable, e.g., the emission controls imposed by the 
State to meet reasonably available control measure/reasonably available 
control technology (RACM/RACT) requirements based on the predicted 
sufficiency of those controls to result in attainment by the intended 
attainment date. If finalized as we propose, our disapproval of most 
elements of the Moderate plan will start sanctions and Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) clocks, which can be turned off by the EPA's 
approval of new plan elements for the PM10 NAAQS that 
correct the deficiencies within the Moderate plan. With the EPA's 
reclassification of the West Pinal County area to Serious, Arizona now 
has an obligation to submit, by January 24, 2022, a nonattainment plan 
SIP revision that complies with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements for Serious PM10 nonattainment plans and that 
demonstrates attainment of the PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously 
as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2022. Although 
reclassification of an area from Moderate to Serious does not eliminate 
a state's obligation to meet Moderate area nonattainment plan 
requirements, the EPA anticipates that Arizona's submission of an 
approvable Serious area nonattainment plan would also satisfy the 
State's Moderate area nonattainment plan obligations. For example, an 
approvable Serious area nonattainment plan would satisfy the Act's 
requirements for imposing best available control measures, including 
best available control technology (BACM/BACT), which would presumably 
satisfy the less stringent requirements for RACM/RACT.

B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Moderate PM10 
Nonattainment Area SIPs

    Along with the new designations, classifications, and attainment 
dates, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established new 
nonattainment area planning requirements. The air quality planning 
requirements for Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set 
out in subparts 1 and 4 of the CAA, including sections 110, 172, and 
189 of the statute. We discuss these sections of the Act in more detail 
later during our review of each plan element. Also, the EPA has issued 
guidance, in a document we refer to as the General Preamble, describing 
how we will review state nonattainment plan SIP submissions under Title 
I of the CAA, including such SIP submissions for Moderate 
PM10 nonattainment areas.\7\ In general, states must include 
the following elements in nonattainment plans for Moderate areas for 
purposes of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS: A comprehensive, 
accurate, and current emissions inventory of emissions sources in the 
nonattainment area; provisions to implement RACM/RACT for the 
appropriate sources and pollutants in the nonattainment area; 
provisions demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP), including 
quantitative milestones towards attainment of the PM10 NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable, along with quantitative milestones for 
evaluation of RFP at set times; contingency measures that will provide 
for additional emissions reductions automatically in the event that the 
state fails to meet RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date in the area; and, a motor vehicle emissions budget for 
the purpose of determining the conformity of transportation programs 
and plans developed by state transportation agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Submissions From the State of Arizona To Address the 1987 PM10 
Standard Requirements in the West Pinal County Nonattainment Area

A. Summary of State Submissions

    As a result of the May 31, 2012 nonattainment designation, West 
Pinal County was classified as a Moderate PM10 nonattainment 
area. Within 18 months from the July 2, 2012 effective date of the 
designation, or January 2, 2014, the State was required to submit a 
nonattainment plan meeting Moderate area plan requirements, including 
emission control measures for West Pinal County designed to attain the 
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but 
no later than December 31, 2018.
    On December 21, 2015, Arizona submitted the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan, intended to address the Moderate area 
nonattainment requirements, to the EPA as a revision to the Arizona 
SIP.\8\ The West Pinal County PM10 Plan is organized into 
seven chapters and nine appendices. The nine appendices provide support 
for the plan and are divided into the following categories: Technical 
support and documentation (appendices A-D, F), SIP adoption authority 
and public notice and hearing documentation (appendix E) and control 
measure submittals (appendices G-I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter dated December 21, 2015, from Eric C. Massey, 
Director, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendices G, H, and I contain control measures submitted with the 
West Pinal County PM10 Plan in the form of rules, statutes, 
and other supporting documents. We are not proposing to act on the 
submitted control measures in this proposed action on the West Pinal 
County PM10 Plan. Previously, the EPA approved into the 
Arizona SIP the submitted control measures that regulate fugitive dust, 
construction dust, and crop operations.\9\ In a separate Federal 
Register notice, we intend to take action on the remainder of the 
State's submitted rules, namely, an update to its agricultural best 
management practices (AgBMP) statute, and the AgBMP rules for animal 
operations in Pinal County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 82 FR 20267 (May 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1350]]

for evaluation under section 110(k) and other applicable substantive 
requirements. 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.
    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) provided 
public notice and opportunity for public comment on the West Pinal 
County PM10 Plan. On October 19, 2015, ADEQ released the 
West Pinal County PM10 Plan for public review and published 
a notice of public meeting to be held on November 19, 2015, to consider 
adoption of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan.\10\ On November 
19, 2015, ADEQ held the public hearing and subsequently adopted the 
West Pinal County PM10 Plan as a revision to the Arizona 
SIP.\11\ Under authority provided by Arizona state law, on December 21, 
2015, Eric Massey, Director of the Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 
submitted the West Pinal County PM10 Plan to the EPA.\12\ On 
June 21, 2016, the West Pinal County PM10 Plan became 
complete by operation of law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Public 
Comment Period and Hearing on the Proposed Arizona State 
Implementation Plan Revision, Attainment Plan for the West Pinal 
County PM10 Planning Area (1987 NAAQS)'' published in the 
Arizona Republic October 19 and 20, 2015; Exhibit E-III, Appendix E, 
West Pinal County PM10 Plan.
    \11\ ``Public Hearing Presiding Officer Certification'' signed 
by Naveen Savarirvayan, Presiding Officer, November 19, 2015 and 
notarized; Exhibit E-VI, Appendix E, West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan. The hearing transcript and the public comments 
and State responses are found at Exhibit E-VIII and Exhibit E-VII, 
respectively, within Appendix E, West Pinal County PM10 
Plan.
    \12\ Letter dated December 21, 2015 from Eric C. Massey, 
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the SIP submissions summarized 
above, the EPA has determined that the public hearing was properly 
noticed. Therefore, we find that the submittal of the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan meets the procedural requirements for public 
notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.

III. Evaluation of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires a state to submit for each 
PM10 nonattainment area a ``base year inventory'' that is a 
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all 
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. Also, the 
state should submit a second projected ``attainment year inventory'' 
for the year in which the state projects that the area will attain the 
PM10 standards. The state should include documentation 
explaining how it calculated the emissions data. When estimating mobile 
source emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and 
planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 81 FR 58032 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The state must meet several general requirements for base year 
emissions inventories, consistent with CAA section 172(c)(3). First, 
the emissions inventory year must be one of the 3 years used for the 
EPA PM10 nonattainment designation for the area, or an 
alternative year agreed upon by the EPA and the state as more 
reflective of the causes and sources of violations of the 
PM10 standard that meet the criteria in CAA section 
172(c)(3). Second, the state must reflect actual emissions from all 
sources of PM10 in the inventory. Third, the state should 
report the emissions inventory in the form of the PM10 
standard it is intended to address, e.g., in tons or pounds per day to 
be consistent with the averaging period of the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 81 FR 58027-58032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state must meet similar CAA section 172(c)(3) requirements in the 
projected attainment year inventory for the most expeditious year in 
which the state can show attainment of the PM10 standard in 
the modeled attainment demonstration portion of the nonattainment plan. 
At a minimum, the state must choose an attainment year consistent with 
the outermost applicable deadline required by CAA section 188(c). As 
with the baseline year inventory, the state must reflect emissions from 
all sources of PM10 in this inventory and report them in the 
form of the PM10 standard. In addition, the attainment year 
inventory must be consistent with the source categories and level of 
detail reported by the state in the base year inventory.
    Future attainment year and related baseline emissions inventories 
must reflect the most recent population, employment, travel and 
congestion estimates for the area. In this context, ``baseline'' 
emissions inventories refer to emissions estimates for a given year and 
area that reflect rules and regulations and other measures that are 
already adopted in a state's EPA approved SIP and assumed within the 
attainment demonstration. Future baseline emissions inventories are 
necessary to show the projected effectiveness of SIP control measures 
designed to result in attainment by the applicable attainment year. 
Both the base year and future year, baseline and attainment inventories 
are necessary inputs to any modeling or other analyses required to 
demonstrate attainment of the PM10 standard, as required by 
section 189(a)(1)(B).
2. Summary of State's Submission
    The West Pinal County PM10 Plan includes a base year 
(2008) inventory, and future year (2018) baseline and attainment 
emissions inventories for direct PM10 in the West Pinal 
County area. The State provided documentation for the emissions 
inventories in Chapter 5 (``Annual Emissions Inventory'') of the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan and its two-part Appendix B (``Pinal 
County PM10 Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventories for 
2008 and 2018 Base Years and Design Days'', and its supporting 
``Exhibits'').\16\ The emissions inventories are provided in two parts, 
one representing windblown PM10 emissions on high-wind days 
(including both entrained dust and windblown dust from human 
activities), and the second representing PM10 emissions on 
low-wind days (including dust due to human activity that stagnates near 
its point of origin). The State presents the annual emissions 
inventories on a tons per year basis that it later converts to a tons 
or pounds per day basis for use within the attainment demonstration 
modeling for the 24-hour NAAQS at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As needed, we will refer to the primary document as 
``Appendix B'' and the secondary document as ``Appendix B-
Exhibits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 attainment year emissions inventories reflect State of 
Arizona and Pinal County rules adopted concurrently with the West Pinal 
County PM10 Plan in late 2015.\17\ The Plan's emissions 
reductions are based on continuing implementation of existing Federal 
controls along with new state and local control measures submitted with 
the Plan. The 2008 base year and projected 2018 baseline and attainment 
year inventories use the most recent EPA-approved mobile source 
emissions model at the time the plan was developed, MOVES2014, for 
estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions.\18\ Future emissions 
forecasts in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan, particularly 
on-road mobile source emissions, are based primarily on

