66398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

4EPA previously approved an earlier interstate 

transport submittal by Arizona for the 1997 ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 

2007). 

5 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). The final 

rule for this action was signed on July 26, 2012. 

While we are awaiting publication in the Federal 

Register, a prepublication copy of that final rule is 

available in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 

6On June 14, 2012 ADEQ submitted a letter 

requesting withdrawal of several statutes included 

in the June 1, 2012 proposed SIP revision. See letter 

dated June 14, 2012 from Eric C. Massey, Air 

Quality Director, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

7Each of our three proposed rules had an 

associated TSD available at www.regulations.gov 

under docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0398. The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ‘‘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,’’ June 15, 

2012 (document ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0398–0003); (2) ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

EPA’s Proposed Action on the State of Arizona’s 

2009 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

(Transport Portion) for the 2006 24-hour Fine 

Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard,’’ July 2012 (document ID number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0398–0033); and (3) ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Arizona 

Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 

Conflict of Interest Requirements,’’ July 2012 

(herein, ‘‘Section 128 TSD’’) (document ID number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398–0075). 

[FR Doc. 2012–26759 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398; FRL–9745–8] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the state of Arizona 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). 

The Clean Air Act requires that each 

State adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. Arizona has 

met most of the applicable 

requirements. Where EPA is 

disapproving, in part, Arizona’s SIP 

revisions, several of the deficiencies 

have already been addressed by a 

federal implementation plan (FIP). The 

remaining deficiencies are subject to a 

two-year deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves 

an adequate SIP revision prior to that 

time. EPA remains committed to 

working with Arizona to develop such 

a SIP revision. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on December 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2012–0398. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4152, 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 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. 

On June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239), EPA 

proposed to approve in part and 

disapprove in part several SIP revisions 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Additionally, on July 30, 2012 

(77 FR 44551), EPA proposed to approve 

the portion of the Arizona Infrastructure 

SIP pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate 

transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.4 Also on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44555), EPA proposed to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

portion of the Arizona Infrastructure SIP 

pertaining to the conflict of interest 

provision in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

ADEQ submitted SIP revisions to EPA 

on September 18, 2008 (‘‘2008 

Infrastructure Analysis’’) and October 

14, 2009 (‘‘2009 Infrastructure 

Analysis’’) to address all of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, except 

for section 110(a)(2)(G),5 and a proposed 

SIP revision submitted on June 1, 2012.6

The proposed SIP served as a 

supplement to the prior two 

infrastructure SIP revisions and was 

submitted under the parallel processing 

mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final 

version of the June 1, 2012 proposed SIP 

revision was adopted on August 24, 

2012 and submitted to EPA on the same 

day (‘‘2012 Submittal’’). 

We are taking final action on all three 

submittals because they collectively 

address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer 

to them collectively herein as 

‘‘Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals.’’ 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

actions, including the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs in general, is 

explained in the Notices of Proposed 

Rulemakings (NPRs) and associated 

technical support documents (TSDs) 7

and will not be restated here. The TSDs 

are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period for our 

proposal published in the Federal 

Register on June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239) 

started at publication and closed on July 

27, 2012. The public comment period 

for our proposals of July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44551, concerning interstate transport 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66399 

8For a copy of the comment letter, see document 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398–0079 in 

www.regulations.gov under docket ID EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0398. 

9EPA proposed to approve ARS Title 38, Chapter 

3, Article 8 (‘‘Conflict of Interest of Officers and 

Employees’’) statutes on conflict of interest, as well 

as several statutes related to hearing boards and 

orders of abatement, into the Arizona SIP with 

respect to the requirements of CAA section 128. For 

the listing of the specific statutes, see 77 FR 44555 

at 44558. The final rule approving these statutes 

into the SIP is happening concurrent with today’s 

action. 

10Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

‘‘Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128,’’ March 2, 1978. 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and 

77 FR 44555, concerning conflict of 

interest requirements) started at 

publication in the Federal Register on 

July 30, 2012 and closed on August 29, 

2012. 

