Technical Support Document 

Evaluation of Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour Ozone, the 1997 

PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

U.S. EPA, Region 9 

June 15, 2012 
(This page intentionally left blank.) 
1 

Summary 

This technical support document (TSD) summarizes EPA’s technical review of revisions to the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). On September 18, 2008, ADEQ submitted the 

“Analysis of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Control Program Elements for Arizona 

– PM2.5,” to address several elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (“2008 Infrastructure Analysis”). On October 14, 2009, 

ADEQ submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2) and (2); 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS,” to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements except for section 

110(a)(2)(G)1for these three NAAQS (“2009 Infrastructure Analysis”). On June 1, 2012, ADEQ 

submitted the “Proposed Supplement to the Arizona State Implementation Plan under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of [1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS], Parallel Processing Version” (“2012 Supplement”). These revisions 

address the infrastructure SIP requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), as well as the 

2006 revised PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on our evaluation, we recommend partial approval and 

partial disapproval of these SIP revisions. 

Background 

CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements to implement, 

maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. Many of the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information 

and authorities that constitute the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program 

and SIP submittals that address these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs” (ISIP). 

On July 18, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a revised NAAQS 

for ozone2and a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).3 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2006.4 Each of these actions triggered a requirement 

for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or revised NAAQS. 

 

1

In a separate rulemaking, EPA proposed to fully approve Arizona’s SIP to address the requirements regarding air 

pollution emergency episodes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 21911 

(April 12, 2012). 

2

The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was 

changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

3

The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was set at 65 

μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area (62 FR 38652). 

4

The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/m3to 35 μg/m3 was published in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 
2 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Earthjustice that obligated EPA to 

make official findings in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to whether states had 

made required complete SIP submissions, pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by December 

15, 2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA made such findings for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 

FR 16205) and for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902). In each case, 

EPA found that Arizona had failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the relevant pollutant. On September 8, 2011, EPA found that Arizona had 

failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 55577). 

On November 30, 2011, EPA entered into a settlement agreement that obligates EPA to propose 

action on an infrastructure SIP for Arizona by June 15, 2012 for 1997 8-hour Ozone, with a final 

action to follow on October 15, 2012.5 There is no proposal deadline for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS, but there is a final action deadline for these NAAQS of September 30, 2012. This 

infrastructure SIP must meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone, and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

 

We have evaluated the 2008 Infrastructure Analysis, 2009 Infrastructure Analysis, and 2012 

Supplement in relation to the infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) of CAA section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (collectively “the 

relevant NAAQS”).6For each element we describe the requirements, summarize the State’s 

submittal, and present our evaluation of the submittal.

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other control measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, 

and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.” 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

 

The 2009 I-SIP submittal states that “the demonstration of compliance with CAA 

110(a)(2)(A) includes the necessary authority for the State and local air quality 

management programs to adopt and implement control measures and plans to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone air quality standards for all 

areas of Arizona.” 

In support of this element, the state of Arizona submitted ARS §§ 49-106, “Statewide application 

of rules”; 49-107 “Local delegation of state authority”; 49-402 “State and county control”; 49-

404 “State implementation plan”; 49-406 “Nonattainment area plan”; 49-421 “Definitions”; 49-

 

5 A copy of the Settlement Agreement is in the docket for this rulemaking. 

6

Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions 

because they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. Therefore, this TSD does not address these 

requirements. 
3 

424 “Duties of department”; 49-425 “Rules; hearing”; 49-471 “Definitions”; 49-473 “Board of 

Supervisors”; 49-479 “Rules; hearing”. 

All of the ARSs listed above are in the SIP, except for 49-106 and 49-107, both of which EPA is 

proposing to approve into the SIP as part of today’s action. 

EPA evaluation 

ADEQ and Statewide

ADEQ’s I-SIP revision for ozone and PM 2.5 lists relevant ARSs that provide a range of 

authorities for the adoption and implementation of State and local programs necessary to address 

section 110(a)(2)(A). The authorities include: statewide application of rules; delegation of 

authorities to county and regional planning authorities; jurisdiction over source categories; 

maintaining a state implementation plan; adoption of rules, emission standards, and performance 

standards; adoption of permits containing enforceable emission limitations, standards, and 

compliance schedules. These ARSs demonstrate the State’s overall program authorities to adopt 

emission limits and standards for regulated pollutants. 

Most of the ARSs listed below are currently not in the SIP or have been superseded by ARS 

revisions at the local level. Where applicable, the superseded version that remains in the SIP is 

provided in parentheses. On June 1, 2012 ADEQ submitted a supplement to its prior I-SIP 

submittal and requested parallel processing of the ARSs currently not in the SIP. As part of its 

action on the AZ I-SIP, EPA is also proposing to approve the following ARSs not already in the 

SIP.7

ARSs in the SIP: 

49-402. State and county control 

49-404. State implementation plan 

49-406. Nonattainment area plan 

49–541. Definitions (1)(a), (b), and (c)8

ARSs not in the SIP (prior SIP version in parentheses): 

49-421. Definitions (36-1701 in the SIP) 

49-424. Duties of department (36-1705 in the SIP) 

49-425. Rules; hearing (36-1707 in the SIP) 

49-473. Board of supervisors (36-0773 in the SIP) 

49-479. Rules; hearing (36-0779 in the SIP) 

ARSs currently not in the SIP: 

49-106. Statewide application of rules 

49-107. Local delegation of state authority 

 

7 We are not evaluating part D nonattainment area plan provisions as part of the CAA section 110(a) infrastructure 

SIP. 

8 Although not mentioned in the AZ i-SIP submittals, EPA identified this ARS as in the SIP and supportive of 

110(a)(2)(A). 
4 

49-471. Definitions 

Beyond the ARSs that ADEQ specifically cites in their ozone infrastructure SIP, there are 

additional ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County provisions in the SIP that 

support 110(a)(2)(A) by establishing emission limits, control measures, means, or techniques for 

ozone and PM 2.5 precursors. These provisions confirm that Arizona has enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures in the SIP for numerous stationary and fugitive emission 

sources. Arizona also has provisions for emissions from motor vehicles including engine 

standards, fuel standards, and inspection and maintenance that limit the emission of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from mobile sources. 

Arizona rules in the SIP supporting 110(a)(2)(A): 

Title 18. Environmental Quality

Chapter 2. Department of Environmental Quality Air Pollution Control

Article 6. Emissions from Existing and New Nonpoint Sources

The following Title 18 rules apply statewide except where a county has adopted a rule at 

least as stringent as the relevant state rule:

R18-2-602 Unlawful Open Burning 

R9-3-404 Open Areas, Dry Washes or Riverbeds (renumbered as R18-2-604) 

R9-3-405 Roadways and Streets (renumbered as R18-2-605) 

R9-3-406 Material Handling (renumbered as R18-2-606) 

R9-3-407 Storage Piles (renumbered as R18-2-607) 

R9-3-408 Mineral Tailings (renumbered as R18-2-608) 

The following Title 18 rules only apply in Maricopa County:

R18-2-610 Definitions for R18-2-611 

R18-2-611 Agricultural PM10 General Permit; Maricopa PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Article 7. Existing Stationary Source Performance Standards

R18-2-702. General Provisions 

R18-2-710. Standards of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 

R18-2-715.01. Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Compliance 

and Monitoring 

R18-2-715.02. Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Fugitive 

Emissions 

R18-2-725. Standards of Performance for Existing Dry Cleaning Plants 

R18-2-727. Standards of Performance for Spray Painting Operations 

Article 8. Emissions from Mobile Sources (New and Existing)

The following Article 8 rules apply statewide except where a county has adopted a rule at 

least as stringent as the relevant state rule:

R18-2-801 Classification of Mobile Sources 

R18-2-802 Off-road Machinery 

R18-2-803 Heater-planer Units 

R18-2-804 Roadway and Site Cleaning Machinery 
5 

R18-2-805 Asphalt or Tar Kettles

Article 10. Motor Vehicles; Inspections and Maintenance

The following Article 10 rule only applies in Maricopa and Pima counties:

R18-2-1001 thru R18-2-1031 

Article 15. Forest and Range Management Burns

The following Article 15 rules apply statewide: 

R18-2-1501 thru R18-2-1513 

Title 20. Commerce, Financial Institutions, and Insurance

Chapter 2. Department of Weights and Measures

Article 7. Motor Fuels and Petroleum Products

The following Title 20 rules only apply in Maricopa and Pima counties:

R20–2–701, R20–2–716, R20–2–750 through R20–2–762 

Table 1. Type 1. Arizona CBG Standards (March 31, 2001)

Table 2. Type 2. Arizona CBG Standards (March 31, 2001) 

Maricopa County rules in the SIP supporting 110(a)(2)(A):

310 Fugitive Dust From Dust-Generating Operations 

310.01 Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust 

311 Particulate Matter from Process Industries 

312 Abrasive Blasting 

314 Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional 

Establishments 

316 Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Processing 

318 Residential Woodburning Devices 

322 Power Plant Operations 

323 Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Sources 

324 Stationary Internal Combustion (IC) Engines 

325 Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing 

331 Solvent Cleaning 

333 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning 

334 Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing 

335 Architectural Coatings 

336 Surface Coating Operations 

337 Graphic Arts 

338 Semiconductor Manufacturing 

339 Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes 

340 Cutback & Emulsified Asphalt 

341 Metal Casting 

342 Coating Wood Furniture and Fixture 

343 Commercial Bread Bakeries 

344 Automobile Windshield Washer Fluid 
6 

346 Coating Wood Millwork 

347 Ferrous Sand Casting 

348 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations 

349 Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic and Vitamin Manufacturing Operations 