[[Page 1351]]

demographic and economic growth projections provided by Arizona 
Department of Administration and the Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Please refer to Appendices G, H, and I, West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan for rule adoption information.
    \18\ Appendix B, 62.
    \19\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, 27-28, Table 3-3; 
Appendix B, 120, 132, and 132 at footnote 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the term ``point sources'' typically refers to 
permitted facilities that have one or more identified and fixed pieces 
of equipment and emissions points. ``Area sources'' typically consist 
of widespread and numerous smaller emissions sources, such as small 
permitted facilities and households. The ``mobile sources'' category 
refers to vehicles and is typically divided into two major 
subcategories, ``on-road'' and ``non-road'' mobile sources. On-road 
mobile sources include light-duty automobiles, light-, medium-, and 
heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. In addition to tailpipe, brake, and 
tire wear, on-road mobile emissions estimates for PM10 also 
include re-entrained dust from vehicles driven on paved and unpaved 
roads. Non-road mobile sources include aircraft and related support 
vehicles, locomotives, construction equipment, agricultural equipment, 
mobile equipment, and recreational vehicles.
    In the West Pinal County PM10 Plan, the State based the 
point source emissions for the 2008 base year emissions inventory on 
reported data from facilities using the permit file reporting programs 
of the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD). Area 
sources, as noted above, include smaller emissions sources distributed 
across the nonattainment area. ADEQ estimated emissions for area 
sources using established inventory methods, including publicly 
available emissions factors and activity information. The State derived 
activity data from national survey data, such as the Energy Information 
Administration or from local sources and PCAQCD databases. Emissions 
factors used for the estimates come from many sources, such as facility 
and equipment source tests, compliance reports, and the EPA's 
compilation of emissions factors document known as ``AP-42.''
    ADEQ calculated the 2008 base year on-road emissions inventories in 
the West Pinal PM10 Plan using the MOVES2014 model and a 
back-casting of 2015 modeling of vehicle travel activity data provided 
by MAG.\20\ ADEQ estimated emissions inventories for non-road equipment 
using the EPA's NONROAD Model, including construction and mining 
equipment, industrial and commercial equipment, lawn and garden 
equipment, agricultural equipment, and recreational vehicles.\21\ 
Locomotive emissions were estimated from EPA published emission factors 
and local track-mileage, train speed, and throughput data.\22\ The 
State developed aircraft and related ground support vehicle emissions 
estimates in conjunction with activity data from local airports in the 
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Appendix B, 62-75.
    \21\ Appendix B, 87-90. EPA NONROAD Model, Version 2008a, 
released July 2009.
    \22\ Appendix B, 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described previously, the State grouped direct PM10 
emissions estimates in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan into 
two general categories and emissions inventories, windblown dust and 
human activity-based emissions; \23\ we present these inventories in 
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In general, emission inventories can be 
broken into four basic categories: Stationary sources, area sources, 
non-road sources and mobile sources. Instead of a summary emissions 
inventory consisting of these four general categories, ADEQ provided a 
more detailed 2008 base year emissions inventory. In some cases, a 
source category will appear in both emissions inventories and tables. 
For example, an unpaved road and an agricultural field will emit 
PM10 when wind speeds become high enough to pick up and 
carry disturbed earth, as well as due to vehicle and equipment traffic 
on the unpaved road or agricultural activity in a field, such as 
harvesting or tilling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3, West Pinal County PM10 
Plan.

 Table 1--West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Windblown Dust/Fugitive Emissions
                                Inventory
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008  base
                       Source category                           year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed Urban Lands.......................................       200.7
Developed Rural Lands.......................................     1,959.7
Unpaved Roads...............................................     4,688.6
Cleared Areas...............................................       398.1
Residential Construction....................................     1,302.4
Dairies.....................................................       449.6
CAFOs.......................................................       273.7
Desert Shrubland............................................    38,276.7
Agriculture.................................................    19,510.1
Commercial Construction.....................................       686.4
Other.......................................................     4,243.9
Site Development............................................       858.7
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................    72,848.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-3; Appendix B, Tables 5-31,
  5-33.

    Table 2 presents ADEQ's direct PM10 emissions inventory related to 
human activity. Stationary sources are broken out into permitted 
sources and fuel combustion. Area sources are disaggregated into 
several source categories: Fires, open burning, unpaved parking, and 
construction sites and activities. Agricultural sources are also 
disaggregated into several source categories: on field harvesting, on 
field tilling, confined animal feed operations (CAFOs), and dairies. In 
contrast, mobile sources are included within the ``unpaved roads'' and 
``paved roads'' source categories. Each of these two source categories 
aggregate direct (vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear) and fugitive 
PM10 emissions from motor vehicles on unpaved and paved 
roads. Finally, nonroad equipment and railroad emissions are assigned 
to their own respective source categories.

  Table 2--West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Human Activity-Based Emissions
                                Inventory
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008  base
                       Source category                           year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag Fields--Harvesting.......................................       312.9
Ag Fields--Tilling..........................................     2,540.3
CAFOs.......................................................     2,614.3
Paved Road *................................................     1,180.7
Unpaved Road--All Road Types *..............................    45,127.8
Fuel Combustion.............................................        28.3
Fires.......................................................        19.9
Open Burning................................................        13.6
Nonroad.....................................................       121.3
Railroad....................................................        85.9
Construction................................................    12,955.3
Dairy.......................................................       186.6
Permitted Sources...........................................       781.3
Unpaved Parking.............................................       251.5
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................    66,219.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-3; Appendix B, Tables 5-31,
  5-33.
* Paved and Unpaved Road emissions estimates include direct vehicle
  emissions and fugitive dust emissions from vehicle re-entrainment.

    Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the West Pinal County 2008 base 
year direct PM10 emissions in tons per year. Appendix B, 
Chapters 3 and 5 also provide source category estimates in a pounds per 
day format consistent with the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Where 
appropriate, within the attainment demonstration, ADEQ used these daily 
estimates or developed more focused daily emissions estimates to 
provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the modeled 
attainment demonstrations in the West Pinal County PM10 
Plan.\24\ Within the windblown PM10 emissions inventory, the 
largest source after desert shrubland

[[Page 1352]]

is agricultural emissions. Within the human activity-based emissions 
inventory, the largest source is unpaved roads, followed by 
construction fugitive emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Appendix B, chapters 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have reviewed the 2008 base year emissions inventory for direct 
PM10 in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan and 
emissions inventory estimation methodologies used by ADEQ for 
consistency with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. We address the 
State's analysis for PM10 precursors in Section III.B.
    First, we find that although the 2008 base year inventory reports 
annual PM10 emissions estimates, the Plan also provides and 
uses daily emissions estimates within the attainment demonstration 
modeling and the related modeling domain micro-emissions inventories; 
therefore, the Plan is consistent with the requirement that ADEQ must 
use an emissions inventory in a form consistent with the 24-hour 
PM10 standard.\25\ ADEQ has provided adequate documentation 
explaining how it calculated the 2008 base year emissions estimates, 
both as annual and daily inventories.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As discussed in Section III.G Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets and Transportation Conformity, an annual emissions inventory 
introduces difficulties with determining and presenting a motor 
vehicle emissions budget.
    \26\ Chapter 5 and Appendix B of the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we find that the 2008 base year emissions inventory in the 
West Pinal County PM10 Plan used emissions models, emission 
factors, and methodologies for estimating PM10 emissions 
that were accurate and appropriate to the time that the Plan was 
written. Also, the 2008 base year inventory for direct PM10 
is comprehensive in scope and coverage. Therefore, the submitted 
emissions inventory represents a comprehensive, accurate, and current 
inventory of actual emissions of direct PM10 during that 
year in the West Pinal County Area.
    Third, we find that ADEQ's selection of 2008 for the base year 
emissions inventory is appropriate because it is chosen from one of the 
three years, 2006-2008, in which the area was designated nonattainment. 
The 2008 emissions inventory is representative of the sources of direct 
PM10 pollution contributing to exceedances of the 
PM10 NAAQS that caused the area to be designated 
nonattainment. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2008 
base year emissions inventory for direct PM10 in the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan as meeting the requirements for a 
base year inventory set forth in CAA section 172(c)(3).