During the respective comment 

periods we received one comment letter 

from ADEQ (‘‘ADEQ comment letter’’), 

which concerned the requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.8

In our July 30, 2012 notice on these 

requirements (77 FR 44555), we 

proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove a SIP revision 

submitted by ADEQ to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 

44555). In particular, we proposed to 

find that the statutes submitted by 

ADEQ met nearly all the requirements 

of CAA section 128, and therefore 

proposed to partially approve the 

submittal with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). However, with respect 

to the air quality hearing boards in 

Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties 

[hereinafter ‘‘County Boards’’], we 

proposed to determine that the 

provisions submitted by ADEQ in its 

2009 and 2012 SIP revisions did not 

adequately address all of the 

requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). 

We have summarized the ADEQ 

comment letter in three comments, and 

have responded to each, below. 

Comment #1: ADEQ disagrees with 

EPA’s assessment that the statutes and 

regulations provided in its 

supplementary submittal of June 1, 2012 

do not apply to enforcement orders and 

asks EPA to approve the State’s 

submittals with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State argues that the 

statutes it submitted, ‘‘in particular ARS 

[sections] 38–101 and 38–501 through 

39–511, * * * apply to all public 

agency officers and employees, whether 

at the State, County, or City level’’ and 

that ARS 38–503(B) forbids public 

officers and employees having a conflict 

of interest in any decision of the agency 

from participating in that decision. In 

other words, ‘‘[u]pon recusal of each 

person with a conflict of interest, all of 

the members remaining who are 

authorized lawfully to make the 

decision represent the public interest 

and do not derive any significant 

income from parties subject to the 

permits or enforcement orders at issue.’’ 

ADEQ notes that ARS 49–478 (‘‘Hearing 

board’’) also applies to the counties and 

that there is ‘‘no gap in coverage of these 

requirements’’ between the state statutes 

and the county regulations. The State 

highlights the disclosure provisions of 

ARS 38–508, including the alternate 

measures implemented when a conflict 

exists, and notes that ‘‘not all conflicts 

of interest can be identified or even 

exist at the time of appointment to a 

board or agency.’’ 

Response #1: As outlined in the TSD 

for our proposal notice, we agree with 

ADEQ that Arizona’s conflict of interest 

statutes (ARS Title 38, Chapter 3, 

Article 8 ) 9 apply to all public agency 

officers and employees, whether at the 

State, County, or City level, that approve 

permits or enforcement orders. 

Furthermore, we agree that the term 

‘‘any decision of a public agency’’ in 

Arizona under ARS 38–503(B) 

encompasses the approval of both 

permits and enforcement orders. 

However, we do not agree that the board 

membership requirements of section 

128(a)(1) are adequately addressed by 

the recusal requirement of ARS 38– 

503(B). The plain language of section 

128(a)(1) establishes requirements 

regarding membership on a board, and 

not merely a requirement regarding a 

member’s action on any particular 

permit or enforcement order. 

Section 128(a)(1) of the CAA 

provides: ‘‘Each applicable plan shall 

contain requirements that * * * any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under [the Act] 

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 and enforcement orders under 

[the Act].’’ Two elements of this 

provision prevent it from being satisfied 

by recusal alone. 

First, the ‘‘public interest’’ and 

‘‘significant income’’ requirements of 

section 128(a)(1) apply to a ‘‘majority of 

members’’ of a ‘‘board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under [the CAA].’’ The use of the plural 

in ‘‘permits’’ and ‘‘orders’’ tends to 

indicate that the relevant board or body 

is defined by its authority to approve 

permits and enforcement orders, and 

not by the particular subset of the board 

acting on a single given permit or 

enforcement order. A board member 

may recuse himself from a particular 

permit or enforcement order proceeding 

in order to avoid a conflict of interest 

and yet remain a member of that board. 

Under these circumstances, his conflict 

of interest must still be considered in 

determining whether the board as a 

whole meets the majority membership 

requirement of section 128(a)(1). 

Second, the ‘‘significant portion of 

income’’ requirement is determined by 

reference to ‘‘persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders’’. A permit holder 

is legally bound by a permit and is 

therefore ‘‘subject to’’ it. Similar 

reasoning applies to a person legally 

bound by a final enforcement order. 

Any reasonable interpretation of 

‘‘subject to’’ must at a minimum include 

persons already legally bound by a final 

permit or final enforcement order. Yet a 

recusal requirement, such as that 

provided by ARS 38–503(B), fails to 

ensure that a majority of members do 

not derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons who already have 

permits or are already under a final 

enforcement order. 