350 Storage of Organic Liquids at Bulk Plants and Terminals 

351 Loading of Organic Liquids 

352 Gasoline Delivery Vessels 

353 Transfer of Gasoline into Stationary Dispensing Tanks 

358 Polystyrene Foam Operations

Pinal County rules in the SIP supporting 110(a)(2)(A):

Chapter 3. Permits and Permit Revisions

 Article 8. Open Burning

3-8-700. General provisions 

3-8-710. Permit provisions and administration 

Chapter 4. Emissions from Existing and New Non-Point Sources

Article 4. Nonattainment Area Rules; Dustproofing for Commercial Parking, Drives and 

Yards 

4-4-100. General Provisions 

4-4-110. Definitions 

4-4-120. Objective Standards 

4-4-130. Work Practice Standards 

Article 5. Nonattainment Area Rules; Stabilization for Residential Parking and Drives 

4-5-150. Stabilization for Residential Parking and Drives; Applicability 

4-5-160. Residential Parking Control Requirement 

4-5-170. Deferred enforcement date 

Article 7. Construction Sites in Nonattainment Areas – Fugitive Dust 

4-7-210. Definitions 

4-7-214. General Provisions 

4-7-222. Owner and/or Operator Liability 

4-7-226. Objective Standards; Sites 

4-7-230. Obligatory Work Practice Standards; Sites 

4-7-234. Nonattainment-Area Dust Permit Program; General Provisions 

4-7-238. Nonattainment Area Site Permits 

4-7-242. Nonattainment Area Block Permits 

4-7-246. Recordkeeping and Records Retention 

Article 18. Storage of Organic Liquids 

5-18-740. Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds; Organic Compound Emissions 

Chapter 5. Stationary Source Performance Standards
7 

Article 22. 

5-22-960. Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitation 

Article 24. Miscellaneous and Unclassified Source Requirements

5-24-1045. Sulfite Pulp Mills - Sulfur Compound Emissions 

5-24-1055. Pumps and Compressors - Organic Compound Emissions 

Pima County rule in the SIP supporting 110(a)(2)(A): 

 Chapter 12: Permits and Permit Revisions

 17.12.480 - Open burning permits. 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

Based on our review of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP and the applicable Arizona SIP, and for the 

reasons given above, we propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient air quality monitoring/data system 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate 

devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to—(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data 

on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.” 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

“Arizona maintains an extensive monitoring network operated by State and 

county agencies designed to collect, compile, and analyze ambient air quality 

data in attainment and nonattainment areas of the State. Operating agencies track 

data recovery, quality control and quality assurance parameters for all 

instruments operated at various network sites. Criteria pollutant concentrations, 

such as PM and Ozone are measured with instruments meeting EPA certification 

as Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods. All data collected within the PM 

and ozone compliance networks are compared to the NAAQS, statistically 

analyzed for trends, and recorded quarterly in EPA’s Air Quality System.” 

EPA evaluation 

There are four agencies in Arizona relevant for review of infrastructure SIP requirements: ADEQ 

(the State agency), Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), Pinal County Air 

Quality Control District (PCAQCD), and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality 

(PDEQ). In 2011 and 2012, EPA approved the most recent annual ambient air monitoring 

network plans for each of the agencies, including the following: ADEQ State of Arizona Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 20119, Maricopa County AQD 2010 Air Monitoring 

 

9

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to Eric 

Massey, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, December 1, 2011. 
8 

Network Review10, Pinal County AQCD 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan and 2010 Data 

Summary11, and PDEQ 2010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan12. 

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(B) 

Arizona’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We 

propose to find that the state of Arizona and the relevant counties meet the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) for the relevant NAAQS. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified stationary sources. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP include a program to provide for the enforcement of 

the measures described in section 110(a)(2)(A), and regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure 

that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I of 

the Act. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA is evaluating the State’s general enforcement authorities 

to determine whether they provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for 

regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources, EPA is evaluating only the 

State’s minor NSR programs and certain “structural” elements of the State’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs under part C of title I of the Act to determine whether 

these programs are adequate for infrastructure SIP purposes. Specifically, EPA is evaluating the 

Arizona SIP to determine whether it contains the following required elements of a PSD program: 

(1) Provisions identifying NOx as an ozone precursor consistent with the requirements of 

EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 70 FR 71612 

(codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i)); 

(2) Provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions 

(sulfur dioxide (SO2) in all areas, and NOx and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent with 

the requirements of EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

73 FR 28321 (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i), (b)(49)(vi)); and 

(3) Provisions to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) consistent with EPA’s regulations to 

implement the PSD program for GHGs, including “Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010) 

 

10 Letter from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

William Wiley, Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, October 25, 2010. The MCAQD 2010 Air 

Monitoring Network Review was received in 2010 and represents the 2010 annual network plan for the agency. 

11 Letter from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

Donald Gabrielson, Director, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, November 1, 2011. 

12 Letter from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

Ursula Kramer, Director, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, November 1, 2011. The PDEQ 2010 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan was received in 2011 and represents the 2011 annual network plan for the 

agency. 
9 

and “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans,” 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010), as applicable. 

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that an infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS contain SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR), and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement these 

standards. As explained above, however, EPA is not evaluating part D nonattainment area 

requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action because these 

SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 172(b). Additionally, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to the NSR Reform requirements. 

EPA intends to act on SIP submittals that are made for purposes of adopting NSR Reform 

through a separate rulemaking process. 

Arizona’s response to this requirement: 

Arizona State and local agencies implement control and enforcement programs for permitted 

sources of air contaminants and for sources that are not regulated through permit programs (such 

as open uncontrolled burns, construction, and vacant land). Each agency that commits to 

implement an emission limitation or other control measure contained in the SIP is required to 

specify, in a resolution adopted by the governing body of the agency, its authority for 

implementing the measure and a program for enforcement of the limitation or measure. 2009 

Infrastructure SIP at 8. 

ADEQ and local agencies are authorized to implement preconstruction review and permitting 

programs under ARS title 49, chapter 3, articles 1, 2, and 3. ADEQ and county regulations 

implementing these permit program requirements are contained in AAC title 18, Chapter 2, 

Articles 2 and 4 or relevant county rules. 2009 Infrastructure SIP at 8. 

Authority to enforce permit programs and SIPs is contained in ARS 49-460 through 464 and 49-

510 through 514, under which the State or county may issue orders of abatement, and, through 

the Attorney General or County Attorney, seek injunctive relief for any violations of the air 

quality programs. 2009 Infrastructure SIP at 8-10. 

EPA’s evaluation: 

1. Program for enforcement of control measures 

Several Arizona statutes in title 49 establish ADEQ’s and the three counties’ authorities to 

provide for enforcement of air pollution control measures. For example, ARS 49-402 (“State 

and county control”) contains general provisions regarding the respective jurisdictions of ADEQ 

and the counties to issue and enforce permits, among other authorities. ARS 49-404(A) (“State 

implementation plan”) requires the director of ADEQ to maintain a SIP that “provides for 

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and 

protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area 

plan”) establishes a process for the designation of responsibilities among State, regional, and 
10 

local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance 

areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires each agency that commits to implement a SIP 

provision to describe its commitment in a resolution, which must specify, among other things, 

the agency’s legal authority for implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the 

enforcement of the limitation or measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 49-

404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353, 36358. ARS 49-479 

authorizes the board of supervisors for each county to adopt rules as it determines are necessary 

to control air pollution, which rules shall contain standards at “least equal to or more restrictive 

than those adopted by the director.” EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona 

SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

In addition, ARS 49-422(A) (“Powers and Duties”) authorizes ADEQ to require sources of air 

contaminants to “monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air 

contaminants or levels of air pollution that may reasonably be attributable to that source” for 

purposes of determining whether the source is in violation of a control requirement or permit 

condition, among other things. ARS 49-476.01 contains similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, 

and Pinal counties. EPA is proposing to approve these provisions into the Arizona SIP as part of 

today’s proposed action.13

Finally, ARS 49-460 through 49-463 broadly authorize ADEQ to request compliance-related 

information from sources, to issue orders of abatement upon reasonable cause to believe a source 

has violated or is violating an air pollution control requirement, to establish injunctive relief, to 

establish civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation, and to conduct criminal 

enforcement, as appropriate through the Attorney General. ARS 49-510 through 49-513 contain 

similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties. EPA is proposing to approve these 

provisions into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. We note that approval of any 

of these State and local enforcement authorities into the Arizona SIP would have no effect on 

EPA’s independent authorities under sections 113 and 114 of the Act. 

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program 

Both the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) and the Pima County Department 

of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)), pursuant to 

delegation agreements executed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. See 40 CFR 52.144; 59 FR 

 

13 We note that both ARS 49-422 and ARS 49-476.01 contain, in subsection C, certain restrictions on State/county 

authorities to require emissions-related data which are not permissible under the CAA. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.212(c) 

("the plan must not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant 

to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements. . . "). The restrictions in these 

provisions, however, apply only with respect to "those sources of air contaminants for which rules are not required 

to be adopted pursuant to subsection B" -- that is, sources for which rules are not required under ARS 49-424 or 49-

425, subsection A, to protect the public health and to control air pollution within the State. We interpret this limiting 

language to mean that the restrictions on ADEQ's and the counties’ authorities in subsection C of ARS 49-422 and 

ARS 49-476.01 apply only with respect to stationary sources that are not subject to any requirement in the 

applicable SIP (but that the State/counties choose to regulate for other purposes). For all sources subject to SIP 

requirements, ADEQ's and the counties’ authorities to require monitoring, sampling, or other quantification of 

emissions may not be limited by the criteria established in subsection C of ARS 49-422 and ARS 49-476.01. 
11 

1730 (January 12, 1994) and “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and 

MC,” executed November 22, 1993; and “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the 

Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between 

U.S. EPA and Pima County Air Quality Control District,” executed April 14, 1994. 