B. PM10 Precursors

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements 
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 also apply to 
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where 
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standard in the 
area. While CAA section 189(e) expressly requires control of precursors 
from major stationary sources, subpart 4 and other CAA provisions 
collectively require the control of direct PM10 and 
PM10 precursors from all types of sources (i.e., stationary 
sources, area sources and mobile sources) as may be needed for the 
purposes of demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable in 
a given nonattainment area.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See CAA requirements for states to demonstrate attainment 
``as expeditiously as practicable,'' CAA section 188(c)(1) and 
section 172(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA do not 
define the term ``precursor'' for purposes of PM10, nor do 
they explicitly require the control of any specific PM precursor. The 
statutory definition of ``air pollutant'' in CAA section 302(g), 
however, provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the 
formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has 
identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for 
which the term `air pollutant' is used.'' EPA has identified sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), volatile 
organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3) as precursors to 
the formation of PM.\28\ Accordingly, a state must include emissions of 
direct PM emissions and these four precursors in emissions inventories 
and must control emissions from sources of all of these pollutants, 
unless the state demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that control of one 
or more of these pollutants is not needed for expeditions attainment of 
the NAAQS in the nonattainment area at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 81 FR 58010, 58018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI contains ADEQ's demonstration that 
emissions of SO2, NOX, and NH3 from 
existing sources in the West Pinal County nonattainment area do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the 
NAAQS. For this analysis, ADEQ estimated the impact of these three 
PM10 precursors on PM10 concentrations at two 
sites, Cowtown (CWT) and Pinal County Housing (PCH), using ``worst 
impact day monitored data'' from a year-long chemical mass balance 
characterization (CMBC) study (Desert Southwest Coarse Particulate 
Matter Study) and emissions data from the 2008 National Emission 
Inventory (NEI).\29\ ADEQ evaluated these data to determine which, if 
any, source categories had precursor emissions that contribute more 
than 5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) on specific design 
days. \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Clements, A.L., Fraser, M.P., Upadhyay, N., Herckes, P., 
Sundblom, M., Lantz, J., and Solomon, P.A., ``Chemical 
characterization of coarse particulate matter in the Desert 
Southwest--Pinal County Arizona, USA'', Atmospheric Pollution 
Research, 5 (2014) 52-61.
    \30\ ADEQ focused their attainment demonstration on a set of 
``design days'' and monitors that have experienced, or are conducive 
to, the highest concentrations. See EPA TSD, p. 11. Two design days 
were examined in ADEQ's PM10 precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI, Table BXVI-1 provides the maximum 
particle mass concentration and chemical composition (i.e., crustal, 
organic material, nitrate, sulfate, ammonium, other species, and 
unidentified particle fractions) measured during the CMBC study for CWT 
and PCH. ADEQ then calculated the percentage of each chemical 
constituent to the summed total of the chemical constituent parts. ADEQ 
assumed the design days for each monitor had the same relative chemical 
composition as the ``worst impact day'' identified in the CMBC study. 
The State calculated design day concentrations for each chemical 
constituent by multiplying the study-derived percentages by a design 
day concentration for CWT (244.5 [mu]g/m\3\) and PCH (178.0 [mu]g/
m\3\). The CMBC study estimated that summed nitrate, sulfate, and 
ammonium impacts on the CWT and PCH monitors were 3.4 percent and 4.0 
percent, respectively. These percentages suggest that 8.4 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and 7.2 [mu]g/m\3\ of the design day ambient PM10 
concentrations at the CWT and PCH monitors resulted from emissions of 
the three PM10 precursors examined.
    Next, ADEQ processed Pinal County 2008 EPA NEI reported emissions 
for NOX, SO2, and NH3 to determine the 
percent contribution of each source sector to the total emissions of 
these pollutants for the county. \31\ ADEQ apportioned the precursor 
concentrations derived above to individual source sectors based on the 
relative contribution of each sector to the annual emission inventory. 
Based

[[Page 1353]]

on this analysis, no precursor emissions from any source category 
exceeded the 5 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold.\32\ The largest contributing 
source category was ``On-road Mobile,'' contributing less than 3.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ of PM10 from precursor emissions to either 
monitor on the design days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI, Table BXVI-2.
    \32\ Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI, Table BXVI-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We identified several issues with the analysis that ADEQ presented. 
First, SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia are precursors 
to the formation of PM10. ADEQ does not address VOC 
emissions in its analysis; therefore, we cannot evaluate whether 
sources of VOC emissions contribute significantly to PM10 
levels that exceed the NAAQS in the West Pinal County PM10 
nonattainment area.
    Second, it is unclear whether the chemical composition values 
presented in Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI, Table BXVI-1 reflect one maximum 
day sample, or the maximum chemical composition measured for each 
individual component during the entire CMBC study. If the latter 
approach was used, then the resulting percentages would not reflect 
percentages measured on any actual exceedance day and could 
overrepresent or underrepresent the various chemicals when compared to 
actual exceedance days. If the chemical composition values represent 
one maximum day sample, then: (a) The individual components listed in 
Table BXVI-1 when totaled together should equal that day's total mass, 
which they do not; and (b) this would only represent a single day--
therefore, a single type of exceedance day. ADEQ modeled two 
meteorological scenarios causing exceedances, high wind conditions and 
stagnant or low wind conditions. The emission sources affecting the 
PM10 composition would vary between these two scenarios, 
making use of a single maximum value at each site for each chemical 
component likely insufficient. Therefore, ADEQ's approach of assuming 
the chemical composition of the two design days match those reported in 
the study likely does not address all conditions affecting 
nonattainment for the area.
    Third, ADEQ applied the 5 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold from the Serious 
PM10 nonattainment area addendum to the General 
Preamble.\33\ The Serious area addendum states that, for purposes of 
evaluating best available control measures (BACM), a source category 
will be presumed to contribute significantly to a violation of the 
NAAQS if its PM10 impact at the location of the expected 
violation would exceed 5 [mu]g/m\3\. This guidance is not precursor 
guidance and was intended to apply to the total impact of a source 
category (including direct PM and precursor emissions). It is not clear 
from the State's submission why the application of this threshold to 
the impact of precursor emissions from individual source categories is 
an appropriate method of evaluating the significance of PM10 
precursor emissions for the West Pinal County PM10 
nonattainment area.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Appendix B, Exhibit BXVI, BXVI-2. See 59 FR at 42011.
    \34\ For more recent guidance on precursor significance, see 
Memorandum from Scott Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy 
Division and Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment 
Division, ``Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Precursor 
Demonstration Guidance'' (May 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, ADEQ used an annual inventory to partition the source 
category contribution to PM10. High wind affected days would 
likely have a different composition of sources than what would be 
reflected in an annual inventory, potentially by a substantial margin. 
ADEQ did not address this issue, and used the annual inventory 
composition to represent all exceedance days.
    The State has not adequately shown that PM10 precursors 
do not contribute significantly to concentrations above the NAAQS in 
the West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area. As described 
elsewhere in this notice, due to the deficiencies with the State's 
precursor analysis, the State has not shown that it was unnecessary to 
regulate emissions of precursors in its RACM and modeled attainment 
demonstration. As explained in Section III.C., the State has only 
evaluated sources of direct PM emissions within the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan. The EPA anticipates that ADEQ could develop an 
improved precursor analysis for the area, and this analysis may 
ultimately confirm that it is not necessary to regulate one or all of 
the PM10 precursors; however, we find that the precursor 
analysis submitted with the Plan does not provide a sufficient basis 
for that conclusion.
    In conclusion, because of the omissions and uncertainties in ADEQ's 
PM10 precursor analysis, we are unable to determine whether 
precursor emissions contribute significantly to PM10 levels 
that exceed the NAAQS in the West Pinal County nonattainment area. 
Consequently, we are proposing to disapprove the precursor 
demonstration in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because the 
demonstration is inadequate to show that emissions reductions from all 
PM10 precursors do not contribute significantly to 
PM10 levels exceeding the NAAQS, as required by CAA Section 
189(e). As explained in section III.C, the deficiencies in the State's 
precursor analysis mean that the State failed to establish in its RACM/
RACT analysis that it was unnecessary to regulate PM10 
precursor emissions.