Thus, even assuming, for argument’s 

sake, that ARS 38–503(B) could meet 

the ‘‘public interest’’ requirement of 

section 128(a)(1), it clearly does not, by 

itself, fulfill the ‘‘significant income’’ 

requirement. This interpretation is 

consistent with EPA’s existing guidance 

on Section 128. In particular, in 1978, 

EPA issued a guidance memorandum 10

that suggested definitions of certain 

terms in section 128. Although the 

guidance did not specifically mention 

recusal, it did suggest that the term 

‘‘persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under this Act’’ 

includes, among others, ‘‘any 

individual, corporation, partnership, or 

association who holds * * * any 

permit, or who is * * * subject to any 

enforcement order under the [Act]’’. In 

other words, EPA’s guidance 

recommended that ‘‘persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders’’ should 

include those persons legally bound to 

a permit or enforcement order. The 

guidance also suggested that the term 

‘‘majority of members’’ be defined as ‘‘a 

majority of all members of a board or 

body having or sharing authority to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the [CAA], and a majority of 

members making up any panel of fewer 

than all members (including panels of a 

single member) where individual 

permits or orders are considered by 

such a panel’’. Thus, EPA interprets the 

statutory language of section 128(a)(1) as 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

11Footnote 3 of ADEQ’s comment letter indicates 

that ADEQ was unable to find explanation of EPA’s 

reasoning in the TSD. It appears that ADEQ was 

looking at the more general TSD associated with the 

earlier proposal on other portions of Arizona’s 

infrastructure SIP (i.e., 77 FR 38239, June 27, 2012, 

docket ID EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398, document 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398–0003) rather 

than the separate Section 128 TSD, which was 

available at www.regulations.gov (i.e., document 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398–0075, under 

the same docket ID). Thus, while this 

misunderstanding is unfortunate, we disagree that 

our TSD was ‘‘lacking clarity’’ or that our 

explanation did ‘‘not appear under that specific 

section in the TSD,’’ as asserted by ADEQ. 

12E.g., 77 FR 21913, April 12, 2012 (for Hawaii); 

and 77 FR 22540, April 16, 2012 (for North Dakota). 

requiring a majority of members of the 

entire board to meet the public interest 

and significant income requirements. 

EPA’s guidance reflected that reading of 

the statute. 

While we agree that, at the time of 

appointment to a board or agency, it is 

not possible to identify future conflicts 

of interest that may result from future 

permits or enforcement orders, we note 

that it is possible to identify a 

prospective or current board member’s 

interest in current permit holders and 

persons currently under final 

enforcement orders. Thus, this 

particular part of ADEQ’s comment 

letter is not directly relevant to the 

deficiency in question. 

Arizona’s conflict of interest statutes 

thus leave a gap with respect to the CAA 

section 128(a)(1) requirement that 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders 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 and 

enforcement orders under [the Act].’’ 

However, Arizona’s county hearing 

board statute, ARS 49–478, which we 

proposed to approve and thus to 

incorporate into the Arizona SIP, 

requires that, for county air quality 

hearing boards, ‘‘[a]t least three [of five] 

members shall not have a substantial 

interest, as defined in [ARS] 38–502, in 

any person required to obtain a permit 

pursuant to this article.’’ Thus, ARS 49– 

478 partially fills the gap between the 

Arizona conflict of interest statutes and 

the board membership requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(1) by establishing a 

majority membership requirement. 

As noted in our proposal, Pima 

County Code 17.04.190 extends this 

majority membership requirement to 

interests in persons subject to 

enforcement orders. See 77 FR 44555 at 

44557. Such a provision could be 

submitted for incorporation into the 

Arizona SIP. However, Arizona has not 

submitted this or other provisions for 

incorporation into the SIP that would 

require that a majority of members of 

the County Boards represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to enforcement orders. 

Therefore, we are finalizing our partial 

approval and narrow, partial 

disapproval as proposed. 

Comment #2: ADEQ states that EPA 

failed to comply with section 552 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

which requires publication in the 

Federal Register of amendments and 

revisions to substantive rules of general 

applicability and statements of general 

policy or interpretations of general 

applicability formulated and adopted by 

the agency. Specifically, ADEQ asserts 

that EPA has not issued guidance of 

general applicability on CAA section 

128 since 1978 and that the 1978 

guidance memo was ‘‘severely lacking.’’ 