Accordingly, although the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in 

part C, title I of the Act in both Maricopa and Pima counties, these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in both areas. 

ADEQ implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except for 

PM-10 and GHGs. 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). For PM-10 and GHGs, ADEQ implements the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to delegation agreements executed in 1999 and 

2011, respectively. 40 CFR 52.37; “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the PM-10 

Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between 

EPA and Arizona DEQ,” executed March 12, 1999”; “U.S. EPA - Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality Agreement for Delegation of Authority to Issue and Modify Greenhouse 

Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,” executed March 

30, 2011. 

The Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) implements a SIP-approved PSD 

program for all regulated NSR pollutants except for GHGs. 61 FR 15717 (April 9, 1996), as 

amended by 65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000). For GHGs, Pinal County implements the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to a delegation agreement executed in 2011. 40 

CFR 52.37; “U.S. EPA — Pinal County Air Quality Control District Agreement for Delegation 

of Authority to Issue and Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,” executed August 10, 2011. 

i. Regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

As discussed above, the entire State of Arizona is subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for purposes of regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources of 

GHGs. Thus, although the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements for 

GHG emission sources, this deficiency is adequately addressed by the incorporation of the 

Federal PSD program regulations into the SIP for this purpose. 40 CFR 52.144 and 52.37. 

ii. Regulation of ozone precursors 

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD 

deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorporation of the Federal PSD program 

regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144. 

ADEQ implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except for 

PM-10 and GHGs. 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). This SIP PSD program does not identify NOx 

as an ozone precursor and is therefore deficient for infrastructure SIP purposes. We are 

proposing to disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP on this basis. We note, however, that on 
12 

April 10, 2012, ADEQ submitted draft PSD program regulations to EPA, which the State has 

indicated will, upon final adoption and approval into the SIP, update the PSD program. We 

intend to act on this PSD submittal expeditiously upon receipt of an official SIP revision 

containing ADEQ’s fully adopted PSD regulations. 

The PCAQCD implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except 

for GHGs. 61 FR 15717 (April 9, 1996), as amended by 65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000). 

This program also does not identify NOx as an ozone precursor and is therefore deficient for 

infrastructure SIP purposes. We are proposing to disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP on this 

basis. We note, however, that the PCAQCD has informed us it expects to submit revised PSD 

program regulations that will update the program in the near future. 

iii. Regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors 

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD 

deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorporation of the Federal PSD program 

regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144. 

ADEQ implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except for 

PM-10 and GHGs. 48 FR 19878 (May 3, 1983). This SIP PSD program does not identify 

PM2.5 or its precursors (NOx and SO2) as regulated NSR pollutants and is therefore deficient 

for infrastructure SIP purposes. We are proposing to disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP on 

this basis. We note, however, that on April 10, 2012, ADEQ submitted draft PSD program 

regulations to EPA, which the State has indicated will, upon final adoption and approval into the 

SIP, update the PSD program. We intend to act on this PSD submittal expeditiously upon receipt 

of an official SIP revision containing ADEQ’s fully adopted PSD regulations. 

The PCAQCD implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except 

for GHGs. 61 FR 15717 (April 9, 1996), as amended by 65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000). 

This program also does not identify PM2.5 or its precursors (NOx and SO2) as regulated NSR 

pollutants and is therefore deficient for infrastructure SIP purposes. We are proposing to 

disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP on this basis. We note, however, that the PCAQCD has 

informed us it expects to submit revised PSD program regulations that will update the program 

in the near future. 

3. Minor New Source Review 

Each of the four permitting agencies in Arizona has a SIP-approved minor NSR program under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. ADEQ’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in R9-3-

301 and R9-3-101. See 48 FR 19879 (May 3, 1983) and 53 FR 30220 (August 10, 1988). Pima 

County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in Pima County rules 171, 202, 231, and 

341. See 47 FR 16328 (April 16, 1982) and 53 FR 30220 (August 10, 1988). Maricopa 

County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in Maricopa County Regulation 2, rules 

20 and 220, and in Regulation 1, Rule 3. See 37 FR 15081 (July 27, 1972), 57 FR 354 (January 

6, 1992), and 47 FR 15579 (April 12, 1982). Finally, Pinal County’s SIP-approved minor NSR 
13 

rules are contained in Pinal County rules 3-1-040, 1-3-140, 3-1-060.2.d, and 3-1-070.A.1. See 

65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000) and 67 FR 68764 (November 13, 2002). The State and EPA 

have relied on these approved minor NSR program to assure that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Arizona’s 2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS 

are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the State’s existing minor NSR 

program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s regulations governing this program. 

A number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and 

it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS 

with respect to new and modified minor sources. We note that because all four of these minor 

NSR programs were approved into the Arizona SIP many years ago, they contain outdated 

provisions and appear to have been superseded by new or revised regulations in some respects. 

We strongly encourage all four permitting agencies to submit current permitting regulations to 

replace these outdated minor NSR SIP provisions as soon as possible. 

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(C) 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 Infrastructure SIP based 

on our conclusion that the State’s general enforcement authorities provide an adequate 

infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide. With respect to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for regulation of the modification and construction 

of stationary sources, including a PSD program under part C of title I, EPA is proposing to: (1) 

disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP for ADEQ and Pinal County because the SIP-approved 

PSD programs lack the “structural” PSD program elements identified above, and (2) disapprove 

the 2009 Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and Pima counties, which do not have SIP-approved 

PSD programs. We note that although the SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements in Maricopa and Pima counties, no further action is necessary for these purposes 

because the Federal PSD program addresses the deficiencies in these two areas. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D) – Interstate transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires that each SIP “contain adequate provisions— 

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect 

to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or (II) interfere with 
14 

measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under 

part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, and 

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution abatement).” 

Section 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new 

or modified sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(i). 

Section 115 of the Act similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution. 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

With respect to the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), EPA 

previously approved Arizona’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 

(July 31, 2007). 

For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2009 Infrastructure SIP includes Arizona’s 

evaluation of the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), but EPA is 

not proposing action today on this portion of the submittal. EPA intends to propose action on the 

2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to these first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) in a 

separate rulemaking, and to take final action on these SIP elements no later than September 30, 

2012. See Consent Decree entered October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 

3:11-cv-00190-WHA (N. Dist. CA). 

With respect to the third “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding interference with 

measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality), EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), above. 

Finally, with respect to the fourth “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is not proposing 

action at this time as these elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP are not subject to the consent 

decree and settlement agreement deadlines that apply to our action on other infrastructure-related 

elements. See Consent Decree entered October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case 

No. 3:11-cv-00190 and Settlement Agreement executed November 30, 2011 in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, Case No. 3:10-cv-04060. EPA intends to act on the 2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to 

this fourth “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in a separate rulemaking addressing the 

requirements of the Regional Haze program. 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the 
15 

requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

do not apply to our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to Arizona. We 

thus evaluate the 2009 Infrastructure SIP for purposes of compliance with only section 126(a). 

EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP for 

purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, 

nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources. Specifically, ADEQ’s SIP-approved 

PSD rules at section R9-3-301 require the permitting agency to send a copy of the required 

public notice to EPA and to “the officials and agencies having cognizance over the location 

where the proposed major source or major alteration would occur.” R9-3-301, section L. Pinal 

County’s SIP-approved PSD rules at 3-3-210 require the permitting agency to provide written 

notice to the permit applicant, to EPA, to the ADEQ Director, and to “other officials and 

agencies having cognizance over the location where the proposed construction would occur,” 

including “any state, Federal Land Manager, or Indian governing body whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the proposed source or modification.” Rule 3-3-210, parag. 2.e. 

These requirements for notice to nearby states are consistent with EPA’s requirements for PSD 

programs in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). 

Maricopa County and Pima County do not have SIP-approved PSD programs. Thus, the Arizona 

SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of the Act and with 

respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, nearby states 

of major proposed new or modified sources in these two areas. These deficiencies are, however, 

adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in both areas by the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further action is required. 

For these reasons, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding 

compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 relating to interstate pollution 

abatement. 

CAA section 115 authorizes the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP, in the case of a 

belief or allegation that any air pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air 

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign 

country. Because there are no such pending actions pursuant to CAA section 115, EPA has no 

reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. 

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(D) 

With respect to the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), we are not 

proposing any action today because EPA previously approved the Arizona SIP with respect to 

these requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA intends to propose 

action in a subsequent rulemaking with respect to these requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP for the reasons discussed above regarding PSD requirements under section 
16 

110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is not proposing any action today and will 

address this requirement in a subsequent rulemaking addressing the requirements of the Regional 

Haze program. Finally, with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA 

is proposing to approve the 2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to ADEQ and Pinal County, 

which both implement SIP-approved PSD programs that contain the required notice provisions, 

but to disapprove the SIP with respect to Maricopa County and Pima County, which are subject 

to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Adequate resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to “provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except 

where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or 

governments, or a regional agency designated by the State or general purpose local governments 

for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as 

appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State boards under 

section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State 

has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.” 

Section 128 requires SIPs to contain requirements that (1) any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, and (2) any potential conflicts 

of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar 

powers be adequately disclosed. 

Related EPA Regulations

Subpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies SIP requirements related to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements 

for all plans”), 51.231 (“Identification of legal authority”), and 51.232 (“Assignment of legal 

authority to local agencies”). 

Section 51.280 (“Resources”) of Subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) also 

relates to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies that, with respect to resources, a SIP must 

include a description of the resources available to the State and local agencies at the date of 

submission of the plan and of any additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the 

five-year period following its submission. The description must include projections of the extent 

to which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. 