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide 
for the implementation of all RACM/RACT as expeditiously as practicable 
(including such reductions in emissions from sources in the area 
through implementation of reasonably available control technology) and 
for attainment of the NAAQS. Consistent with section 189(a)(1)(C), each 
state with a Moderate PM10 nonattainment area is required to 
submit provisions to assure implementation of reasonably available 
control measures no later than 4 years after the date of designation of 
the area. Taken together, these CAA provisions require that Moderate 
area attainment plans must provide for the implementation of RACM and 
RACT in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than 4 years after designation.
    Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires states to demonstrate 
attainment of the PM10 standard by the applicable attainment 
date (or demonstrate that attainment by such date is impracticable) and 
Section 188(c)(1) requires that the attainment date for a Moderate area 
shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of 
the sixth calendar year after the year of the nonattainment area's 
designation.
    To address this requirement to adopt all RACM/RACT and meet the 
PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, states should 
consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source 
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are 
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they 
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's 
applicable attainment date by one year or more.\35\ Any measures that 
are necessary to meet these requirements that are not either federally 
promulgated, or part of the state's SIP, must be submitted in 
enforceable form

[[Page 1354]]

as part of the state's nonattainment plan SIP submission for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) and 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (``General Preamble''). This guidance includes the 
following elements and concepts: A recommended list of potential 
PM10 measures for states to consider; \36\ an emphasis on a 
state's evaluation of the technological and economic feasibility of 
potential control measures to determine if such measures are reasonably 
available for implementation in a given nonattainment area; an 
expectation that the state will provide a reasoned explanation for a 
decision not to adopt a given control measure, including a review of 
any control measures recommended to the state during public comment or 
public hearing; and, a discussion that in some cases partial 
implementation of an emissions reduction program may be considered RACM 
when full implementation would be infeasible within the given Moderate 
area timeframe.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 57 FR 18070.
    \37\ 57 FR 13540, 13541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    For the West Pinal County PM10 Plan, ADEQ worked through 
a process to identify and evaluate potential RACM/RACT that could 
contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in 
the West Pinal County nonattainment area. Chapter 6 of the West Pinal 
County PM10 Plan provides an overview and description of the 
Plan's constituent control measures. ADEQ's RACM/RACT analysis for the 
PM10 standard is described in Appendix F--RACM Analysis for 
the West Pinal County PM10 Nonattainment Area (``Appendix 
F''). Appendix F contains summary analyses of potential control 
measures for emissions reduction opportunities, as well as the economic 
and technological feasibility and comparability with control 
requirements in other states and localities.
    As a first step in the RACM/RACT analysis, ADEQ prepared a detailed 
inventory of direct PM10 emissions sources to identify 
source categories from which emissions reductions would contribute to 
attaining the PM10 standard.\38\ In this analysis, ADEQ 
identified point sources, unpaved roads and agriculture on tribal land, 
dairy operations, nonroad vehicles, residential fuel combustion, and 
open burning as insignificant sources of emissions in the area.\39\ 
Then, ADEQ identified agricultural operations, confined animal feeding 
operations, fugitive dust from cleared area and unpaved parking lots, 
construction fugitive dust, and re-entrained dust from paved and 
unpaved roads as significant sources in the nonattainment area and 
determined a list of available control measures. ADEQ determined that a 
source category was significant if those sources contributed more than 
5 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 24-hour basis on a given design day. Conversely, ADEQ 
determined that source categories contributing less than the 5 [mu]g/
m\3\ threshold were insignificant; furthermore, ADEQ determined these 
insignificant sources would not advance attainment of the NAAQS, given 
their small collective contribution to nonattainment.\40\ Finally, ADEQ 
evaluated the efficacy, cost, and technical feasibility of these 
identified control measures within the nonattainment area.\41\ As part 
of this review, ADEQ also compared the control requirements of its 
proposed rules with those requirements in other PM10 
nonattainment areas or similar state and local provisions.\42\ ADEQ did 
not identify sources or analyze potential RACM/RACT for PM10 
precursors because it concluded that such precursors did not contribute 
significantly to a violation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Appendix F, Chapters 2 and 3.
    \39\ Appendix F, 4-12.
    \40\ Appendix F, Chapter 2 and Table 1.
    \41\ Appendix F, Chapters 2-4.
    \42\ Appendix F, Chapter 4; Exhibit F-I, Available Measures; 
Exhibit F-II, Construction Comparison; Exhibit F-III, Agricultural 
Comparison; and, Exhibit F-IV, Fugitive Dust Comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this process, ADEQ attempted to evaluate and analyze the 
universe of potential RACM/RACT level controls for sources of direct 
PM10 emissions and identify the subset of control measures 
that were available to include within the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan. ADEQ identified a set of control measures that it 
determined would be sufficient to enable the area to attain by December 
31, 2018, and additional controls that it determined were not necessary 
for attainment or RFP to serve as contingency measures.\43\ ADEQ based 
this conclusion on: (1) The practical feasibility of adopting control 
measures over the latter half of 2015 with the State's desired 
implementation date of no later than January 1, 2016; and (2) the 
ability of these control measures to produce immediate emissions 
reductions and contribute to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by 
2018.\44\ As discussed earlier, the State submitted the following 
control measures with the West Pinal County PM10 Plan: The 
AgBMP Rules for Pinal County, the Pinal County Fugitive Dust Rule, and 
the Pinal County Construction Dust Rule. ADEQ relied only on the 
following portions of the AgBMP Rules for Pinal County to meet the 
RACM/RACT requirements and demonstrate attainment of the 
PM10 standard: AgBMP rule R18-2-610 and -610.03, commercial 
farms; AgBMP rule R18-2-611 and -611.03, commercial animal operations 
(except for dairy operations); and R18-2-612 and -612.01, irrigation 
districts.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapter 7; Table 7-
4; Appendix D, Table D5-1.
    \44\ Appendix F, 29, 47, 51.
    \45\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapters 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ did not provide a complete or systematic analysis of whether 
the control measures it did not adopt based on concerns about a lack of 
immediate emission reduction effect, if taken together, would advance 
the area's attainment date. Nonetheless, ADEQ did adopt those control 
measures, implemented them over the 2016-2018 timeframe, and allocated 
them to serve as contingency measures in the Plan. ADEQ designated the 
portion of the AgBMP Rules for Pinal County applicable to dairy 
operations (R18-2-611 and -611.03), along with the Pinal County 
Fugitive Dust Rule and the Pinal County Construction Dust Rule, as 
contingency measures because these rules provided additional emissions 
reductions not relied upon within the Plan's attainment 
demonstration.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapter 6; Chapter 
7, Table 7-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As described above, ADEQ evaluated a wide range of potentially 
available measures for the West Pinal County PM10 Plan. ADEQ 
identified portions of the AgBMP Rules for Pinal County as RACM/RACT 
and the State adopted them to provide for attainment of the 
PM10 standard.\47\ The remaining adopted control measures, 
some of which were identified as significant sources and potential 
RACM/RACT, were assigned to provide for contingency measures within the 
Plan.\48\ In sum, all source categories identified as significant were 
covered by controls either as a control measure for attainment, or as 
contingency measures, and implemented over the 2016-2018 timeframe. As 
has been confirmed by subsequent monitoring data, however,