The State references footnote #5 of our 

proposal (see 77 FR 44555 at 44556) and 

states that ‘‘EPA lacks authority to 

single out Arizona and create specific 

retroactive guidance applicable to it, 

after [Arizona] has submitted the 

required SIP and SIP Supplement(s)’’ 

and that EPA bears responsibility to be 

transparent and predictable in the 

planning process. ADEQ states that EPA 

proposes to change certain 

interpretations of section 128 by 

proposing interpretations on a ‘‘case-bycase basis for individual states’’ and that 

such a process violates APA section 

552. Finally, by reference to EPA’s 

infrastructure SIP rulemaking on Hawaii 

that we cited in our Arizona section 128 

proposal, ADEQ states that EPA did not 

provide public notice and opportunity 

to comment on proposed amendments 

or revisions to the 1978 guidance. 

Response #2: We do not agree that our 

action violates the APA. While EPA 

understands ADEQ’s interest in having 

EPA issue comprehensive, generally 

applicable guidance on section 128, it is 

not always possible to anticipate all 

potential issues or questions that may 

arise in reviewing SIP submittals in 

advance of the deadlines for such SIP 

submittals. Therefore, it is often 

necessary for EPA to make certain 

judgments about proper application of 

the statutory requirements of the CAA 

on a case-by-case basis, as it acts on 

individual SIP submissions. The noticeand-comment rulemaking procedures 

followed by EPA in acting on SIP 

submissions allow for states and other 

interested parties to weigh in on these 

case-by-case judgments. This process is 

what naturally follows when EPA issues 

guidance making recommendations 

concerning how states could correctly 

comply with the statute, but new issues 

arise in the application of the guidance 

in rulemaking on a SIP submission. 

In this case, the interpretations 

referred to in our proposal and set out 

in our TSD 11 were intended to clarify 

previously issued guidance pertaining 

to section 128 in relation to the Arizona 

infrastructure SIP. In particular, we 

wished to clarify that the requirements 

of 128(a)(1) apply only to boards or 

bodies composed of multiple 

individuals and do not apply where a 

single individual approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. As 

explained in the TSD for our proposal, 

this interpretation derives from the text 

of section 128 itself (see TSD at pages 

1–3). However, the 1978 memorandum 

suggests a definition of ‘‘board or body’’ 

that includes ‘‘any individual * * * 

authorized to approve permits or 

enforcement orders under the Clean Air 

Act.’’ In Arizona’s case, a strict 

adherence to the recommendations of 

the guidance would have rendered the 

Director of ADEQ, the state 

administrative law judges and the 

county controls officers all subject to the 

‘‘public interest’’ and ‘‘significant 

income’’ requirements of 128(a)(1). As 

explained in the TSD for our proposal, 

this interpretation seems inconsistent 

with the plain language of the statute; 

we therefore instead proposed and took 

comment on the interpretation that 

subsection 128(a)(1) should not apply to 

heads of executive agencies who 

approve permits or enforcement orders. 

Similarly, the other interpretations of 

the statute set forth in our TSD were 

intended to clarify ambiguities left by 

the recommendations of the 1978 

guidance, so that we could properly 

evaluate Arizona’s submittal under the 

requirements of the Act. 

While we do not necessarily agree 

that these interpretations are subject to 

the requirements of APA section 552, 

we note that our proposal, as published 

in the Federal Register, specifically 

referred to these interpretations (see 77 

FR 44555 at 44556), and that we 

explained these interpretations in detail 

in the TSD available in the docket for 

our proposal (see TSD at pages 1–3). 

Moreover, the proposed interpretations 

in our proposal on Arizona are 

consistent with other recent notices that 

EPA has published in the Federal 

Register.12

Comment #3: ADEQ claims that 

compliance with ‘‘EPA’s unauthorized 

amendment or revision to its 1978 

guidance is practically infeasible’’ 

because EPA’s ‘‘revised or amended 

interpretation has not occurred until 

after the 2012 legislature has 

adjourned.’’ As such, the State claims 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66401 

13EPA previously approved an earlier SIP 

submission from Arizona as fully satisfying the 

interstate transport SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). 