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “Each State implementation plan must 

identify organizations, by official title, that will participate in developing, implementing, and 
17 

enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any 

related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations.” 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

“Funding to staff and administer Arizona air quality control programs consists of 

fees that are collected from regulated emissions sources, including fees collected 

to administer permitting programs and motor vehicle emissions inspection and 

fees collected at the time of vehicle registration and re-registration, as well as 

State and Federal grants. State, county, and regional agency funding levels and 

personnel resources are currently adequate to meet federal and State obligations 

to manage Arizona air resources to protect public health and welfare and 

administer the air quality programs necessary to attain and maintain the PM2.5 

and 8-hour ozone air quality standards. In addition to the previously submitted 

funding statutes ARS §§49-544 and 49-551, ADEQ is submitting for inclusion in 

the SIP ARS §49-455, Permit Administration Fund [except Section (B)(1)] to meet 

adequate resource requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (see Appendix C). 

Permit approval and enforcement orders are provided by the ADEQ Director and 

county control officers. Arizona law, applicable to "all public officers and 

employees of incorporated cities or towns, of political subdivisions and of the 

state and any of its departments, commissions, agencies, bodies or boards," 

contains provisions for adequate disclosure of any conflict of interest. To meet the 

conflict of interest requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), ADEQ is 

currently submitting as a revision to the SIP ARS Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 8, 

Conflict of Interest of Officers and Employees (see Appendix C). 

Arizona Revised Statutes grant ADEQ primary regulatory authority for air 

pollution control and abatement in Arizona as well as responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of SIP provisions.” 

In addition to the statutes cited above, EPA also considered ARS §§ 49-422, 49-460 

through 49-463, 49-476.01, 49-479, and 49-510 through 49-513. 

EPA evaluation 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) - Legal Authority

Several Arizona statutes in title 49 establish ADEQ’s and the three counties’ authorities to 

provide for enforcement of air pollution control measures. For example, ARS 49-402 (“State 

and county control”) contains general provisions regarding the respective jurisdictions of ADEQ 

and the counties to issue and enforce permits, among other authorities. ARS 49-404(A) (“State 

implementation plan”) requires the director of ADEQ to maintain a SIP that “provides for 

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and 

protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area 

plan”) establishes a process for the designation of responsibilities among State, regional, and 

local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance 

areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires each agency that commits to implement a SIP 
18 

provision to describe its commitment in a resolution, which must specify, among other things, 

the agency’s legal authority for implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the 

enforcement of the limitation or measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 49-

404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353, 36358. ARS 49-479 

authorizes the board of supervisors for each county to adopt rules as it determines are necessary 

to control air pollution, which rules shall contain standards at “least equal to or more restrictive 

than those adopted by the director.” EPA is proposing to approve ARS 49-479 into the Arizona 

SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

In addition, ARS 49-422(A)14 (“Powers and Duties”) authorizes ADEQ to require sources of air 

contaminants to “monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air 

contaminants or levels of air pollution that may reasonably be attributable to that source” for 

purposes of determining whether the source is in violation of a control requirement or permit 

condition, among other things. ARS 49-476.0115 contains similar authorities for Pima, 

Maricopa, and Pinal counties. EPA is proposing to approve these provisions into the Arizona SIP 

as part of today’s proposed action. 

Finally, ARS 49-460 through 49-463 broadly authorize ADEQ to request compliance-related 

information from sources, to issue orders of abatement upon reasonable cause to believe a source 

has violated or is violating an air pollution control requirement, to establish injunctive relief, to 

establish civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation, and to conduct criminal 

enforcement, as appropriate through the Attorney General. ARS 49-510 through 49-513 contain 

similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties. EPA is proposing to approve these 

provisions into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. We note that approval of any 

of these State and local enforcement authorities into the Arizona SIP would have no effect on 

EPA’s independent authorities under sections 113 and 114 of the Act. 

None of the statutory provisions discussed above are limited to specific pollutants and thus 

would apply for the purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards. We propose to find that the applicable Arizona SIP provides for the necessary 

legal authority to carry out the SIP and thereby meets the related requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.230 through 40 CFR 51.232. 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) - Personnel and Funding

In its June 1, 2012 Supplement to the original I-SIP submittal, ADEQ provided the following 

narrative outlining the resources available to the state and counties to carry out the SIP. EPA is 

not taking action to approve all of these provisions into the SIP but is merely referencing them 

here to show that Arizona and the relevant counties have adequate resources to implement the 

SIP16: 

In the State of Arizona, ADEQ is the primary organization responsible for developing, 

implementing, and enforcing the SIP. 

 

14 See Footnote 13. 

15 See Footnote 13. 

16 Specifically, Arizona has not submitted for approval and EPA is not acting on ARS §§ 49-112; 49-476; 49-480; 

and 49-480.01. 
19 

Under ARS § 49-103 "Department employees; legal counsel" the director, "shall employ, 

determine the conditions of employment and specify the duties of administrative, secretarial and 

clerical employees as he deems necessary." Under § 49-103(B) "The attorney general shall be the 

legal advisor of the department and shall give legal services as the department requires ... The 

attorney general shall prosecute and defend in the name of this state all actions necessary to carry 

out the provisions" of Title 49, relating to the environment. 

Funding to staff to administer the Arizona air quality control programs consists of fees that are 

collected from regulated emissions sources, including fees collected to administer permitting 

programs. Under ARS § 49-455 "Permit administration fund", a permit administration fund is 

established consisting of fees and interest collected pursuant to article 2 governing state air 

pollution control. Under the statute, the director shall administer the fund subject to annual 

legislative appropriation. On notice from the director, the state treasurer shall invest and divest 

monies in the fund as provided in ARS § 35-313, and monies earned from investment shall be 

credited to the fund. 

There is also an emissions inspection fund that consists of monies appropriated to the fund by the 

legislature; monies collected pursuant to ARS § 49-543(A) concerning vehicle emissions 

inspections; monies collected by the director for the issuance of inspection certificates to owners 

of fleet emissions inspection stations; monies received from private grants or donations when so 

designated by the grantor or donor; and monies received from the United States by grant or 

otherwise to assist the state in any emissions inspection program. See ARS § 49-544. 

A third source of funding in Arizona is the Air Quality Fund. Under ARS § 49-551 "Air quality 

fee; air quality fund; purpose" every person who is required to register a motor vehicle in the 

state pursuant to ARS § 28-2153 shall pay, in addition to the registration fee, an annual air 

quality fee at the time of vehicle registration. Interest earned on monies in the fund shall be 

credited to the fund. Monies in the air quality fund shall be used, subject to legislative 

appropriation, for air quality research and programs for the purpose of bringing area A or area B 

into or maintaining attainment status, improving air quality in areas outside area A and B, and 

reducing emissions of various pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides 

of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants throughout the state. The 

funds are also used to monitor visible air pollution and reduce emissions of pollutants that 

contribute to visible air pollution in counties with a population of four hundred thousand persons 

or more. See §49-551(C)(1). 

A final source of funding for ADEQ's air programs is CAA section 105 ("Grants for support of 

air pollution planning and control programs") under which EPA is authorized to make grants to 

air pollution control agencies to defray a portion of the costs associated with implementation of 

programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and achievement of the national ambient 

air quality standards. To qualify for such grants in a given year, air pollution control agencies 

must at least maintain the same level of funding from non-Federal funds for air pollution control 

programs as for the preceding year. See CAA section 105(c). 

Counties
20 

For Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, ARS § 49-107 "Local delegation of state authority" the 

director "may delegate to a local environmental agency, county health department, public health 

services district or municipality any functions, powers or duties which the director believes can 

be competently, efficiently and properly performed by the local agency if the local agency 

accepts the delegation and agrees to perform the delegated functions, powers and duties 

according to the standards of performance required by law and prescribed by the director." Under 

§ 49-107(B), "Monies appropriated or otherwise made available to the department for 

distribution to local agencies may be allocated or reallocated in a manner designed to assure that 

the recognized local activities and the delegated functions, powers and duties are accomplished 

according to the applicable standards of performance." These delegation and funding 

mechanisms help ensure that the counties will have adequate personnel and funding to 

implement the delegated portions of the SIP. 

The scope of county SIP authority is as follows: under ARS § 49-112 "County regulation; 

standards", a county may adopt rules that are as stringent as state rules and may administer 

permits provided that the cost of obtaining permits will be approximately equal or be less than 

the fee or cost of obtaining similar permits or approvals under title 49 or any rule adopted 

pursuant to title 49, which relates to the environment. The county no-drive days and travel 

reduction programs are funded by contractual agreements with ADEQ. Other county air quality 

programs are funded by county fee programs and other sources. In Arizona, the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) certified to do planning (Maricopa and Pima) do so for ozone, 

carbon monoxide, or particulate nonattainment or maintenance areas. See § 49-406(C). The 

MPOs receive funding as directed in ARS § 49-406(A). Under ARS § 49-402(B) Maricopa 

County Air Quality Control District (MCAQCD) and the Pima Department of Environmental 

Quality (PDEQ) each have a "control officer" whose powers to permit and enforce are set forth 

under the statute. ADEQ's contractor operates the Vehicle Emissions Inspection program in both 

Area A and in Area B. The issuance and administration of permits at the county level is outlined 

in ARS §§ 49-480, 49-480.01, and 49-480.02. 

Under ARS § 49-476 "[t]he department of environmental quality, county health departments, or 

boards of supervisors may accept and expend in accordance with the terms of the grant any funds 

granted to it for research of air pollution by the federal government, any political subdivision of 

the state, any agency or branch of the federal or state governments, or any private agency." 