[[Page 1355]]

these adopted control measures were insufficient to attain the 
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, in part 
because the State overestimated the effectiveness of the RACM/RACT-
designated adopted controls. As an example, ADEQ assumed high and 
insufficiently conservative compliance rates for agricultural 
operations that had either no previous experience implementing control 
measures, or little to no reliable documented compliance history. We 
review the State's analysis and attainment demonstration in Section 
III.D and provide detailed discussion in the Technical Support Document 
(TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapters 6 and 7.
    \48\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapter 6; Chapter 
7, Table 7-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan described the adopted control measures and concluded that 
a subset was reasonable and would achieve the NAAQS by the attainment 
date; therefore, the State concluded that the RACM/RACT-designated 
subset of adopted control measures constituted the necessary RACM/RACT 
for the area.\49\ The State adopted several additional measures beyond 
the RACM/RACT measures to serve as contingency measures in the Plan. If 
the RACM/RACT-designated adopted controls actually sufficed to achieve 
attainment, then these control measures could have constituted 
sufficient RACM, as additional measures beyond those necessary for 
attainment need not necessarily be considered as RACM/RACT.\50\ Because 
the adopted controls designated as RACM/RACT in the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan were insufficient, however, to achieve attainment, 
due in part to overestimates of the control efficiency of these rules, 
we find that the State terminated its RACM/RACT analysis prematurely. 
The control measures reserved for contingency measures that the State 
did not include as RACM/RACT should have been included and justified as 
RACM. Furthermore, because the State's determination regarding 
PM10 precursors failed to demonstrate that precursors do not 
contribute significantly to a violation of the NAAQS, the State remains 
obligated to demonstrate that additional PM10 precursor 
control measures are not required RACM/RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Appendix F, Chapter 4.
    \50\ See 81 FR 58010, 58035. Although such controls should be 
evaluated to determine if their adoption could advance attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the RACM/RACT-designated rules and contingency measures 
adopted and implemented by the State, we find that the State failed to 
adopt RACM/RACT sufficient to achieve the PM10 NAAQS, due in 
part, to overestimating the control effectiveness of these RACM/RACT 
control measures. Our conclusion is confirmed by the failure of the 
Plan's adopted and designated measures to result in attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 
2018. Because the adopted controls were insufficient to meet the 
PM10 NAAQS by the attainment date, and the State excluded 
source categories, including sources of precursors, from its RACM/RACT 
demonstration without sufficient justification, we propose to 
disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan and determine that the Plan does not provide for 
the implementation of all RACM/RACT as required by CAA section 
172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C).

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that a plan for a Moderate 
PM10 nonattainment area include a ``demonstration (including 
air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment [of the 
PM10 NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date.'' An 
attainment demonstration consists of several elements including 
technical analyses, such as base year and future year modeling, to 
locate and identify sources of emissions that are contributing to 
violations of the PM10 NAAQS within the nonattainment area 
(i.e., analyses related to the emissions inventory for the 
nonattainment area and the emissions reductions necessary to attain the 
standard). Section 188(c)(1) of the CAA requires Moderate areas to meet 
the PM10 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than the sixth calendar year from the area designation.
    In addition to reviewing the attainment demonstration modeling and 
related analyses, we evaluate the Plan's control strategy and the 
efficacy of the Plan's adopted controls to meet the PM10 
NAAQS by the applicable date.
2. Summary of the State's Submission
    ADEQ applied a form of proportional roll back and dispersion 
modeling using a micro-emissions inventory method to model attainment 
of the PM10 NAAQS. ADEQ modeled two meteorological scenarios 
causing ambient air values in excess of the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\, high wind conditions and stagnant or low wind 
conditions, at a representative subset of the monitoring sites in the 
nonattainment area.\51\ Under ``stagnation'' conditions, wind speeds 
are typically below 3 mph and particles accumulate in the air without 
any meteorological reprieve. Under ``high wind'' conditions, elevated 
wind speeds (e.g., over 12 mph) generate dust from disturbed soil 
surfaces, elevating PM10 concentrations. Each selected 
monitoring site in each modeling scenario had design day specific 
micro-emissions inventories consistent with the chosen areal modeling 
domain and application. ADEQ calculated the 2008 Base, 2018 Base, and 
2018 Attainment micro-emissions inventories for the given requirements 
of the modeling application at the respective monitoring site domain 
and meteorological day scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ West Pinal PM10 Plan County, Section 7.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's attainment demonstration approach is described in the 
Plan within the following documents: Chapter 7, ``Attainment 
Demonstration and Reasonable Further Progress''; Appendix A, ``Pinal 
County PM Inventory Preparation Plan'' (``IPP''); Appendix B, ``Pinal 
County PM10 Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventories for 
2008 and 2018 Base Years and Design Days'' (``Modeling EI''); Appendix 
C, ``Pinal County PM10 Nonattainment Area Source 
Apportionment Modeling for 2008 and 2018 Base Scenario Design Days'' 
(``Modeling TSD''); and, Appendix D, ``Pinal County PM10 
Nonattainment Area 2018 Attainment Demonstration and Controlled 
Emissions Inventories.''
    The West Pinal County PM10 Plan discusses the control 
strategy within Chapter 6 of the Plan and in more detail within 
Appendix D of the Plan.
a. Modeling
    As noted, the West Pinal County PM10 Plan's attainment 
demonstration considers two specific problems contributing to 
nonattainment of the PM10 standard in West Pinal County: (1) 
PM10 emissions from windblown dust and human activity on 
days with elevated wind speeds; and (2) PM10 emissions from 
human activity, particularly on days with very low wind or ``stagnant'' 
meteorological conditions.
     ADEQ developed a high wind day scenario for Cowtown, 
Maricopa, Pinal County Housing, and Stanfield monitors and surrounding 
area micro-emissions inventories. Each monitor has its own two domain 
micro-emissions inventory for modeling: High wind hours/windblown dust; 
and, low wind hours/activity-based emissions. The high wind scenario 
used a proportional rollback approach that accounts for the timing

[[Page 1356]]

and geographic location of emissions contributing to NAAQS 
exceedances.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The term ``rollback'' refers to the assumption that the 
PM10 concentrations are directly proportional to 
emissions. To predict the ambient effect of an emissions change, the 
concentration can be scaled, or ``rolled back,'' by the same 
percentage by which emissions are reduced. In ``proportional 
rollback,'' each source category is rolled back separately, since 
emissions from each will have a different level of control, and in 
general a different degree of dispersion. As in simple rollback, the 
ambient contribution of each individual source category scales with 
its emissions. For the ``weighted proportional rollback,'' source-
to-monitor distance was accounted for via an inverse distance factor 
(1/d). For example, a source with only small emissions may 
nevertheless have a large contribution to the concentration if it 
was very close to the monitor. A change in a source's emissions 
causes a change in total concentration in proportion to that 
source's contribution to that particular monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ADEQ developed a stagnation day scenario for Cowtown, 
Pinal County Housing, and Stanfield monitors and surrounding area 
micro-emissions inventories. The stagnant day scenarios used dispersion 
modeling from the American Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory 
Model (AERMOD). ADEQ chose design days from the fall season, September 
through November 2008 for this analysis.
b. Control Strategy for Attainment
    ADEQ relied on the following portions of the AgBMP Rules for Pinal 
County to provide for attainment of the PM10 standard: R18-
2-610 and -610.03, commercial farms; AgBMP rule R18-2-611 and -611.03, 
commercial animal operations (except for dairy operations); and, R18-2-
612 and -612.01, irrigation districts.\53\ Tables 3 and 4 show the 
annual nonattainment area emissions inventories for the 2018 baseline 
estimate and the 2018 attainment estimate by source category and the 
control strategies' predicted emissions reductions. Within the 
windblown fugitive dust emissions inventories, ADEQ predicted almost 
all the emission reductions, 93 percent, to come from soil 
stabilization control measures on agricultural land. Within the 
activity-based emissions inventories, ADEQ predicted most of the 
emission reductions, 87 percent, to come from control measures applied 
to unpaved road operations on private agricultural land and canal 
roads; the remainder of predicted emission reductions come from control 
measures to reduce PM10 emissions from on-field agriculture 
and animal feeding operations. As noted, the regulatory vehicle for 
these emissions reductions is the AgBMP rule provisions the State 
relied on to provide for attainment of the PM10 standard and 
to implement RACM/RACT in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapters 6 and 7.

    Table 3--Windblown Dust/Fugitive Emissions, 2018 Base and Attainment Emissions Inventories With Estimated
                                               Emission Reductions
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                         Base 2018     Attainment 2018   Emission reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed Urban Lands...................................           248.1             248.1  ....................
Developed Rural Lands (low density).....................         1,959.7           1,959.7  ....................
Unpaved Roads...........................................         4,653.0           3,803.1                 849.9
Cleared Areas...........................................           457.0             457.0  ....................
Residential Construction................................           837.5             837.5  ....................
Dairies.................................................           449.6             449.6  ....................
CAFOs...................................................           155.2             125.3                  29.9
Desert Shrubland........................................  ..............  ................  ....................
Agriculture.............................................        19,510.1           7,122.0              12,388.1
Commercial Construction.................................           441.4             441.4  ....................
Other...................................................         4,243.9           4,243.9  ....................
Site Development........................................           552.2             552.2  ....................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        33,507.7          20,239.8              13,267.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-3; Appendix B, Tables 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34.