14With respect to Arizona’s section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP submission 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the recent 

opinion vacating the Transport Rule, EME Homer 

City Generation v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir., 

August 21, 2012), does not alter our conclusion that 

the existing Arizona SIP adequately addresses this 

requirement. Nothing in the Homer City opinion 

disturbs or calls into question that conclusion or the 

validity of the technical information on which our 

July 30, 2012 proposal (77 FR 44551) relied—e.g., 

ambient PM2.5 levels at monitoring sites 

representative of regional background in nearby 

states and relevant meteorological and 

topographical information. In addition, nothing in 

that opinion undermines our proposed conclusion, 

based on our review of the available technical 

information, that emissions from Arizona do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

15EPA previously approved an earlier SIP 

submission from Arizona as fully satisfying the 

interstate transport SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). 16See 77 FR 38239, 38244 (June 27, 2012). 

that it did not have the opportunity to 

revise its statutes or amend its prior 

submittal of October 14, 2009 or parallel 

process submittal of June 1, 2012 prior 

to the submittal deadline. 

Response #3: For the reasons 

explained in Response #2, we disagree 

with ADEQ’s assertion that EPA has 

made ‘‘unauthorized amendment or 

revision to its 1978 guidance.’’ With 

respect to ADEQ’s argument regarding 

timing of the legislative session and 

opportunity to revise statutes or SIP 

submittals, we disagree that compliance 

with CAA section 128, in light of the 

1978 guidance and the clarifying 

interpretations presented in our 

proposal, is practically infeasible, to the 

extent that ‘‘practical infeasibility’’ is 

even an allowable consideration in 

EPA’s action on a SIP submission. 

Our final, partial disapproval triggers 

a two-year deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) for the identified deficiency. 

However, the State can remedy the 

deficiency prior to such FIP 

promulgation. If ADEQ can submit a SIP 

revision that meets EPA approval within 

the next two years, EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP would be discharged. 

As noted in the TSD, the CAA 

requires that section 128 must be 

implemented through SIP-approved, 

federally enforceable provisions. 

However, the Act does not prescribe the 

exact means of implementation. The 

state and counties now have the 

opportunity to consider statutory or 

regulatory revisions to submit to EPA as 

a SIP revision to remedy this narrow 

deficiency. We stand ready to work with 

ADEQ and Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal 

counties to develop this revision. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part the Arizona 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is approving the Arizona 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate 

transport (for 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS).13 14

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate 

resources and legal authority. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): 

Conflict of interest. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State 

oversight of local or regional 

government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes (for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials 

and public notification. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

In addition, we are approving into the 

SIP certain statutory and regulatory 

provisions included in the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP. These are discussed 

further in our proposal notices, 

accompanying TSDs, and in Arizona’s 

August 24, 2012 submittal, all available 

in the docket for today’s action. 

Simultaneously, EPA is disapproving 

Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP submittals 

for 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Permit program for regulation of new 

and modified stationary sources under 

part C of title I of the Act (prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD)). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): Provision 

to prohibit interference with other 

states’ PSD measures (for 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS).15

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): 

Conflict of interest. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD. 

• Section 110 (a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of monitoring 

data. 

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’’). The 2012 

Supplement included a number of 

statutes and regulations that were 

effective under state law but had not 

been adopted specifically for submittal 

to EPA as a SIP revision under CAA 

section 110. On August 24, 2012, ADEQ 

provided EPA with evidence that the 

laws and regulations in the 2012 

Supplement have been adopted 

specifically for submittal to EPA as a 

SIP revision with the exception of two 

Pima County regulations (rules 

17.12.040 and 17.24.040). As explained 

in our notice of proposed rulemaking, 

our proposed approval of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) was contingent upon receipt 

of fully adopted versions of the two 

Pima County regulations discussed 

above. We proposed 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 did not submit the two Pima 

County regulations as SIP revisions 

following all required state and local 

procedures.16 Consequently, in the 

absence of the aforementioned Pima 

County regulations, we are disapproving 

Arizona’s infrastructure SIP for section 

110(a)(2)(F) with respect to Pima 

County. 

As explained in the NPRs and TSD, 

our disapprovals related to sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K) 

result from the conclusion that the 

Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for PSD permit programs under part C 

of title I of the Act. For these 

disapprovals, both the Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department and the Pima 

County Department of Environmental 

Quality currently implement the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all 

regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to 

delegation agreements with EPA. 40 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

17See 59 FR 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 [Maricopa County],’’ executed 

November 22, 1993; ‘‘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. 