ADEQ, MCAQCD, and PDEQ have been administering, implementing, and enforcing air 

programs designed to meet the CAA's SIP requirements for over 40 years, and the funding and 

personnel described above for each of the three agencies is adequate to meet the needs of these 

programs. Over the next five years, current funding and personnel levels are expected to remain 

stable via the funding mechanisms described above and to be sufficient to meet the resource 

needs of the agencies for air pollution control purposes over that period. 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) State Boards and Conflicts of Interest

We are not proposing to act today on the portion of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP that addresses 

requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We will propose 

action on this element in a subsequent rulemaking. 
21 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) - Necessary Assurances – 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide “necessary 

assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for 

ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.” 

Under ARS section 49-402, the department [ADEQ] has original jurisdiction over all major 

sources for new source review and prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) under the 

CAA as well as mobile sources. A county or multi-county air quality control region, however, 

can assert jurisdiction over the aforementioned sources with ADEQ approval. Any delegation of 

jurisdiction can be revoked by the ADEQ director upon notification and after providing an 

opportunity to confer with the affected county or multi-county air quality control region. 

In Arizona, counties with a certified metropolitan planning agency (MPO) carry out and 

implement the SIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas. See ARS 49-406(A). For any ozone, 

carbon monoxide or particulate nonattainment or maintenance area for which no metropolitan 

planning organization exists, ADEQ has primary responsibility for the development of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area plan for that area. See ARS 49-406(B). In Arizona, Maricopa 

County is nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Maricopa County has a certified 

MPO and thus implements the SIP for 1997 8-hour ozone in its area. Pinal County is 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 2006 PM2.5 standards but does not have a certified 

MPO, so ADEQ implements the SIP for the 1997 ozone and 2006 PM2.5 standards. There are no 

counties in Arizona that are nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.17

ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area plan”) establishes a process for the designation of 

responsibilities among State, regional, and local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce 

SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires 

each agency that commits to implement a SIP provision to describe its commitment in a 

resolution, which must specify, among other things, the agency’s legal authority for 

implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the enforcement of the limitation or 

measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). 

ARS 49-406(I) gives the control officer the authority to issue an injunction through the county 

attorney if it is determined that any person has failed to implement an emission limitation or 

other control measure adopted pursuant to subsection G. If the control officer fails to act, the 

director of ADEQ, through the attorney general, has similar authority to issue an injunction or 

file any other action for relief provided by law. See ARS 49-406(J). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 

49-404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353. 

In addition to these statutory references, we have previously found that Arizona law includes the 

necessary assurances that where a state has relied on a local or regional government, agency or 

instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for 

ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision. 60 FR 18010, 18019 (April 10, 1995); 

65 FR 19964, 19989 (April 13, 2000). 

 

17 Nonattainment areas for states and counties can be found on EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ (last visited on 5/22/2012). 
22 

We propose to find that these provisions in the Arizona SIP provide “necessary assurances that, 

where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provision.” 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) 

Based on the above submissions from the State of Arizona we propose to find that Arizona and 

the relevant counties have adequate personnel, funding, and resources to carry out the SIP. We 

also propose to find that Arizona has provided necessary assurances that where the State has 

relied on a local agency for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary source monitoring and reporting 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires, “as may be prescribed by the Administrator— (i) the installation, 

maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by 

owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic 

reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, 

and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or 

standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times 

for public inspection.” 

Related EPA Regulations

40 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”) relates to source monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. 

Arizona’s response to this requirement 

ARSs “provide authority to require any sources of air contaminants to monitor, sample 

or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air contaminants or levels of air 

pollution that may be reasonably attributable to that source.”

The relevant ARSs identified by ADEQ are 49-422 and 49-476.01.18 In addition, EPA also 

considered 49-424; ADEQ Rules RI8-2-313 “Existing Source Emission Monitoring” and RI8-2-

327 “Annual Emission Inventory Questionnaire”; Maricopa Rule 100 “General Provisions and 

Definitions”, section 500 “Monitoring and Records; and Pima County Rules 17.12.040 

“Reporting Requirements” and 17.24.040 “Reporting for compliance evaluations”.19

EPA Evaluation 

ADEQ’s I-SIP revision for ozone and PM2.5 lists ARSs that provide a range of authorities and 

requirements for the adoption and implementation of State and local programs necessary to 

 

18 See Footnote 13. 

19 On June 1, 2012, ADEQ sent EPA a supplement to its prior I-SIP submittal and a request for parallel processing 

of these additional rules, which are supportive of section 110(a)(2)(F). 
23 

address section 110(a)(2)(F).20 The relevant authorities and requirements are described in detail 

later in this section of the TSD. Beyond the ARSs cited by ADEQ, there are additional ADEQ, 

Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County regulations in the SIP that further support 

110(a)(2)(F). In total, these provisions establish specific requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, reporting, correlation, and public access to reports. 

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARSs) in the SIP and supportive of (F): 

i. For ADEQ Programs: 

ARS 49-422 gives the director the authority to require a source to monitor air contaminants, and 

requires the director to adopt rules requiring sources of air contaminants to perform monitoring. 

49-476.0121 authorizes the control officer to require any source of air contaminants to monitor, 

sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions. 

ARS 49-424 requires ADEQ to compile and publish from time to time reports, data and statistics 

with respect to those matters studied and investigated by the department. ARS 49-424 also 

requires ADEQ to conduct investigations, inspections and tests, and it requires ADEQ to compile 

and publish from time to time reports, data and statistics with respect to those matters studied 

and investigated by the department. 

ii. For County Programs: 

ARS 49-476.0122 authorizes the control officer to require any source of air contaminants to 

monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions. 

ADEQ rules in the SIP and supportive of (F): 

ADEQ 18-2-313 applies to: fossil fuel-fired steam generators; fluid bed catalytic cracking unit 

catalyst regenerators; sulfuric acid plants; and nitric acid plants. The rule requires that these 

sources install, calibrate, operate and maintain operating equipment, and it specifies minimum 

monitoring requirements. 

ADEQ R18-2-310.01 requires the owner or operator of any source to report to the Director any 

emissions in excess of the limits established by applicable rule or in an applicable permit. The 

report shall identity each emission point where the excess emissions occurred and the magnitude 

of the excess emissions including the operating data and calculations used in determining the 

magnitude of the excess emissions. 

ADEQ R18-2-327, requires sources subject to a permit requirement to complete and submit an 

annual emissions inventory questionnaire. The questionnaire includes reporting of the actual 

 

20 As part of its action on the Arizona I-SIP, EPA is also proposing to approve the ARSs and rules not already in the 

SIP. We are not evaluating part D nonattainment area plan provisions as part of the CAA section 110(a) 

infrastructure SIP. 

21 See Footnote 13. 

22 See Footnote 13. 
24 

annual quantity of emissions, including documentation of the method of measurement, 

calculation or estimation for any single regulated air pollutant in a quantity greater than one ton 

or any combination of regulated air pollutants in a quantity greater than 21⁄2 tons. 

Maricopa County rules in the SIP and supportive of (F):

The following category-specific rules include requirements for monitoring and record keeping. 

Rule 322, Power Plant Operations 

Rule 323, Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources 

Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations 

Rule 337, Graphic Arts 

Rule 342, Coating Wood Furniture and Fixtures 

Rule 343, Commercial Bread Bakeries 

Rule 358, Polystyrene Foam Operations 

In addition, Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500 requires that the owner and/or operator of any air 

pollution source maintain and furnish records of all emissions testing and monitoring, and any 

other records relating to the emission of air contaminants requested by the Control Officer. The 

owner and/or operator of a source requested to submit information rule may subsequently be 

required to submit annual reports if specified by the Control Officer. The owner and/or operator 

of any source which emits or may emit oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) shall provide the Control Officer with an emission statement showing measured actual 

emissions or estimated actual emissions of NOx and VOC. If requested or directed by the 

Control Officer, the owner and/or operator of a business shall complete and submit an annual 

emissions inventory report. EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the SIP as part of 

today’s action. 

Rule 140, which was approved into the SIP on August 27, 2002 (67 FR 54957), requires the 

owner or operator of any source shall report to the Director any emissions in excess of the limits 

established by applicable rule or in an applicable permit. The report shall identity each emission 

point where the excess emissions occurred and the magnitude of the excess emissions including 

the operating data and calculations. 

Pima County rules in the SIP and supportive of (F):

Pima 17.12.040, requires the owner or operator of any source report to the Control Officer any 

emissions in excess of the limits established by applicable rule or in an applicable permit. The 

report shall identity each emission point where the excess emissions occurred, the magnitude of 

the excess emissions including the operating data and calculations used, the time and duration or 

expected duration of the excess emissions, and the nature and cause of the emissions. EPA is 

proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

Pima 17.24.040 authorizes the Control Officer to require a person produce all existing books, 

records, or other documents which might reasonably contain evidence needed to determine 

compliance or noncompliance. EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP 

as part of today’s proposed action. 
25 

Pinal County rules in the SIP and supportive of (F):

Pinal County 3-1-081, requires that each permit include emissions monitoring and analysis 

procedures or test methods required under the applicable requirements, including any procedures 

and methods promulgated pursuant to §114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Clean Air Act (1990). With 

respect to reporting, the permit shall incorporate all applicable reporting requirements and 

require submittal of reports of any required monitoring at least every 6 months. All instances of 

deviations from permit requirements shall be clearly identified in such reports. 

Pinal County 3-1-083, requires that each permit contain monitoring requirements sufficient for 

compliance and all emissions monitoring and analysis procedures or test methods required under 

the applicable requirements, including any procedures and methods promulgated pursuant to 

§114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Clean Air Act (1990). With respect to reporting, 3-1-083 requires 

that permits incorporate all applicable reporting requirements and submittal of reports of any 

required monitoring at least every 6 months and prompt reporting of deviations from permit 

requirements. 