    Table 4--Activity Based Emissions, 2018 Base and Attainment Emissions Inventories With Estimated Emission
                                                   Reductions
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                         Base 2018     Attainment 2018   Emission reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag--Harvesting..........................................           312.9             207.1                 105.8
Ag--Tilling.............................................         2,540.3           1,658.0                 882.3
CAFOs...................................................         1,620.6           1,369.2                 251.4
Paved Road *............................................         1,408.0           1,408.0  ....................
Unpaved Road *..........................................        45,105.3          37,186.4               7,918.9
Fuel Combustion.........................................            34.9              34.9  ....................
Fires...................................................            22.2              22.2  ....................
Open Burning............................................            16.8              16.8  ....................
Nonroad.................................................           144.4             144.4  ....................
Railroad................................................            45.4              45.4  ....................
Construction............................................         8,499.8           8,499.8  ....................
Dairy...................................................           184.0             184.0  ....................
Permitted Sources.......................................           781.3             781.3  ....................
Unpaved Parking.........................................           251.5             251.5  ....................
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        60,967.4          51,809.0               9,158.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-3; Appendix B, Tables 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34
* Paved and Unpaved Road emissions estimates include direct vehicle emissions and fugitive dust emissions from
  vehicle re-entrainment.


[[Page 1357]]

    The State adopted and pre-implemented control measures to meet the 
contingency measures requirement within the Plan: The portion of the 
AgBMP Rules for Pinal County applicable to dairy operations (R18-2-611 
and -611.03), along with the Pinal County Fugitive Dust Rule and the 
Pinal County Construction Dust Rule.\54\ We address the contingency 
measures requirement of the Act more completely in Section III.F, where 
we point out that pre-implemented contingency measures are not 
approvable under CAA section 172(c)(9). Here, we mention the control 
measures, adopted and subsequently implemented as contingency measures, 
to emphasize two points: (1) Given the shortfall in attaining the 
PM10 NAAQS, these control measures designated for 
contingency should have been evaluated and designated RACM/RACT, as we 
discussed in Section III.C; and (2) despite implementing the RACM/RACT 
control measures for attainment and the designated contingency 
measures, the West Pinal County area still failed to attain the 
PM10 NAAQS, by a large margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapter 6; Chapter 
7, Table 7-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As previously discussed, the EPA issued a finding that the West 
Pinal County area failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the 
outermost statutory attainment date of December 31, 2018.\55\ In 
addition to our previous regulatory review of the air monitoring data 
from 2016-2018, detailed in our June 24, 2020 notice, we reviewed 
ambient air monitoring data collected from 2006-2018 to examine 
PM10 values over time and recent trends over the 2016-2018 
control strategy period of Plan implementation. Our detailed review of 
PM10 data is included in our TSD provided in the docket for 
this proposal. We provide two general conclusions from our data review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 85 FR 37756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, when considering the number of exceedances of the 
PM10 standard, the data show that the West Pinal County 
monitoring sites have consistently measured many exceedances in every 
year between the start of the base year period, 2006-2008, and in 2018, 
the attainment year. While the number of exceedances each year has 
generally and gradually decreased over time, there is no clear evidence 
of a sustained decrease in recent years as ADEQ implemented control 
measures. For example, over the 2016 through 2018 period that would 
have been relevant to attainment by December 31, 2018, the annual 
number of exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS ranged from 
29 to 38.\56\ The form of the NAAQS allows for no more than one 
exceedance per year, averaged over a three year period. Furthermore, 
all eight monitors in the West Pinal County nonattainment area showed 
violations of the PM10 NAAQS as determined by their 2018 
design values.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Table 2 in the TSD.
    \57\ See Table 1 in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, design value trends show that the number of expected 
exceedances remain well above the PM10 NAAQS of one 
exceedance per year. The high concentrations and number of exceedances 
clearly show that PM10 concentrations well above the level 
of the NAAQS (150 [mu]g/m\3\) continue to be a major air quality 
problem in the West Pinal County nonattainment area despite the 
implementation of control measures meant to reduce PM10 
levels. For example, the design concentration for 2016-2018, the period 
in which values should be at or under 150 [mu]g/m\3\ to show attainment 
by 2018, is 403 [mu]g/m\3\, or 269 percent of the standard.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Table 3 and further discussion in Section II.B of the 
TSD.

                        Table 5--Three-Year PM10 Monitoring Data Statistics for the Cowtown and Hidden Valley Monitoring Sites a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         3-Year period           2006-2008  2007-2009  2008-2010  2009-2011  2010-2012  2011-2013  2012-2014  2013-2015  2014-2016  2015-2017  2016-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Concentration ([mu]g/           916        653        539       1064       1064       1064        521        510    \b\ 357    \b\ 303        403
 m\3\).........................
3-year Design Value............      201.2      139.8       86.1       60.7         63       75.7         64       50.5   \b\ 38.3   \b\ 29.8       32.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: EPA AQS Quick Look Report, December 10, 2020, and EPA AQS Design Value Report, December 10, 2020. The design concentration for these sites is
  the 4th highest 24-hour concentration measured over each three-year period, as detailed in Section 6.3.1 of the PM10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA-
  450/2-86-001 (June 1987).
\a\ Data collected prior to 2016 were collected from the Cowtown monitoring site; data since 2016 were collected at the Hidden Valley monitoring site,
  as described in our TSD, page 6, within the docket for this rulemaking.
\b\ The EPA's relocation approval letter stated that the data from Cowtown and Hidden Valley would be combined to form one continuous data record for
  design value calculations. Consequently, the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values are each a composite data record consisting of 2014 and/or 2015
  data from the Cowtown monitoring site, and 2016 and/or 2017 data from the Hidden Valley monitoring site, as applicable.

    The West Pinal County 2015 PM10 design value was 50.5 
exceedances. For the area to meet the PM10 standard by 2018, 
it could not have more than three exceedances of the PM10 
NAAQS across the three years, 2016-2018, to show a design value of 1.0 
exceedances, averaged over three years. Instead, the Plan's control 
strategy resulted in the following number of primary exceedances: 30 in 
2016; 38 in 2017; and 29 in 2018.\59\ Not only did the Plan's control 
strategy fail to produce the effect intended in 2016, the designated 
control strategy rules and pre-implemented contingency measures failed 
to reduce PM10 exceedances to a level needed to attain the 
PM10 standard by December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ TSD, Table 2; EPA AQS Quick Look Report, December 10, 2020, 
in the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the ambient monitoring data unequivocally indicate that the 
Plan was insufficient to achieve attainment by the 2018 attainment 
date, we do not provide an exhaustive evaluation of the attainment 
demonstration analyses in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan. 
Instead, we focused our review on two major deficiencies that preclude 
our approval of this Plan element. Our review of these two deficiencies 
is illustrative of the insufficiently conservative analyses or 
assumptions underlying the Plan's failed attainment demonstration. 
Specifically, we evaluated the ``design days'' ADEQ selected to conduct 
the modeling exercises and the specific design day micro-emissions 
inventories and rule control effectiveness assumptions ADEQ made to 
model the Plan's control strategy within the 2018 attainment modeling 
analyses. Next, we provide a short summary of our review. We also 
provide a more detailed review in our TSD.
    First, we find the design days that ADEQ selected for modeling the 
Cowtown monitor under stagnation

[[Page 1358]]