18For 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. 

19For 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. 

20On April 10, 2012, ADEQ submitted draft PSD 

program regulations to EPA with a request for 

‘‘parallel processing’’ under 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. We intend to act on this PSD submittal 

expeditiously upon receipt of an official SIP 

revision containing ADEQ’s fully adopted PSD 

regulations. 

CFR 52.144.17 Accordingly, although 

the Arizona SIP remains deficient with 

respect to PSD requirements in both 

Maricopa and Pima counties, these 

deficiencies are adequately addressed in 

both areas by the Federal PSD program. 

ADEQ implements a SIP-approved PSD 

program for all regulated NSR pollutants 

except for PM–10 and GHGs 18 (48 FR 

19878, May 3, 1983), and the Pinal 

County Air Quality Control District 

(PCAQCD) implements a SIP-approved 

PSD program for all regulated NSR 

pollutants except for GHGs 19 (61 FR 

15717, April 9, 1996, as amended by 65 

FR 79742, December 20, 2000). EPA 

understands that both ADEQ and the 

PCAQCD intend to submit, in the near 

future, PSD SIP revisions addressing the 

deficiencies identified in our TSD.20

EPA takes a disapproval of a state 

plan very seriously. Rather than 

implement a FIP, we believe that it is 

preferable, and preferred in the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, for 

states to implement the CAA 

requirements through state provisions 

that are developed and adopted by the 

state and approved into the SIP by EPA. 

A state plan need not contain exactly 

the same provisions that EPA might 

require, but EPA must be able to find 

that the state plan is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act, in accordance 

with its obligations under section 

110(k). Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these 

disapprovals are the only path that is 

consistent with the Act at this time. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D of title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The Arizona 

Infrastructure SIP was not submitted to 

meet either of these requirements. 

Therefore, our partial disapproval of 

Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

does not trigger mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP within two years after finding that 

a State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. For the reasons provided in our 

proposed rules and associated TSDs, 

and in our responses to comments 

above, EPA is partially disapproving 

Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

based on our conclusion that it does not 

fully satisfy the following CAA section 

110(a) requirements: (1) With respect to 

those areas under ADEQ and Pinal 

County jurisdiction, the PSD program 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 

110(a)(2)(K) regarding regulation of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor, regulation of fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), interstate pollution 

abatement, and air quality models and 

modeling data; (2) with respect to the air 

quality hearing boards in Maricopa, 

Pima, and Pinal counties, the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting board 

composition requirements under CAA 

section 128(a)(1); and (3) with respect to 

Pima County, the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) regarding stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. Our 

partial disapproval of Arizona’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals based on 

these deficiencies triggers an obligation 

on EPA to promulgate a FIP under CAA 

section 110(c), unless Arizona submits 

and EPA approves SIP revisions 

correcting the identified deficiencies 

within two years of the effective date of 

this final rule. We encourage the state to 

submit a SIP revision to address the 

deficiencies identified in this final rule 

and we stand ready to work with the 

state to develop a revised plan. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This partial 

SIP approval and partial SIP 

disapproval under CAA section 110 will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves 

certain State requirements, and 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66403 

disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the partial approval 

and partial disapproval action does not 

include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action approves 

certain pre-existing requirements, and 

disapproves certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

taking action would not apply in Indian 

country located in the state, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves certain State requirements, 

and disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on December 5, 

2012. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 28, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(152)(ii) and 

(c)(153) to read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(152) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) ‘‘Final Supplement to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan under Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): 

Implementation of 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, and 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ August 2012, adopted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on August 24, 

2012, excluding the appendices. 