Pinal County 3-1-083 also requires that permits contain requirements for compliance 

certification with terms and conditions contained in the permit, and the compliance certifications 

must be submitted no less than annually. Permits must also include the means to monitor the 

compliance of the source with its emissions limitations, standards, and work practices and a 

requirement that the compliance certification include the following: (1) identification of each 

term or condition of the permit that is the basis of the certification; (2) compliance status; (3) 

whether compliance was continuous or intermittent; (3) method(s) used for determining the 

compliance status of the source, currently and over the reporting period; and (5) other facts as the 

Control Officer may require to determine the compliance status of the source. The compliance 

certifications are submitted to the Control Officer, and for Class A permits, to the EPA as well. 

Pinal County, 3-1-103 requires every source subject to a permit requirement or who obtains an 

authorization to operate shall complete and submit an annual emissions inventory questionnaire. 

The questionnaire shall include the actual annual quantity of emissions, including documentation 

of the method of measurement, calculation or estimation of any single regulated air pollutant in a 

quantity greater than one ton or any combination of regulated air pollutants in a quantity greater 

than 21⁄2 tons. 

Pinal County 3-1-107, describes the public availability of permitting information. Pinal County 

3-1-120, Confidentiality of records, clarifies records available to the public. These rules were all 

approved into the Arizona SIP on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79742). 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) 

EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and compared them to the 2009 

Arizona ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIPs, and other supporting information in the SIP. 

Based on this review, we propose to find that Arizona requirements adequately address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), and (iii). With respect to the requirements for stationary source 
26 

monitoring and reporting in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), our proposed approval is contingent upon 

receipt of fully adopted versions of the two Pima County regulations discussed above, which 

must go through a local SIP rulemaking process before ADEQ submits them to EPA as SIP 

revisions.23 We propose, in the alternative, to disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect 

to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) in Pima County, if ADEQ does not submit 

these regulations as SIP revisions following all required procedures before we take final action 

on the 2009 Infrastructure SIP. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G) – Emergency episodes 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in section 

303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.” 

Related EPA Regulations

EPA’s implementing regulations for “contingency plans” (also known as emergency episode 

plans) are set forth at 40 CFR §§ 51.150-153. 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

“Arizona Revised Statutes §49-465 authorizes State actions to alleviate or prevent 

an emergency health risk to the public due to air pollution or likely exceedance of 

the NAAQS. The Governor "may, by proclamation, declare that an emergency 

exists and may prohibit, restrict, or condition" any and all activity that 

contributes to the emergency. Arizona Administrative Code RI8-2-220, "Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes" (approved into the SIP as AAC R9-3-219 at 47 

FR 42572; September 28, 1982), prescribes the procedures the ADEQ Director 

shall implement in order to prevent the occurrence of ambient air pollution 

concentrations which would cause significant harm to public health. Procedures 

include governmental and public notification of the nature of the episode and, at 

the directive of the Governor's office, possible curtailment of industrial and 

commercial activities.” 

EPA evaluation 

EPA’s implementing regulations for “contingency plans” (also known as emergency episode 

plans) are set forth at 40 CFR §§ 51.150-153. Section 51.150 provides criteria for the 

classification of areas for emergency episode planning purposes, based on previously measured 

concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, particulates (PM), carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3). Areas are classified as Priority I, IA, II 

or III, with Priority I areas being those with the highest measured air pollutants and Priority III 

regions as those with the lowest. Priority I regions are required to develop emergency episode 

plans, while Priority III areas are not required to develop episode plans. There are currently no 

priority classifications for PM2.5. 

In Arizona, Maricopa and Pima counties are priority I regions for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and are required to develop emergency episode plans. See 40 CFR 52.121. On April 12, 

2012 EPA proposed to approve Arizona’s 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Episode Plan for the 1997 8-

 

23 See e-mail dated June 14, 2012, from Danielle Dancho, ADEQ, to Jeanhee Hong, EPA Region 9. 
27 

hour ozone standard pursuant to an earlier settlement agreement deadline.24 77 FR 21911. The 

Arizona Emergency Episode Plan sets forth specific procedures to be followed in the event of an 

air pollution emergency in the Air Quality Control Regions included in the State of Arizona. 

These procedures comply with the requirements of Subpart H, 40 CFR §§ 51.150-153 and 

section 303 of the Clean Air Act. 

To evaluate whether the Arizona SIP meets the requirements for contingency plans for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we used guidance issued in 2009 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.25 The 

2009 Guidance for PM2.5 recommends that a state with at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5 

value exceeding 140.4 μg/m3 since 2006 establish an emergency episode plan and contingency 

measures to be implemented should such level be exceeded again. Additionally, the 2009 

Guidance for PM2.5 recommends that if no area of a state has exceeded this 140.4 μg/m3level 

since 2006 and the state has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2.5 related 

episodes, then no specific emergency episode plans are necessary at this time given the existing 

monitored levels. EPA PM2.5 monitoring data has shown that 24-hour PM2.5 values have not 

exceeded 140.4 μg/m3from 2006 through September of 2011.26 Therefore, Arizona is not 

required to develop a contingency plan for PM2.5 at this time and only needs authority 

comparable to that in CAA section 303. ARS 49-465 provides the relevant 303 authority, 

including the ability of the Governor to declare an emergency and prohibit, restrict, or condition 

any activity that is causing or contributing to an emergency risk to the health of those in the area 

or the exceedance of any NAAQS. We are proposing to approve 49-465 into the Arizona SIP as 

part of today’s action. 

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(G) 

We propose to find that Arizona’s SIP meets the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the relevant NAAQS. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) – SIP revisions 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to “provide for revision of such plan—(i) from time to time 

as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to 

attain the national ambient air quality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with 

any additional requirements established under this Act.” 

 

24 Settlement Agreement between WildEarth Guardians/Sierra Club and Lisa Jackson, Administrator for the 

Environmental Protection Agency, November 30, 2011, available in the docket for today’s action. 

25 Memorandum issued by William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, "Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)," dated September 25, 2009. 

26 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Violation Day Count Report for 2006 24-hour PM2.5, April 4, 

2012. 
28 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

“Arizona Revised Statutes contain authority to revise the Arizona SIP to comply with the 

requirements of the CAA including changes in the NAAQS. Under ARS §49-404, ADEQ 

is required to ‘maintain a state implementation plan that provides for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and protection of 

visibility as required by the clean air act.’” 

EPA evaluation 

Under ARS 49-404.A. the director of ADEQ “shall maintain a state implementation plan that 

provides for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality 

standards and protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” 65 FR 36353 (June 8, 

2000). EPA interprets this statute as requiring the state to revise the SIP as necessary whenever a 

new NAAQS is promulgated and/or whenever the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

national ambient air quality standard or comply with any other requirements under the Clean Air 

Act. 

In addition to ARS 49-404, ARS 49-406 requires ADEQ and the counties to revise the SIP as 

necessary in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Under ARS 49-406.C. “For any ozone, 

carbon monoxide or particulate nonattainment or maintenance area, the department, the planning 

agency certified pursuant to subsection A of this section on behalf of elected officials of affected 

local government, the county air pollution control department or district, and the department of 

transportation shall...from time to time as necessary, jointly review and update planning 

procedures or develop new procedures.” (65 FR 36353, June 8, 2000). 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(H)

We propose to find that Arizona statutes provide for revision of the SIP (1) as necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard and (2) 

whenever the Administrator finds that Arizona’s plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or does not comply with requirements established under the Act. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan revisions for nonattainment areas 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires SIPs to “in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area 

designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas).” 

While this section requires States to meet nonattainment area requirements, pursuant to CAA 

title I, part D, when submitting plans or plan revisions for nonattainment areas, EPA has 

concluded that the submission of, and subsequent EPA action on, nonattainment SIP revisions by 

States is not governed by the three-year submission deadline identified in CAA section 

110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions for nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the 

requirements for nonattainment areas described in part D. 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

EPA’s October 2, 2007, guidance (see appendix A) notes that ‘the specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 
29 

timing of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1), and also 

that SIPs to meet this section are not covered by the Consent Decree.’ Although 

the guidance is intended for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(a)(2)(I) are the 

same. 

EPA evaluation 

As noted above, the specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are 

subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). 

This element is therefore not applicable to this action. Any evaluations of Arizona’s SIP in 

relation to the requirements of CAA title I, part D will be completed in relation to the relevant 

nonattainment area plans. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility protection 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 

(relating to consultation), section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).” 

CAA section 121 requires SIPs, in carrying out the requirements under the CAA requiring SIPs 

to contain any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, or any measure referred to in part D or 

part C of title I,27 to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected official of local governments and any Federal land manager 

having authority over Federal land to which the State plan applies. Such process shall be in 

accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA. 

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effectively notify the public during any 

calendar year on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was 

exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year, to advise the public of the health 

hazards associated with such pollution, and to enhance public awareness of the measures which 

can be taken to prevent such standards from being exceeded and the ways in which the public 

can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include 

the posting of warning signs on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or 

television, radio, or press notices or information. 

For a discussion of the CAA title I, part C requirements, see our evaluation of section 

110(a)(2)(C) above. 

Related EPA Regulations

 

27 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 1977, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating to certain 

enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990, and as so 

amended, no longer relates to state enforcement orders. 
30 

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification are set forth in set forth in subpart O 

(“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) of 40 CFR part 51, section 51.285 (“Public 

notification”). 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

Consultation

“Arizona agencies maintain appropriate consultation procedures with local 

governments, CAA Section 174 and metropolitan planning agencies, and federal 

land managers regarding implementation of CAA requirements. ARS §49-406 

requires the State, the metropolitan planning agency on behalf of affected local 

governments, county agencies, and the Department of Transportation to enter into 

a memorandum of agreement for the purpose of coordinating the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment and maintenance plans. 

Additionally, opportunity for comment is provided through stakeholder meetings 

and public hearings held to solicit testimony from the public as well as federal 

and local air quality planning agencies prior to adoption of any revision to the 

Arizona SIP.” 

Public Notification

“CAA Section 127 requires measures to notify the public of instances or areas in 

which any air quality standard is exceeded during the preceding calendar year, to 

advise the public of health hazards associated with air pollution, and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can be taken to improve air quality. The 

results of air quality monitoring conducted throughout Arizona, including 

ambient PM and ozone data, are published in ADEQ's Air Quality Annual 

Reports. Air quality forecasts, which include actual ambient air quality data for 

the preceding day, are made available to the public daily. The annual reports, 

daily forecasts, and other air quality information including tips for reducing 

pollution are available on the ADEQ Web site.” 

PSD and Visibility Protection

“Clean Air Act, Title I, Part C includes provisions relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. PSD provisions 

are discussed in Section 203 above. Arizona's visibility protection program is 

designed to analyze the causes of visibility impairment and to develop and 

implement control strategies as required. Requirements include analysis of 

emissions from new major sources or sources making major modifications and 

anticipated impacts on visibility a t any Class I area. Arizona submitted a 

Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 in December 2003, and a 2004 revision 

for its four Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. A SIP for its remaining eight 

Class I areas is being developed under 40 CFR 510309(g).” 
31 

In addition to the statutes named above EPA also considered ARS 49-104; 49-402; 49-424; and 

49-474. 

EPA Evaluation 

Consultation

The Arizona Revised Statutes contain many authorities that address the Clean Air Act 

requirements of section 121. 

Under 49-104.A.2., the department shall “[s]timulate and encourage all local, state, regional and 

federal governmental agencies and all private persons and enterprises that have similar and 

related objectives and purposes, cooperate with those agencies, persons and enterprises and 

correlate department plans, programs and operations with those of the agencies, persons and 

enterprises.” The department shall also “provide information and advice on request of any local, 

state or federal agencies” on matters within the scope of the department. ARS 49-104.A.4. 

Under ARS 49-104.B.3. the department, through the director, shall “utilize any medium of 

communication, publication and exhibition when disseminating information, advertising and 

publicity in any field of its purposes, objectives or duties.” Under ARS 49-104.B.5. the 

department shall Contract with other agencies, including laboratories, in furthering any 

department program.” EPA is proposing to approve this statute into the Arizona SIP as part of 

today’s proposed action. 

For transportation plans under 121(1), ARS 49-402.F. states that “[e]ach regional planning 

agency shall consult with the department of transportation to coordinate the plans developed 

pursuant to subsection E of this section with transportation plans developed by the department of 

transportation pursuant to any other law.” 

ARS § 49-406.E requires the State, the planning agency on behalf of affected local governments, 

the county air pollution control department or district, and the Department of Transportation to 

enter into a memorandum of agreement for the purpose of coordinating the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment and maintenance plans. 49-406(F) cites to 

minimum information that the memorandum must contain, including the responsibilities and 

authorities of each organization, assurances for adequate plan implementation, and procedures 

and responsibilities for adoption of control measures and emissions limitations. 

More broadly, ARS 49-424.3 requires the department to establish substantive policy statements 

for identifying air quality exceptional events. These substantive policy statements “shall be 

developed with the planning agency certified pursuant to section 49-406, subsection A and the 

county air pollution control department or district.” The department shall also determine the 

standards for the quality of the ambient air and the limits of air contaminants necessary to protect 

the public health “and develop and transmit to the county boards of supervisors minimum state 

standards for air pollution control.” ARS 49-424.4. The department is required to hold hearings 

relating to any matter within their duties and consult with “persons or affected groups or other 

states to achieve the purposes of this chapter, including voluntary testing of actual or suspected 

sources of air pollution.” The department shall also “[e]ncourage political subdivisions of the 
32 

state to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions, and provide as it 

deems necessary technical and consultative assistance therefor.” See ARS 49-424. EPA is 

proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

At the county level, under ARS 49-474 the board of supervisors of each county may authorize 

the board of health or health department of their respective counties in cooperation with the 

department of environmental quality to: “1. Study the problem of air pollution in the county; 2. 

Study possible effects on adjoining counties; 3. Cooperate with chambers of commerce, industry, 

agriculture, public officials and all other interested persons or organizations; 4. Hold public 

hearings if in their discretion such action is necessary; 5. The board of supervisors by resolution 

may establish an air pollution control district.” EPA is proposing to approve this provision into 

the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

Public Notification

In its June, 2012 Supplement, ADEQ certified that it does now and will continue to notify the 

public on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any primary NAAQS is exceeded, 

consistent with the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 127 of the Federal Clean Air Act. 

“Such notifications are and will be available on the state and county air quality websites, which 

are updated daily to identify exceedances of the NAAQS that occurred during the previous day 

or any portion of the preceding calendar year. We commit to continue, through these websites, to 

advise the public of the health hazards associated with such exceedances and to increase public 

awareness of: (1) measures which can be taken to prevent a primary standard from being 

exceeded, and (2) ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to 

improve air quality.”28

Links to state and county websites that provide current air data and previous NAAQS 

exceedances, as well as other educational information, are available at: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/. 

PSD and Visibility Protection

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to meet the applicable requirements of 

part C of title I relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility, 

EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP requirements under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), above. With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 

protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act, but these program requirements do not change upon 

establishment of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, there are no applicable visibility requirements 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new or revised NAAQS becomes effective. 

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(J)

We propose to approve the 2009 Infrastructure SIP as meeting the applicable requirements of 

sections 121 and 127 of the Act but to disapprove it for failure to fully satisfy the requirements of 

part C relating to PSD. 

 

28 See Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, (June 1, 2012) at p. 32. 
33 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air quality modeling and submission of modeling 

data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to “provide for—(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient 

air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a 

national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to 

such air quality modeling to the Administrator.” 

EPA requires air quality impacts analyses for purposes of the regulation of new sources and 

modifications and has prescribed guidelines on air quality models. See 40 CFR 51.160(f), 

51.166(l), and Appendix W (“Guideline on Air Quality Models”).29 Specifically, EPA’s PSD 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 require that SIPs specify that all applications of air quality 

modeling for PSD purposes must be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other 

requirements specified in appendix W of [part 51].” 40 CFR 51.166(l). Likewise, EPA’s general 

new source review regulations in section 51.160 require that SIPs contain procedures to “discuss 

the air quality data and the dispersion or other air quality modeling used to meet the requirements 

of [40 CFR part 51, subpart I]” and require that all such applications of air quality modeling be 

“based on the applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of 

[part 51].” 40 CFR 51.160(f). Both of these provisions state that where an air quality model 

specified in Appendix W30 is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model 

substituted with EPA’s written approval, following notice and opportunity for public comment. 

40 CFR 51.160(f)(2), 51.166(l)(2). EPA’s PSD regulations also provide that SIPs must require 

the permitting authority to make available in at least one location in the region where a proposed 

source would be constructed a copy of all materials that the permit applicant submitted, and to 

notify EPA (among others) of the public comment period on any proposed PSD permit. 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(ii), (iv). 

Arizona’s response to this requirement: 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP states that Arizona retains authority to perform air quality 

modeling for predicting the effect of emissions on ambient air quality and that, “[w]here 

applicable, all modeling analyses for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS meet EPA’s most recent guidance on air quality models.” The 2009 Infrastructure 

SIP also states that “[a]ll information and data are made available to EPA as required.” 

 

29

 EPA also requires that each SIP identify and describe the air quality model(s) used to demonstrate the adequacy 

of a control strategy to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.112 and 

51.115(b)) and has issued guidance for such purposes. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 

for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007). These provisions address requirements 

under part D, title I of the Act and do not apply to our evaluation of an infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(a). 

30 EPA’s requirements for air quality modeling in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, were significantly amended on 

November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68218). 
34 

In support, the submittal references the following Arizona statutes governing ADEQ programs: 

ARS 49-406 (Nonattainment area plan); ARS 49-422 (Powers and duties; definition); ARS 49-

424 (Duties of department); and ARS 49-426 (Permits; duties of director; exceptions; 

applications; objections; fees). The 2009 Infrastructure SIP also references the following Arizona 

statutes governing Maricopa County, Pima County, or Pinal County air pollution control 

programs: ARS 49-473 (Board of supervisors); ARS 49-474 (County control boards); and ARS 

49-480 (Permits; fees). 

EPA Analysis: 

Most of the statutory provisions identified in support of this requirement in the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP do not apply to our evaluation, either because they do not address 

requirements for air quality models or because they are no longer effective under State law.

31

EPA has, however, evaluated the relevant PSD regulations in Arizona’s SIP to determine 

whether they satisfy the requirements related to air quality models in CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality regulations

The provisions addressing air quality models in ADEQ’s SIP-approved PSD program do not 

satisfy EPA’s current requirements for air quality modeling in 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) 

and have been superseded by new or revised regulations that are not approved into the Arizona 

SIP. Specifically, for areas under ADEQ’s jurisdiction, R9-3-304 (Installation permit 

requirements) and R9-3-311 (Air Quality Models) contain references to EPA’s Guideline on Air 

Quality Models (“Guideline”), and R9-3-304 requires use of the Guideline as a permit condition. 

EPA has approved these rules into the Arizona SIP. See 47 FR 17483 (April 23, 1982) (final rule 

approving R9-3-311) and 48 FR 19879 (May 3, 1983) (final rule approving R9-3-304). Both of 

these rules, however, specifically reference the 1978 version of the Guideline, which does not 

contain EPA’s current requirements for air quality modeling in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, as 

amended November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68218). See R9-3-304(A)(5) and R9-3-311(A). In addition, 

it appears that ADEQ is no longer authorized to implement and enforce these SIP-approved rules 

because it has replaced them with R18-2-409 (Air Quality Models) and R18-2-406 (Permit 

Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassifiable Areas). Neither of these 

renumbered rules has been approved into the Arizona SIP. Thus, the ADEQ portion of the 

Arizona SIP does not contain a current PSD regulation that satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(K). 

Maricopa County regulations

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) currently implements the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)), 

pursuant to a delegation agreement executed in 1993. See 40 CFR 52.144; see also 59 FR 1730 

(January 12, 1994) and “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for 

 

31 EPA approved earlier versions of several of these statutes into the Arizona SIP in 1982. See, e.g., 47 FR 26382. 

Because the State is no longer authorized to implement and enforce these earlier statutes, however, we are not 

evaluating them for purposes of determining whether Arizona has satisfied the “infrastructure” requirements of 

CAA section 110(a) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
35 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and 

MC,” executed November 22, 1993. Accordingly, although the Maricopa County portion of the 

Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements of part C, title I of the Act, 

including the requirements related to air quality models under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K), these 

deficiencies are adequately addressed by the Federal PSD program. 

We note that Rule 26 (Air Quality Models), which EPA approved into the Maricopa County 

portion of the SIP on April 12, 1982 (47 FR 15579), is significantly outdated and appears to have 

been superseded at the local level by Rule 407 (Air Quality Impact Models). To the extent that 

Maricopa County intends to continue implementing regulations to address air quality models for 

non-PSD sources, we encourage the State to submit a current regulation meeting all applicable 

CAA requirements for approval into the SIP. 

Pima County regulations

The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) currently implements the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)), pursuant to a delegation agreement executed in 1994. See 40 CFR 52.144; see 

also “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and Pima County Air Quality 

Control District,” executed April 14, 1994. Accordingly, although the Pima County portion of 

the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements of part C, title I of the 

Act, including the requirements related to air quality models under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K), 

these deficiencies are adequately addressed by the Federal PSD program. 

We note that Rule 504 (Pre-installation Testing or Modeling Requirements), Rule 931 (Air 

Quality Modeling Guidelines), and Rule 932 (Workbook for Comparison of Air Quality 

Models), which EPA approved into the Pima County portion of the SIP on July 7, 1982 (47 FR 

29534) and April 16, 1982 (47 FR 16328), are significantly outdated and appear to have been 

superseded at the local level by Rule 17.16.590 (Permit requirements for sources located in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas), Rule 17.16.550 (General), and Rule 17.16.620 (Air quality 

models). To the extent that Pima County intends to continue implementing regulations to 

address air quality models for non-PSD sources, we encourage the State to submit current 

regulations meeting all applicable CAA requirements for approval into the SIP. 

Pinal County regulations

The provisions addressing air quality models in Pinal County’s SIP-approved PSD program do 

not satisfy EPA’s current requirements for air quality models in 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l). 

Specifically, for areas under Pinal County jurisdiction, Rule 3-3-250 (Permit and permit revision 

requirements for sources located in attainment and unclassifiable areas) and Rule 3-3-275 (Air 

quality models) contain provisions addressing air quality models but reference the 1986 version 

of the Guideline, which does not contain EPA’s current requirements for air quality models in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix W. See Rule 3-3-250(A)(5) and Rule 3-3-275. EPA has approved these 

rules into the Pinal County portion of the Arizona SIP. See 65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000). 

Although these SIP-approved rules remain effective and enforceable, they do not satisfy the 
36 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) because they reference a significantly outdated 

(1986) version of the Guideline in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. Thus, the Pinal County portion 

of the Arizona SIP does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). 

 

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(K) 

Based on our review of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP and the applicable Arizona SIP, and for the 

reasons given above, we propose to conclude that the Arizona SIP does not meet the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 

standard, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard. We therefore propose to disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). If finalized, 

this disapproval would require the State to submit PSD SIP revisions meeting the requirements 

related to air quality models in 40 CFR 51.166(l), for sources under the jurisdiction of ADEQ 

and Pinal County. For sources under the jurisdiction of Maricopa and Pima counties, the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 addresses this deficiency and therefore no further action is 

necessary. 

CAA 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP require the owner or owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under 

the Act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, 

the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such 

fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a 

fee program under title V of the Act. 

This requirement may be satisfied by referencing State regulations providing for collection of 

permitting fees under an EPA-approved title V operating permits program. 

Arizona’s response to this requirement: 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP states that Arizona permitting agencies are responsible for 

assessing fees sufficient to recover the costs of administering the permitting programs, 

including fees for title V sources, inspection fees for non-title V sources, and fees for general 

permits. 2009 Infrastructure SIP at 15. 

EPA’s evaluation: 

All areas in Arizona are currently subject to EPA-approved title V permit programs that satisfy 

the permit fee requirements of 40 CFR part 70. 40 CFR part 70, Appendix A (“Approval Status 

of State and Local Operating Permits Programs”). EPA fully approved the title V operating 

permits programs for ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County effective 

November 30, 2001. 66 FR 63175 (December 5, 2001) and 66 FR 63166 (December 5, 2001). 

Subsequently, on May 17, 2005, EPA issued a notice of deficiency with respect to certain 
37 

elements of Maricopa County’s title V operating permits program, including the permit fee 

requirements. 70 FR 32243 (June 2, 2005). Following EPA’s performance of a title V program 

evaluation and the Maricopa County Air Quality Department’s (MCAQD) subsequent submittal 

of corrections to address the identified deficiencies, EPA issued a notice of resolution explaining 

EPA’s bases for concluding that the MCAQD had resolved all of the issues identified in EPA’s 

May 17, 2005 notice of deficiency. 71 FR 67061 (November 20, 2006). These fully-approved 

title V programs in Arizona satisfy the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(L). 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) 

We propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) 

because each portion of the State is covered by an EPA approved Title V program, and the 

approved programs provide for the collection of the necessary fees.

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/participation by affected local entities 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultation and participation by local 

political subdivisions affected by the plan.” 

ADEQ’s response to this requirement 

“Arizona air quality agencies consult with and maintain frequent and regular 

communication with all local and political subdivisions affected by plan revisions. Local 

entities participate in plan development and the review process and often provide needed 

data and information for analyses contained in the plan as well as implementation 

assistance. Opportunity for comment is also provided through stakeholder meetings and 

public hearings conducted to solicit testimony from the public, local planning agencies, 

and other local political entities prior to adoption of any plan revisions.” 

In addition to this response EPA considered ARS 49-406; 49-104; 49-402; 49-405; 49-424; and 

49-474. 

EPA evaluation 

ARS 49-406 directs ADEQ, the metropolitan planning agency (if applicable), the county air 

control department or district, and the department of transportation to develop nonattainment 

plans. ARS 49-406(A) states that for any ozone, carbon monoxide or particulate nonattainment 

or maintenance area the governor shall certify the metropolitan planning organization designated 

to conduct the planning process as the agency responsible for the development of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area plan for that area. ARS § 49-406(E) requires the State, the 

planning agency on behalf of affected local governments, the county air pollution control 

department or district, and the Department of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of 

agreement for the purpose of coordinating the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

nonattainment and maintenance plans. 49-406(F) cites to minimum information that the 

memorandum must contain, including the responsibilities and authorities of each organization, 

assurances for adequate plan implementation, and procedures and responsibilities for adoption of 

control measures and emissions limitations. 
38 

More broadly, ARS 49-104A.2. states that the department shall “[s]timulate and encourage all 

local, state, regional and federal governmental agencies and all private persons and enterprises 

that have similar and related objectives and purposes, cooperate with those agencies, persons and 

enterprises and correlate department plans, programs and operations with those of the agencies, 

persons and enterprises.” The department shall also “provide information and advice on request 

of any local, state or federal agencies” on matters within the scope of the department. ARS 49-

104.A.4. 

Under ARS 49-104.B.3. the department, through the director, shall “utilize any medium of 

communication, publication and exhibition when disseminating information, advertising and 

publicity in any field of its purposes, objectives or duties.” ARS 49-104.B.5. states that the 

department shall contract with other agencies, including laboratories, in furthering any 

department program. EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of 

today’s proposed action. 

For transportation plans under 121(1), ARS 49-402.F. states that “[e]ach regional planning 

agency shall consult with the department of transportation to coordinate the plans developed 

pursuant to subsection E of this section with transportation plans developed by the department of 

transportation pursuant to any other law.” 

ARS 49-405(C) requires a public notice and comment process for attainment area designations. 

EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed 

action. 

ARS 49-424.3 requires the department to establish substantive policy statements for identifying 

air quality exceptional events. These substantive policy statements “shall be developed with the 

planning agency certified pursuant to section 49-406, subsection A and the county air pollution 

control department or district.” The department also is required to determine the standards for the 

quality of the ambient air and the limits of air contaminants necessary to protect the public health 

“and develop and transmit to the county boards of supervisors minimum state standards for air 

pollution control.” ARS 49-424.4. The department is required to hold hearings relating to any 

matter within their duties and consult with “persons or affected groups or other states to achieve 

the purposes of this chapter, including voluntary testing of actual or suspected sources of air 

pollution.” The department shall also “[e]ncourage political subdivisions of the state to handle air 

pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions, and provide as it deems necessary 

technical and consultative assistance therefor.” See ARS 49-424. EPA is proposing to approve 

this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 

At the county level, under ARS 49-474 the board of supervisors of each county may authorize 

the board of health or health department of their respective counties in cooperation with the 

department of environmental quality to study the problem of air pollution in the county and any 

possible effects on adjoining counties; cooperate with chambers of commerce, industry, 

agriculture, public officials and all other interested persons or organizations; hold public hearings 

if such action is necessary; and establish by resolution an air pollution control district. EPA is 

proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of today’s proposed action. 
39 

We propose to find that Arizona has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in place to 

provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having 

authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(M). 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) 

Based on our review of the 2009 Arizona infrastructure SIP, the 2012 Supplement and for the 

reasons given above, we propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(M).