conditions, and several monitors under high wind conditions, were 
chosen with inconsistent criteria and/or have data inaccuracies. In 
turn, these inconsistencies and inaccuracies led to design day 
concentration values that were likely too low to address adequately the 
range of exceedances experienced in the nonattainment area. For 
example, in selecting the stagnation scenario design day for Cowtown, 
ADEQ limited selection to fall 2008 (September to November) exceedance 
days despite the higher PM10 concentrations and a comparable 
number of exceedance days in the spring season (March to May). 
Ultimately, the selected 2008 design day was the 68th highest out of 
the 137 total low wind/stagnation exceedance days identified by the 
State (i.e., approximately 49% of the low wind/stagnation exceedance 
days had higher concentrations than the design day selected).\60\ This 
middle range day was insufficiently conservative and was inadequate to 
represent the attainment issues during stagnation conditions and to 
address the range and severity of exceedances experienced at CWT.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ ``Low wind/stagnation exceedance days'' for purposes of 
this document are the exceedance days that remain once days 
identified by ADEQ as high wind day exceedances in IPP, Appendix C, 
Table C-1 are removed. See ``Cowtown 2008 Exceedances.xlxs'' in the 
docket for this action.
    \61\ See Section III.B.1. of the TSD for our complete review of 
design day selection for stagnation scenario at the Cowtown monitor. 
Also, see Section III.B.2 of the TSD for our complete review of 
design day selection for the high wind scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we conclude that several data inputs and assumptions 
associated with modeling the control strategy were unsupported, 
overstated, or insufficiently conservative leading to an overestimate 
of the overall efficacy of the control strategy within the attainment 
demonstration. Specifically, in calculating the control effectiveness 
of the rules in the control strategy, two component assumptions or 
estimates were the primary cause of this overestimate: (1) Rule 
effectiveness, i.e., the percentage of compliant facilities; and, (2) 
aggregate or net best management practices (BMP) control efficiencies. 
For example, we found that despite limited or no compliance data, the 
lack of compliance assistance program efficacy figures, the lack of 
automatic reporting requirements, and little to no farm experience 
implementing BMPs, ADEQ assumed high compliance rates with the AgBMP 
rule; in turn, this unjustifiably inflated the overall control 
effectiveness calculations. In addition, we found that the domain 
modeling micro-emissions inventory estimates that ADEQ derived from 
this limited BMP implementation data were not appropriately documented 
or supported and were insufficiently conservative due to overly 
optimistic or simplifying assumptions used to aggregate BMP control 
efficiency estimates, such as assuming that farms will either choose 
not to operate or will routinely implement higher cost and higher 
control efficiency BMPs on high risk days. Consequently, ADEQ assumed 
farms reduced emissions from cropland operations and unpaved roads to a 
greater extent than what could be supported by the documentation in the 
Plan.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Section III.C. of the TSD for our complete review of 
control effectiveness estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our evaluation of the design days and modeling and control 
effectiveness assumptions in the Plan, we find that these several 
deficiencies in the analyses preclude approval of the attainment 
demonstration. In addition, after reviewing past and recent 
PM10 data against the West Pinal County PM10 
Plan's attainment demonstration predictions, we conclude that:
     There is no clear evidence of a sustained decrease in the 
number of exceedances in recent years as control measures have been 
implemented (2015-2018);
     PM10 concentrations well above the level of the 
24-hour PM10 NAAQS (150 [mu]g/m\3\) continue to be a major 
air quality problem in the West Pinal County nonattainment area despite 
the implementation of control measures designed to reduce 
PM10 levels thus far; and
     The Plan's control strategy, whether considered as adopted 
RACM/RACT or as the entire suite of rules submitted with the Plan, was 
inadequate to attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2018, as 
evidenced by the ambient PM10 data.
    Consequently, we propose to disapprove the modeled attainment 
demonstration in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because it 
does not meet the requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) and section 
188(c)(1).

E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    The requirement for RFP in PM10 nonattainment areas is 
specified in CAA section 172(c)(2) and is described in the General 
Preamble.\63\ Under CAA section 171(1), RFP is defined as meaning such 
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutant as are required under part D (``Plan Requirements for 
Nonattainment Areas'') of the CAA or as may reasonably be required by 
the EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS 
by the applicable date. In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1) requires 
quantitative milestones that demonstrate RFP and must be achieved every 
3 years until the nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment, 
beginning 4.5 years after a Moderate area's designation to 
nonattainment of the PM10 NAAQS.\64\ Therefore, Moderate 
area plans should contain quantitative milestones for 4.5 and 7.5 years 
after designation. These quantitative milestones should be constructed 
so that they can be tracked, quantified and/or measured adequately, and 
provide for an objective evaluation of RFP toward attainment of the 
NAAQS, particularly as part of milestone reporting.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 57 FR at 13539.
    \64\ Ibid.
    \65\ 81 FR 58063-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The West Pinal County PM10 Plan discusses how the Plan 
provides for RFP in Section 7.2 and Appendix D and provides visual 
representation in Figure 7-1 and Figure D 5-1.\66\ For the purposes of 
calculating annual increments of emission reductions for RFP, ADEQ 
assumed a linear ``glidepath'' with equal annual emissions reductions 
over the 2016-2018 implementation timeframe. This annual increment 
representing RFP is 7,475 tons per year.\67\ The implementation of the 
Plan's control strategy is projected to produce almost all the needed 
emissions reductions in the first year, 2016, with slight and 
incremental emission reductions to follow in 2017 and 2018. Because 
ADEQ projected that most of the emissions reductions would come in the 
first year, the projected emissions were below the ``glidepath'' and 
ADEQ concluded that RFP was demonstrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, 99 and Figure 7-1, 
101; Appendix D, 45.
    \67\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, 100. Expected 
emission reductions from 2015 to 2018, 22,426 tons per year, are 
divided into 3 annual increments of 7,475 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    Based in part on our review of the 2016-2018 ambient data and in 
part on the flaws identified in the West Pinal County PM10 
Plan attainment demonstration, we find that ADEQ did not adequately 
provide for annual increments of emissions reductions needed to attain 
the PM10 NAAQS by 2018. Because the West Pinal County

[[Page 1359]]

PM10 plan failed to achieve attainment by the attainment 
date, the RFP demonstration based on the rate by which these reductions 
were to occur is also necessarily deficient. This was borne out by the 
monitoring data; no real rate of reduction of exceedances can be 
demonstrated over the period of implementation of the Plan's control 
measures, 2016-2018. Indeed, even with the early implementation of 
additional controls designated by the State as contingency measures to 
provide emissions reductions in the event of a failure to show RFP or 
to attain, West Pinal County still exceeded the PM10 
standard by a large margin as evidenced by the data in Table 5.
    Regarding quantitative milestones, given the EPA's 2012 designation 
of nonattainment for West Pinal County, the State should have included 
quantitative milestones for mid-2016 and mid-2019 within the West Pinal 
County PM10 Plan. Aside from the two glidepath depictions in 
Figure 7-1, the Plan provides no further discussion of quantitative 
milestones. What is presented in Figure 7-1 does not meet the criteria 
that the Plan's quantitative milestones should be trackable, 
quantified, and provide for an objective evaluation of RFP toward 
attainment of the NAAQS, by mid-2016. The West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan does not address RFP or quantitative milestones in 
mid-2019.
    For these reasons, we have determined that the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan fails to demonstrate RFP, consistent with 
applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Therefore, we propose to 
disapprove the RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones for the 
West Pinal County area for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS under 
sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1).

F. Contingency Measures

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Under the CAA, states must include contingency measures consistent 
with section 172(c)(9) in their nonattainment plan SIP submissions. 
Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be 
implemented in the event the area fails to meet RFP or to attain the 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The SIP should contain trigger 
mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for 
implementation, and indicate that the measure will be implemented 
without significant further action by the state or the EPA.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 81 FR 58066 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a 
specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of 
contingency measures must achieve, but the General Preamble reiterates 
the EPA's guidance recommendation that contingency measures should 
generally provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to 
one year's worth of RFP in the area.\69\ Where a failure to attain or 
to meet RFP can be corrected in less than one year, the EPA may accept 
a proportionally lesser amount sufficient to correct the identified 
failure.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 57 FR 13498, 13543-13544.
    \70\ Id. at 13511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of CAA section 
172(c)(9) that states may meet the contingency measure requirement by 
relying on Federal measures (e.g., Federal mobile source measures based 
on the incremental turnover of the motor vehicle fleet each year) and 
state or local measures already scheduled for implementation that 
provide emissions reductions in excess of those needed to meet any 
other nonattainment plan requirements, such as RACM/RACT, RFP, or 
expeditious attainment. The key is that the Act requires that 
contingency measures provide for additional emissions reductions that 
are not relied on for RFP or attainment and that are not included in 
the RFP or attainment demonstrations as meeting part of or all the 
contingency measure requirements. The purpose of contingency measures 
is to provide continued emissions reductions while a plan is being 
revised to meet the missed milestone or attainment date.
    In Bahr v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the 
EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early 
implementation of contingency measures.\71\ The Ninth Circuit concluded 
that contingency measures must take effect at the time the area fails 
to make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not 
before.\72\ Consequently, within the geographic jurisdiction of the 
Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on early-implemented measures to 
comply with the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 
172(c)(9).\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \72\ Id. at 1235-1237.
    \73\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA 
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment 
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section 
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language 
in section 172(c)(9) and the ozone-specific contingency measure 
provision in section 182(c)(9), we find that the decision affects 
how both sections of the Act must be interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    ADEQ developed the West Pinal County PM10 Plan prior to 
the Bahr v. EPA decision, and the plan relies solely upon surplus 
emissions reductions from already implemented control measures during 
the 2016-2018 period to demonstrate compliance with the contingency 
measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). The West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan included the following early implemented state and 
local regulations to meet the contingency measures requirement for the 
PM10 standard: The portion of the AgBMP Rules for Pinal 
County applicable to dairy operations (R18-2-611 and -611.03), and the 
Pinal County Fugitive Dust Rule and Construction Dust Rule.\74\ 
Contingency Measures are also discussed in Appendix D.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Chapter 6; Chapter 
7, Table 7-4.
    \75\ Appendix D, 45, Table D5-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    Arizona is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals; therefore, after the Bahr v. EPA decision, the State 
cannot rely on already-implemented control measures to comply with the 
contingency measure requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9). To comply 
with CAA section 172(c)(9), as interpreted in the Bahr v. EPA decision, 
a state must develop, adopt and submit contingency measures to be 
triggered upon a failure to meet RFP milestones or failure to attain 
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date regardless of the extent to 
which already-implemented measures would achieve surplus emissions 
reductions beyond those necessary to meet RFP milestones and beyond 
those predicted to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. Arizona's adopted 
and pre-implemented contingency measures do not comply with these 
requirements for failure to make RFP and failure to meet attainment 
contingency measures. Section 172(c)(9) requires contingency measures 
to address potential failures to achieve RFP milestones or failure to 
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For these reasons, 
we propose to disapprove the contingency measures element of the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan as failing to meet the contingency 
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9).

[[Page 1360]]

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the state's SIP to 
eliminate or reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS 
and achieve timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the goals 
of the SIP means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to 
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing 
violation, or (3) 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 (MPOs) 
in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local 
air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the 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 (MVEBs or ``budgets'') 
contained in all control strategy attainment plans designed to attain 
the NAAQSs. Budgets are generally established for specific years and 
specific pollutants or precursors. Attainment plans for PM10 
nonattainment areas should identify budgets for mobile source emissions 
of PM10, i.e., vehicle and fugitive dust emissions, in the 
area for each RFP milestone year, as appropriate, and the attainment 
year, if the plan demonstrates attainment.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the 
EPA's adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). To meet these 
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and 
RFP requirements and reflect all the motor vehicle control measures 
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\77\ Budgets may 
include a safety margin representing the difference between projected 
emissions and the total amount of emissions estimated to satisfy any 
requirements for attainment or RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 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: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The West Pinal County PM10 Plan includes a budget for 
the 2018 attainment year. As discussed in Section III.E, we are 
proposing to disapprove the RFP and quantitative milestones elements of 
the Plan. No interim RFP budget was submitted for 2016. The State's 
submitted 2018 conformity budget for PM10 for the West Pinal 
County Area is provided in Table 6.

 Table 6--2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for the West Pinal County
                         PM10 Nonattainment Area
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Source                              Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct On-Road Mobile Sources (exhaust, tire and brake wear)       173.7
Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust..................................    26,433.5
Paved Road Fugitive Dust....................................     1,211.1
Road Construction/Maintenance...............................       168.8
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................    27,987.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-4.

    The methodologies ADEQ used to develop the motor vehicle emissions 
budget are provided in Appendix B of the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan.\79\ As discussed in section III.A. of this 
proposal, ADEQ used MOVES2014 in the development of this budget; this 
emissions factor model was the latest EPA approved version at the time 
the West Pinal County PM10 Plan was developed. Paved road 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates for estimating direct and 
fugitive PM10 emissions were provided by MAG using an 
interpolation methodology where 2018 VMT was estimated from 2015 and 
2025 regional transportation modeling runs.\80\ ADEQ used the most 
recently approved EPA provided AP-42 emissions factor equations to 
develop paved and unpaved road fugitive dust emissions estimates.\81\ 
In addition to the line item source categories in the 2018 budget 
presented in Table 6, ADEQ specified that the budget includes an 81 ton 
per year safety margin.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Appendix B, 120-137, and 166-180.
    \80\ Appendix B, 120.
    \81\ 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 unpaved 
road fugitive dust emissions can be found in Appendix B, Table 5-11. 
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).
    \82\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has neither found this 2018 budget to be adequate, nor have 
we acted on it in the past.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As part of our review of the approvability of the motor vehicle 
emissions budget in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan, we have 
evaluated the budget using the adequacy criteria specified in the 
transportation conformity rule.\83\ Reviewing the budget against the 
criteria in the transportation conformity rule informs the EPA's 
decision to propose our action on the budget. We have determined that 
the 2018 budget submitted by Arizona for the West Pinal County area has 
not met several of these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First and foremost, Sec.  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 West Pinal County area budget is not 
consistent with the requirements for attainment and RFP, as discussed 
in Sections III.D and E of this proposal and our proposed disapproval 
of these two Plan elements. Secondly, the West Pinal County budget is 
presented in a tons per year format for an attainment plan intended to 
meet the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The budget must be consistent 
with the 24-hour timeframe of the attainment demonstration and 
PM10 standard, and therefore should be presented in a tons 
per day format. Finally, Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(iii) requires that the 
budget be clearly identified and precisely quantified. Although ADEQ 
describes an ``allowance or safety margin'' in the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan, the submitted budget does not clearly and 
explicitly identify this safety margin in its presentations of the 
budget.\84\ Also, a safety margin, as

[[Page 1361]]

defined in the Transportation Conformity rule, Sec.  93.101, must be 
clearly presented and demonstrated to be outside and above the 
emissions level demonstrating attainment, but below the threshold of 
the applicable NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ West Pinal County PM10 Plan, Table 5-4; Appendix 
D, Table D4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budget in the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan and find that it does not meet 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy 
criteria in 40 CFR 93.1118(e)(4) and (5). The primary deficiency is 
that the submitted 2018 budget is not consistent with, or derived from, 
a demonstration of attainment and RFP meeting the requirements of the 
Act. As discussed earlier in sections III.D and III.E, we are proposing 
herein to disapprove the Plan's attainment and RFP demonstrations. 
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove the 2018 budget in the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan. In addition, because we are 
disapproving the attainment and RFP demonstrations, the 2018 budget is 
not eligible for a protective finding.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If our proposed disapproval of the 2018 budget is finalized, upon 
the effective date of our final rule, the area would be subject to a 
conformity freeze under Sec.  93.120 of the Transportation Conformity 
rule. No transportation project outside of the first four years of the 
currently conforming transportation plan and transportation improvement 
plan (TIP) or that meets the requirements of Sec.  93.104(f) during the 
resulting conformity freeze may be found to conform until Arizona 
submits a new PM10 control strategy/attainment plan, the EPA 
finds the submitted budget adequate per Sec.  93.118 or approves the 
new control strategy/attainment plan and conformity to the new control/
strategy implementation plan is determined.\86\ Furthermore, if, as a 
result of our final disapproval action, the EPA imposes highway 
sanctions under section 179(b)(1) of the Act two years from the 
effective date of our final rule, then the conformity status of the 
transportation plan and TIP will lapse on that date and no new 
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until 
Arizona submits a new PM10 attainment plan, and conformity 
to this attainment plan is determined.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
    \87\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section 
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove the following 
portions of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan, submitted by 
the State on December 21, 2015. Our proposed approval and disapproval 
actions are as follows:
     We propose to approve the 2008 base year emissions 
inventory element for direct PM10 in the West Pinal County 
PM10 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 
172(c)(3) for the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS;
     We propose to disapprove the precursor demonstration in 
the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because the demonstration is 
inadequate to show that emissions reductions from all PM10 
precursors do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels 
exceeding the NAAQS, as required by CAA Section 189(e) for the 1987 
p.m.10 NAAQS;
     We propose to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration 
element in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because it does 
not meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 
189(a)(1)(C) for the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS; furthermore, the 
deficiencies in the State's precursor analysis mean that the State 
failed to establish in its RACM/RACT analysis that it was unnecessary 
to regulate PM10 precursor emissions;
     We propose to disapprove the modeled attainment 
demonstration element for the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS in the West 
Pinal County PM10 Plan because it does not meet the 
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) and section 188(c)(1) to 
demonstrate attainment of the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS;
     We propose to disapprove the RFP demonstration element in 
the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because it does not meet the 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) for the 1987 p.m.10 
NAAQS;
     We propose to disapprove the quantitative milestones 
element in the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because it does 
not meet the requirements of CAA section 189(c)(1) for the 1987 
p.m.10 NAAQS;
     We propose to disapprove the contingency measures element 
of the West Pinal County PM10 Plan because it does not meet 
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 1987 
p.m.10 NAAQS; and,
     We propose to disapprove the motor vehicle emissions 
budget in West Pinal County PM10 Plan for the attainment 
year of 2018 (see Table 6) because it is not consistent with or derived 
from, approvable RFP or and attainment demonstrations for the 1987 
PM10 NAAQS meeting the requirements of the Act.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this proposed rule. We will accept comments from the public on this 
proposal for the next 30 days and will consider those comments before 
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because SIP approvals, including partial approvals, are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those 
imposed by state law.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the states, or on the

[[Page 1362]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 23, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-29092 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