(2) Arizona Revised Statutes (West’s, 

2011–2012 Compact Edition): 

(i) Title 28 (transportation), chapter 7 

(certification of title and registration), 

article 5 (registration requirements 

generally), section 28–2153 

(‘‘Registration requirement; exceptions; 

assessment; violation; classification’’); 

(ii) Title 35 (public finances), chapter 

2 (handling of public funds), article 2 

(state management of public monies), 

section 35–313 (‘‘Investment of trust 

and treasury monies; loan of 

securities’’); 

(iii) Title 38 (public officers and 

employees), chapter 1 (general 

provisions), article 1 (definitions), 

section 38–101 (‘‘Definitions’’) and 

article 8 (conflict of interest of officers 

and employees), sections 38–501 

(‘‘Application of article’’), 38–502 

(‘‘Definitions’’), 38–503 (‘‘Conflict of 

interest; exemptions; employment 

prohibition’’), 38–504 (‘‘Prohibited 

acts’’), 38–505 (‘‘Additional income 

prohibited for services’’) 38–506 

(‘‘Remedies’’), 38–507 (‘‘Opinions of the 

attorney general, county attorneys, city 

or town attorneys and house and senate 

ethics committee’’), 38–508 (‘‘Authority 

of public officers and employees to 

act’’), 38–509 (Filing of disclosures’’), 

38–510 (‘‘Penalties’’), and 38–511 

(‘‘Cancellation of political subdivision 

and state contracts; definition’’); 

(iv) Title 49 (the environment), 

chapter 1 (general provisions), article 1 

(department of environmental quality), 

section 49–103 (‘‘Department 

employees; legal counsel’’), subsections 

(A)(2), (A)(4), (B)(3), and (B)(5) of 

section 49–104 (‘‘Powers and duties of 

the department and director’’), and 

sections 49–106 (‘‘Statewide application 

of rules’’) and 49–107 (‘‘Local delegation 

of state authority’’); 

(v) Title 49 (the environment), chapter 

3 (air quality), article 1 (general 

provisions), section 49–405 

(‘‘Attainment area designations’’); article 

2 (state air pollution control), sections 

49–421 (‘‘Definitions’’), 49–422 

(‘‘Powers and duties’’), 49–424 (‘‘Duties 

of department’’), 49–425 (‘‘Rules; 

hearing’’), 49–433 (‘‘Special inspection 

warrant’’), 49–435 (‘‘Hearings on orders 

of abatement’’), and 49–441 

(‘‘Suspension and revocation of 

conditional order’’), subsections (A) and 

(B)(2) of section 49–455 (‘‘Permit 

administration fund’’), and sections 49– 

460 (‘‘Violations; production of 

records’’), 49–461 (‘‘Violations; order of 

abatement’’), 49–462 (‘‘Violations; 

injunctive relief’’), 49–463 (‘‘Violations; 

civil penalties’’), and 49–465 (‘‘Air 

pollution emergency’’); and article 3 

(county air pollution control), sections 

49–471 (‘‘Definitions’’), 49–473 (‘‘Board 

of supervisors’’), 49–474 (‘‘County 

control boards’’), 49–476.01 

(‘‘Monitoring’’), 49–478 (‘‘Hearing 

board’’), 49–479 (‘‘Rules; hearing’’), 49– 

480.02 (‘‘Appeals of permit actions’’), 

49–482 (‘‘Appeals to hearing board’’), 

49–488 (‘‘Special inspection warrant’’), 

49–490 (‘‘Hearings on orders of 

abatement’’), 49–495 (‘‘Suspension and 

revocation of conditional order’’), 49– 

502 (‘‘Violation; classification’’), 49–510 

(‘‘Violations; production of records’’), 

49–511 (‘‘Violations; order of 

abatement’’), 49–512 (‘‘Violations; 

injunctive relief’’), and 49–513 

(‘‘Violations; civil penalties’’). 

(153) The following plan was 

submitted on October 14, 2009, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) ‘‘Arizona State Implementation 

Plan Revision under Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2): 

Implementation of 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, and 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ September 2009, adopted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on October 14, 

2009, excluding the appendices. 

■ 3. Section 52.123 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.123 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(l) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP; for 

CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 

Maricopa County, Pima County, and 

Pinal County portions of the Arizona 

SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) 

for the Pima County portion of the 

Arizona SIP. 

(m) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP; for 

CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 

Maricopa County, Pima County, and 

Pinal County portions of the Arizona 

SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) 

for the Pima County portion of the 

Arizona SIP. 

(n) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 

with measures in any other state to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for all 

portions of the Arizona SIP; for CAA 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the Maricopa 

County, Pima County, and Pinal County 

portions of the Arizona SIP; and for 

CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Pima 

County portion of the Arizona SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26322 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES