83868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1This submittal was transmitted with a cover 

letter dated March 20, 2019 from Timothy S. 

Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to 

Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX. 

2This submittal was made via the EPA’s eSIP 

submission system—State Plan electronic 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Frank T. Brogan, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28411 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0589; FRL–10017– 

39–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Stationary 

Sources; New Source Review Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions are primarily intended to 

make corrections to the ADEQ’s SIPapproved rules for the issuance of New 

Source Review (NSR) permits for 

stationary sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). This proposed action 

will update the ADEQ’s NSR rules in 

the SIP and correct the remaining 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s NSR 

program that we identified in final EPA 

rulemaking actions in 2015 and 2016. 

Additionally, we are proposing a 

finding that the ADEQ’s SIP-approved 

NSR permitting program meets 

requirements for visibility protection for 

major NSR sources under the Act and 

are proposing to remove Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) related to 

these requirements. We are seeking 

comment on our proposed action and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2020–0589 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information the disclosure of 

which disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Beckham, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: 

(415) 972–3811 or by email at 

beckham.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of the rules in 

the Arizona SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of the submittals? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

submittals? 

B. Do the submittals meet the evaluation 

criteria for NSR programs? 

C. Evaluation of Rules Requested To Be 

Removed From the SIP 

D. Approval of Program for Visibility 

Protection in Class I Areas 

E. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria 

under Sections 110(a)(2)(A), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i), 110(l), and 193 of the 

Clean Air Act? 

F. Conclusion 

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For this document, we are giving 

meaning to certain words or initials as 

follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer 

to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(iii) The initials ARS mean or refer to 

the Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(iv) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(v) The initials CFR mean or refer to 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

(vi) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(vii) The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(viii) The initials MMBtu/hr mean or 

refer to million British thermal units per 

hour. 

(ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(x) The initials NESHAP mean or refer 

to National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

(xi) The initials NNSR mean or refer 

to Nonattainment New Source Review. 

(xii) The initals NO2 mean or refer to 

nitrogen dioxide. 

(xiii) The initials NOX mean or refer 

to oxides of nitrogen. 

(xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer 

to New Source Performance Statndards. 

(xv) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(xvi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine 

particulate matter). 

(xvii) The initials PSD mean or refer 

to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(xviii) The initials SIP mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(xix) The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

(xx) The words State or Arizona mean 

the State of Arizona, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(xxi) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

the technical support document for this 

action, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. What did the State submit? 

The ADEQ is the governor’s designee 

for submitting official revisions of the 

Arizona SIP to the EPA. This proposal 

evaluates three SIP revisions submitted 

by the ADEQ on March 29, 2019,1

January 14, 2020, and July 22, 2020.2


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83869 

Collaboration System (SPeCS) for SIPs—on July 22, 

2020. A copy of the submission form is available 

in the docket for this action. Due to an apparent 

typographical error, the cover letter for the 

submittal was erroneously dated as July 21, 2017 

rather than July 21, 2020. Additionally, an Excel 

spreadsheet that is part of the submittal but that 

was not submitted through the SPeCS was 

submitted to the EPA via email on July 21, 2020. 

The spreadsheet and transmittal email are also 

included in the docket for this action. 

3We note that this rule contains a new provision 

stating that a particular revised subsection, R18–2– 

101(131)(f), will take effect on the effective date of 

the EPA Administrator’s action approving it as part 

of the Arizona SIP. Therefore, the revised version 

of R18–2–101(131)(f) would become effective on the 

effective date of our approval of the current 

submittal of R18–2–101. 

The submittals include several rules and 

demonstrations related to the ADEQ’s 

NSR program. 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the rules 

addressed by this proposal with the 

dates on which they became effective 

under State law. The ADEQ’s January 

14, 2020 submittal requested that 

specific paragraphs from certain revised 

rules be added to the Arizona SIP. The 

ADEQ’s July 22, 2020 submittal clarifies 

that the ADEQ requests that the entirety 

of each revised rule (with one 

exception) be included in the SIP, rather 

than only the selected paragraphs 

identified in the earlier submittal. As 

such, Table 1 of this preamble reflects 

the updated rule submission request in 

the July 22, 2020 submittal. The 

submitted rules are from the Arizona 

Administrative Code, Title 18— 

Environmental Quality, Chapter 2— 

Department of Environmental Quality— 

Air Pollution Control, Articles 1, 3, and 

4. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Rule Title 

State 

effective 

date 

R18–2–101, except (20) ............................ Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 3 2/1/2020 

R18–2–301 ................................................. Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 2/1/2020 

R18–2–302 ................................................. Applicability; Registration; Classes of Permits ............................................................... 3/21/2017 

R18–2–302.01 ............................................ Source Registration Requirements ................................................................................. 2/1/2020 

R18–2–304 ................................................. Permit Application Processing Procedures .................................................................... 2/1/2020 

R18–2–306 ................................................. Permit Contents .............................................................................................................. 3/21/2017 

R18–2–306.01 ............................................ Permits Containing Voluntarily Accepted Emission Limitations and Standards ............ 3/21/2017 

R18–2–317 ................................................. Facility Changes Allowed Without Permit Revisions—Class I ....................................... 8/7/2012 

R18–2–317.01 ............................................ Facility Changes that Require a Permit Revision—Class II ........................................... 8/7/2012 

R18–2–317.02 ............................................ Procedures for Certain Changes that Do Not Require a Permit Revision—Class II ..... 8/7/2012 

R18–2–319 ................................................. Minor Permit Revisions ................................................................................................... 3/21/2017 

R18–2–320 ................................................. Significant Permit Revisions ........................................................................................... 3/21/2017 

R18–2–334 ................................................. Minor New Source Review ............................................................................................. 2/1/2020 

R18–2–406 ................................................. Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassifiable Areas ..... 2/1/2020 

On September 29, 2019 and July 14, 

2020, the March 29, 2019 and January 

14, 2020 submittals, respectively, were 

determined complete by operation of 

law to meet the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

On November 17, 2020, the EPA 

determined that the July 22, 2020 

submittal met the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

The proposed SIP revisions will apply 

to all areas and sources in Arizona for 

which the ADEQ has permitting 

jurisdiction. The ADEQ has permitting 

jurisdiction for the following stationary 

source categories in all areas of Arizona: 

Smelting of metal ores, coal-fired 

electric generating stations, petroleum 

refineries, Portland cement plants, and 

portable sources. The ADEQ also has 

permitting jurisdiction for major and 

minor sources in the following counties: 

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, 

Navajo, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma. 

Finally, ADEQ has permitting 

jurisdiction over major sources in Pinal 

County (currently delegated to Pinal 

County) and any source in Maricopa, 

Pima, or Pinal County for which the 

ADEQ asserts jurisdiction. 

B. Are there other versions of the rules 

in the Arizona SIP? 

Table 2 lists the existing rules in the 

Arizona SIP that would be superseded 

or removed from the Arizona SIP as part 

of our proposed action. If the EPA were 

to take final action as proposed herein, 

these rules generally would be replaced 

in the SIP by the submitted set of rules 

listed in Table 1 of this document. 

TABLE 2—RULES TO BE SUPERSEDED OR REMOVED

Rule Title EPA approval date Federal Register 

citation 

R18–2–101 .................... Definitions .......................................................................... May 4, 2018 ........................................ 83 FR 19631 

R18–2–301 .................... Definitions .......................................................................... November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–302 .................... Applicability; Registration; Classes of Permits .................. November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–302.01 ............... Source Registration Requirements .................................... November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–304 .................... Permit Application Processing Procedures ....................... November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–306 .................... Permit Contents ................................................................. November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–306.01 ............... Permits Containing Voluntarily Accepted Emission Limitations and Standards.November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–319 .................... Minor Permit Revisions ...................................................... November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–320 .................... Significant Permit Revisions .............................................. November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–334 .................... Minor New Source Review ................................................ November 2, 2015 .............................. 80 FR 67319 

R18–2–406 .................... Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment 

and Unclassifiable Areas.

May 4, 2018 ........................................ 83 FR 19631 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83870 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

4CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval 

be clear and legally enforceable, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out their proposed SIP revisions. 

5We also finalized other actions, which included 

a partial disapproval related to the fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) significant monitoring concentration, 

and limited approvals, without corresponding 

limited disapprovals, related to section 189(e) of the 

Act. 

TABLE 2—RULES TO BE SUPERSEDED OR REMOVED—Continued 

Rule Title EPA approval date Federal Register 

citation 

R9–3–217, paragraph A Attainment Areas; Classification and Standards ............... April 23, 1982 ...................................... 47 FR 17483 

C. What is the purpose of the 

submittals? 

On March 29, 2019, the ADEQ 

submitted a SIP submittal intended to 

resolve a conditional approval relating 

to the permitting of fine particular 

matter (PM2.5) precursors in PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The ADEQ 

supplemented the submittal on January 

14, 2020 (the March 29, 2019 submittal 

and January 14, 2020 supplement are 

collectively referred to hereinafter as the 

‘‘Ammonia PM2.5 NSR submittal’’). The 

January 14, 2020 supplement also 

included other minor and technical rule 

revisions to the ADEQ’s NSR program. 

On July 22, 2020, the ADEQ submitted 

a SIP revision to address outstanding 

deficiencies in its NSR program, 

pertaining primarily to the ADEQ’s 

minor NSR program, that were 

identified by the EPA in a final rule 

action in 2015 (referred to hereinafter as 

the ‘‘2020 Minor NSR submittal’’). In the 

2020 Minor NSR submittal, the ADEQ 

also requested that the EPA remove the 

visibility FIPs at 40 CFR 52.27 and 52.28 

as applied to major sources subject to 

the ADEQ’s permitting jurisdiction, as 

its SIP-approved NSR program 

requirements also satisfy the CAA 

visibility requirements in 40 CFR 

51.307. 

The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about the content of these submittals 

(collectively referred to hereinafter as 

the ‘‘2019–20 NSR submittals’’). 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

submittals? 

The EPA has reviewed the rules and 

other materials submitted for SIP 

approval by the ADEQ that are the 

subject of this action for compliance 

with the CAA’s general requirements for 

SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), including 

110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); 4 the 

EPA’s regulations for stationary source 

permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart I; and the CAA requirements for 

SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l) and 

193. 

With respect to procedures, CAA 

sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that 

revisions to a SIP be adopted by the 

state after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. The EPA has promulgated 

specific procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, and 

an opportunity for a public hearing. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, we have reviewed the 

submittals that are the subject of our 

current action in accordance with the 

CAA and applicable regulatory 

requirements, focusing primarily on 

those that apply to minor NSR programs 

under 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permit programs under part C of 

title I of the Act, and Nonattainment 

NSR (NNSR) permit programs under 

part D of title I of the Act. The 2019– 

20 NSR submittals are primarily 

intended to correct the remaining 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s NSR 

program that we previously identified in 

final rule actions, as discussed below, 

and therefore we reviewed them both to 

determine whether those corrections 

had been made and to more generally 

ensure that the submitted rule revisions 

comply with the CAA and applicable 

regulatory requirements. In addition, we 

reviewed the ADEQ’s NSR regulations 

to determine whether they meet the 

CAA visibility requirements in 40 CFR 

51.307 for sources subject to PSD and 

NNSR review. 

As background, on November 2, 2015 

(80 FR 67319), the EPA published a 

final limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a 2012 SIP revision 

submittal to the ADEQ portion of the 

Arizona SIP (referred to hereinafter as 

the EPA’s ‘‘2015 NSR action’’).5 Our 

2015 NSR action updated the ADEQ’s 

SIP-approved NSR permitting program, 

but identified deficiencies that needed 

to be corrected for the EPA to grant full 

approval of the ADEQ’s NSR program. 

Thus, our 2015 NSR action triggered an 

obligation for the EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the deficiencies that were the 

basis for our limited disapproval action 

unless the State of Arizona corrected the 

deficiencies, and the EPA approved the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of that final action. In addition, to avoid 

sanctions under section 179 of the Act, 

the ADEQ had 18 months from 

December 2, 2015, the effective date of 

our 2015 NSR action, to correct those 

deficiencies related to part D of title I of 

the Act. 

On June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40525), the 

EPA also published a separate but 

related final limited disapproval action 

for the ADEQ’s NNSR program, as the 

ADEQ’s program did not fully address 

PM2.5 precursors as required by section 

189(e) of the Act (referred to hereinafter 

as the EPA’s ‘‘2016 PM2.5 precursor 

action’’). This action triggered an 

obligation for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP to address this deficiency unless the 

State of Arizona corrected the 

deficiency, and the EPA approved the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action. In addition, to avoid 

sanctions under section 179 of the Act, 

the ADEQ had 18 months from the July 

22, 2016 effective date of our 2016 PM2.5

precursor action to correct the 

deficiency as it related to part D of title 

I of the Act. 

On May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19631), the 

EPA published a final rule approving 

revisions to the ADEQ’s NSR program, 

primarily related to the PSD and NNSR 

programs (referred to hereinafter as the 

‘‘2018 Major NSR action’’). The 2018 

Major NSR action corrected a 

substantial portion of the deficiencies 

identified in our 2015 NSR action and 

our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action. The 

2018 Major NSR action also included a 

conditional approval of the ADEQ’s 

NNSR program related to one specific 

component of the deficiency identified 

in our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action, 

discussed in greater detail in Section 

II.B.5 of this preamble. We note that 

concurrent with our proposed 

conditional approval action in 2018, we 

made an interim final determination 

that the State of Arizona had satisfied 

the requirements of part D of the CAA 

permitting program for areas under the 

jurisdiction of ADEQ with respect to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83871 

6See 83 FR 1195 (January 10, 2018) and 83 FR 

1212 (January 10, 2018). 

PM2.5 precursors under section 189(e).6

The effect of our interim final 

determination was that the imposition 

of sanctions that had been triggered was 

deferred. Following the 2018 Major NSR 

action, several outstanding deficiencies 

in the ADEQ’s NSR program remained. 

The submittals that are the subject of 

this proposed action are intended to 

correct the remaining deficiencies 

identified in our 2015 NSR action and 

the deficiency that formed the basis for 

our conditional approval in our 2018 

Major NSR action, so that the ADEQ’s 

NSR program would be fully approved. 

In addition, in the 2020 Minor NSR 

submittal, the ADEQ requested that we 

remove the visibility FIPs at 40 CFR 

52.27 and 40 CFR 52.28, which would 

result from our determining that the 

ADEQ’s NSR regulations meet the CAA 

visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307 

for sources subject to PSD and NNSR 

review under the ADEQ’s permitting 

jurisdiction. Our analysis focuses on 

these issues; however, we also reviewed 

the submitted rules and rule revisions to 

ensure that they otherwise adhere to the 

relevant CAA requirements. 

For reference, the docket for the 

present action includes the EPA’s TSDs 

for the 2015 NSR action and the 2018 

Major NSR action, a June 22, 2015 EPA 

memorandum, and the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for our 2016 PM2.5

precursor action. The TSD for our 2015 

NSR action, which was prepared in 

support of the EPA’s proposal that 

preceded our final 2015 NSR action, 

contains a detailed discussion of the 

NSR program, its requirements, and the 

deficiencies we identified in the 

ADEQ’s 2012 NSR SIP submittal. We 

note that there were several proposed 

deficiencies discussed in the 2015 TSD 

that we subsequently determined, in our 

final action, did not serve as bases for 

our limited disapproval. The June 22, 

2015 EPA memorandum provides the 

list of deficiencies from our 2015 NSR 

action that formed the basis for our final 

limited disapproval of the ADEQ’s 2012 

NSR SIP submittal, many of which were 

addressed in our 2018 Major NSR 

action. Our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action 

did not include a separate TSD; our 

notice of proposed rulemaking from 

May 2, 2016 (81 FR 26186) provides our 

detailed analysis supporting that limited 

disapproval action. 

B. Do the submittals meet the evaluation 

criteria for NSR programs? 

Our 2015 NSR action, including our 

proposed action on March 18, 2015 (80 

FR 14044), provides a detailed 

discussion of the approval criteria for 

the NSR program and how the ADEQ’s 

NSR rules that we reviewed in that 

action generally meet the approval 

criteria despite certain deficiencies that 

required correction in order for the EPA 

to fully approve the ADEQ’s NSR 

program. In this action, we are focusing 

our review on the revisions that the 

ADEQ made to correct the remaining 

deficiencies we identified in our 2015 

NSR action and the deficiency that 

formed the basis for our conditional 

approval in our 2018 Major NSR action. 

We also reviewed other revisions the 

ADEQ made in the 2019–20 NSR 

submittals to ensure that the revised 

language is consistent with applicable 

requirements of the Act and the EPA 

regulations. In addition, we reviewed 

the ADEQ’s NSR program regulations to 

determine whether they satisfied the 

CAA visibility review requirements in 

40 CFR 51.307 for sources subject to 

PSD or NNSR review under the ADEQ’s 

permitting jurisdiction. 

We are proposing approval of the 

2019–20 NSR submittals because they 

would correct the remaining 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s NSR 

program that we identified in our 2015 

NSR action and that formed the basis for 

our conditional approval in our 2018 

Major NSR action, and because they are 

otherwise consistent with the 

requirements for NSR programs and the 

Act. Our detailed analysis of the 

ADEQ’s 2019–20 NSR submittals is 

provided in the TSD for this action. 

Below we briefly discuss the remaining 

previously identified deficiencies that 

this action, if finalized, would correct. 

1. Deficiencies Corrected Related to 

Required Legally Enforceable 

Procedures 

The ADEQ has corrected deficiencies 

related to the required legally 

enforceable procedures for minor NSR 

permitting programs in 40 CFR 51.160. 

Most of the corrections were rule 

revisions and are described below. 

Additionally, the ADEQ needed to 

provide a basis for the exclusion of 

certain stationary sources from its NSR 

program. Those demonstrations are also 

described further below. 

In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA 

found that, in some instances, the 

ADEQ’s 2012 NSR submittal did not 

ensure that a source would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in neighboring areas outside 

the ADEQ’s permitting jurisdiction 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(a) and 

(b). We find that the ADEQ has 

corrected this issue by revising the 

definition for ‘‘attainment area’’ and by 

revising the ADEQ rules R18–2–302.01, 

R18–2–334, and R18–2–406 to use terms 

that reference the NAAQS instead of 

state standards and clearly apply the 

NAAQS to neighboring areas. See R18– 

2–101(19), R18–2–302.01(C), R18–2– 

334(C)(2) and (F), and R18–2–406(A)(5). 

The revisions to R18–2–101(19) and 

R18–2–406(A)(5) were approved into 

the Arizona SIP in our 2018 Major NSR 

action. The ADEQ also corrected an 

issue under 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b) in 

R18–2–302.01 by adding a reference to 

‘‘or maintenance’’ of a standard, instead 

of just ‘‘attainment of a standard’’ at 

R18–2–302.01(C)(4). 

In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA 

found that for sources subject to the 

ADEQ’s registration program at R18–2– 

302.01, the 2012 NSR submittal did not 

demonstrate that the ADEQ’s NSR 

program met the requirement to ensure 

that sources subject to NSR review 

comply with the applicable portions of 

the control strategy, as required by 40 

CFR 51.160(b)(1). The ADEQ has 

corrected this issue by revising R18–2– 

302.01(E) accordingly. 

As discussed in our 2015 NSR action, 

the ADEQ’s registration program at R18– 

2–302.01 did not previously contain 

enforceable procedures for the owner or 

operator to submit the necessary 

information for the ADEQ to determine 

whether a source will violate the 

applicable control strategy or interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 

51.160(c). The ADEQ corrected this 

issue by revising R18–2–302.01(A)(3) to 

remove a reference to R18–2–327(C), a 

rule not in the SIP, and to instead use 

the term ‘‘maximum capacity to emit 

with elective limits,’’ which is a newly 

defined term that is used in conjunction 

with another newly defined term 

‘‘maximum capacity to emit.’’ See R18– 

2–301(12) and (13). The term that was 

previously used, ‘‘uncontrolled 

potential to emit,’’ is no longer defined 

or used in the ADEQ’s NSR program. 

We find these revisions and the new 

definitions for ‘‘maximum capacity to 

emit’’ and ‘‘maximum capacity to emit 

with elective limits’’ acceptable. 

Previously, the ADEQ’s program did 

not meet the requirement that the 

applicant submit information related to 

the nature and amounts of emissions, 

for certain kinds of emissions units, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1). For 

Class I and Class II permit applications, 

R18–2–304 previously allowed sources 

to avoid providing emissions 

information for ‘‘insignificant 

activities,’’ as defined in R18–2–101(68). 

The ADEQ corrected this issue by 

revising R18–2–304 to specify that 

emissions information from 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83872 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

7The 2012 NSR SIP submittal used data from 

only Maricopa County. The ADEQ is not the 

permitting authority for stationary sources in 

Maricopa County, which has lower permitting 

thresholds. The ADEQ explains that Maricopa 

County is a large urban area that may have many 

small sources that can contribute to nonattainment 

areas, but the nonattainment areas for which the 

ADEQ has minor NSR permitting jurisdiction are 

significantly different and more rural. 

8The ADEQ’s 2012 analysis showed that the 

ADEQ expected to cover, approximately, between 

35% to 80% of emissions through its minor and 

major NSR programs. See our TSD for the 2015 NSR 

action, 25, Table 5. The updated analysis in Table 

3 of the TSD for this proposed action shows that 

the ADEQ is expected to cover between 69% to 

100% of emissions through its minor and major 

NSR programs. 

insignificant activities must be provided 

to the extent necessary to determine 

applicability of the minor and major 

NSR programs (R18–2–334 and Article 4 

of ADEQ’s rules, respectively). See R18– 

2–304(F)(8). 

Previously, for sources subject to the 

ADEQ’s registration program at R18–2– 

302.01, the ADEQ’s program did not 

meet the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.160(d) that its procedures provide 

that approval of construction or 

modification will not affect the 

responsibility of the owner or operator 

to comply with applicable portions of 

the control strategy. The ADEQ 

corrected this issue by adding this 

requirement for sources subject to R18– 

2–302.01, at R18–2–302.01(I). 

The EPA found in our 2015 NSR 

action that the ADEQ’s registration 

program at R18–2–302.01 did not meet 

the requirement to use appendix W to 

40 CFR part 51 for air quality modeling 

as required by 40 CFR 51.160(f)(1). The 

ADEQ corrected this issue by revising 

R18–302.01(C) to reference a ‘‘screening 

model,’’ a newly defined term in revised 

R18–2–301 that requires the use of 

appendix W. 

In our 2015 NSR action, we found that 

the ADEQ’s program had several 

deficiencies related to 40 CFR 51.160(e) 

because the 2012 NSR SIP submittal did 

not provide an adequate basis for certain 

sources that are excluded from the 

ADEQ’s minor NSR permitting program. 

40 CFR 51.160(e) requires the ADEQ to 

provide a basis for the types and sizes 

of facilities, buildings, structures, or 

installations that will be subject to 

review under 40 CFR 51.160. That is, 40 

CFR 51.160(e) allows state minor NSR 

programs to exclude some new minor 

sources and minor modifications to the 

extent they are inconsequential to 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. We are now proposing 

approval of the ADEQ’s NSR program 

under 40 CFR 51.160(e). The 

demonstrations provided by the ADEQ 

address: The ADEQ’s NSR permitting 

exemption thresholds, as they apply in 

nonattainment areas; the ADEQ’s PM2.5

NSR permitting threshold in attainment 

and nonattainment areas; the exemption 

of certain small fuel burning equipment; 

and the exemption of agricultural 

equipment used in normal farm 

operations. 

With respect to the minor NSR 

permitting thresholds, the ADEQ looked 

at the 2014 National Emissions 

Inventory for sources in Arizona to 

determine the percentage of emissions 

and stationary sources covered by the 

ADEQ’s minor NSR program.7 The 

results show the percentage of 

stationary sources and emissions 

expected to be covered by the ADEQ’s 

NSR program as compared to the entire 

state, areas of the state subject to the 

ADEQ minor NSR jurisdiction (i.e., all 

counties except Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal), and the four counties subject to 

state minor NSR jurisdiction that 

include nonattainment areas (Cochise, 

Gila, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai). This 

updated analysis, the results of which 

are included in our TSD, shows that the 

ADEQ’s minor NSR program may cover 

a significantly higher percentage of 

stationary source emissions than 

originally determined, including in 

nonattainment areas.8 The ADEQ’s 

updated analysis follows the same 

approach that the EPA used in 

developing the minor NSR program for 

Indian country, which we find 

acceptable. Additionally, the ADEQ’s 

2020 Minor NSR submittal contains a 

discussion of the types of emission 

sources that largely contribute to 

nonattainment in the nonattainment 

areas for which the ADEQ has minor 

NSR permitting jurisdiction. This 

discussion shows that minor sources are 

not currently significant contributors to 

the nonattainment issues in these areas. 

While PM2.5 emissions data were not 

available for the original source 

distribution analysis in the 2012 NSR 

SIP submittal, the updated analysis 

shows that, based on the minor NSR 

threshold for PM2.5, the ADEQ’s NSR 

program is expected to cover a high 

percentage of emissions in both 

attainment and nonattainment areas 

(greater than 95% in nonattainment 

areas). We find that the ADEQ’s minor 

NSR threshold for PM2.5 provides 

adequate assurance that the sources 

exempted from regulation under the 

minor NSR program by the threshold 

would be inconsequential to attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In our 2015 NSR action, we found that 

the ADEQ needed to provide an 

interpretation of the exemption for 

small fuel burning equipment, rated less 

than one million British thermal units 

per hour (MMBtu/hr), in state law at 

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 

49–426(B), and how it does, or does not, 

apply in the context of its major and 

minor NSR programs, and, to the extent 

such equipment is not subject to NSR 

review, the ADEQ’s basis for 

determining that equipment exempted 

under this provision does not need to be 

reviewed as part of the ADEQ’s minor 

NSR program under 40 CFR 51.160(e). 

The 2020 Minor NSR submittal explains 

that only those stationary sources that 

consist solely of equipment with a 

cumulative heat input rate of less than 

1 MMBtu/hr are eligible for the 

exemption in ARS section 49–426(B). 

Because the exemption is only available 

to those stationary sources that consist 

solely of fuel burning equipment with a 

cumulative rating of 1 MMBtu/hr, such 

sources will already be below the 

ADEQ’s permitting exemption 

thresholds. Thus, we find this 

exemption and explanation acceptable. 

The 2020 Minor NSR submittal 

contains a detailed discussion 

describing the ADEQ’s reasoning and 

analysis for the exemption for 

agricultural equipment used in normal 

farm operations in ADEQ rule R18–2– 

302. See 2020 Minor NSR submittal, 9– 

13, 24–25. The analysis is summarized 

here. The State of Arizona exempts 

‘‘agricultural equipment used in normal 

farm operations’’ from the general 

requirement to obtain a permit. See ARS 

49–426(A). The ADEQ implements this 

exemption in its permitting program by 

exempting ‘‘agricultural equipment used 

in normal farm operations’’ from the 

requirement to obtain a registration or 

permit at R18–2–302(C). The exemption 

does not apply if the source is a ‘‘major 

source’’ or if ‘‘operation without a 

permit would result in a violation of the 

Act.’’ Additionally, agricultural 

equipment used in normal farm 

operations does not include equipment 

classified as a source that requires a 

permit under title V of the Act, or that 

is subject to a standard under 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, or 63. 

In our 2015 NSR action, we stated that 

the ADEQ needed to identify whether 

‘‘agricultural equipment used in normal 

farm operations’’ could potentially be 

expected to occur at a stationary source 

subject to title V of the Act, 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, or 63, or major NSR, and, 

if so, whether such equipment is subject 

to NSR review at such sources. The 

ADEQ has clarified that the exemption 

at R18–2–302(C) represents the ADEQ’s 

interpretation of the agricultural 

exemption in ARS section 49–426(A) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83873 

9Attorney General’s Opinion at 2 (November 15, 

1993) (Appendix D of the 2020 Minor NSR 

submittal). 

and stated that the ‘‘rule has been 

recognized as valid by the Arizona 

Attorney General in its opinion 

supporting the state’s title V program in 

1993.’’ 9 The EPA deferred to this 

opinion in approving ADEQ’s title V 

program in 1996. The ADEQ also 

clarified that the ADEQ interprets its 

permitting requirements such that its 

permitting determinations (including for 

the registration program) are made on a 

source-wide basis. For an exemption to 

apply, all the pollutant-emitting 

activities within the same stationary 

source must qualify for the exemption. 

Therefore, if equipment used in normal 

farm operations is located at the same 

stationary source as non-exempt 

equipment that requires a permit, such 

as at a major source, a title V source, or 

a source subject to a standard under 40 

CFR part 60, 61, or 63, then permit 

requirements, and potentially NSR, 

extend to the entire source, including 

the equipment used in the farm 

operations. This also means that the 

exemption is potentially available only 

to minor sources. 

While the term ‘‘normal farm 

operations’’ is not specifically defined 

by statute or rule, the ADEQ finds the 

State’s Agricultural Best Management 

Practices (Ag BMP) program for PM10

nonattainment areas provides guidance 

on the State’s interpretation for the 

types of activities that constitute normal 

farm operations, as described under the 

Ag BMP statute at ARS section 49– 

457(P)(1). The activities include: 

Tillage, planting, and harvesting; areas 

of a commercial farm that are not 

normally in crop production (i.e., 

fallow); areas of a commercial farm that 

are normally in crop production; 

significant agricultural earthmoving 

activities; traffic over unpaved access 

connections or unpaved roads or feed 

lanes; animal waste handling and 

transporting; arenas, corrals, and pens; 

and canals. The ADEQ also interprets 

the normal farm operations exemption 

to apply to crop and feed processing 

equipment that produces only fugitive 

emissions. We consider all the 

identified activities to be sources of 

fugitive emissions. 

The ADEQ’s current SIP-approved 

NSR program already exempts fugitive 

emissions in determining whether a 

stationary source is subject to minor 

NSR permitting requirements. See R18– 

2–302(F). While this exemption does 

not apply to stationary sources that 

belong to certain source categories, 

referred to as ‘‘section 302(j) category’’ 

sources, normal farm operations are not 

section 302(j) category sources. See 

R18–2–101(129). This fugitive emissions 

exemption for determining minor NSR 

applicability reflects the same approach 

that the EPA took for its minor NSR 

program developed for Indian country. 

See 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.161, 

including the definition for ‘‘minor 

source’’ and ‘‘modification’’ at 40 CFR 

49.152. In the ADEQ’s experience, the 

overwhelming majority of normal farm 

operations would be excluded from 

permitting on this basis, even if the 

normal farm operations exemption were 

not available. Farm emissions tend to 

consist almost exclusively of fugitive 

dust generated by the disturbance of 

soils. 

The ADEQ also recognizes that it is 

possible for equipment used in normal 

farm operations to be part of a stationary 

source that produces stack emissions 

greater than the permitting exemption 

threshold. In most cases, the ADEQ 

believes that such a stationary source 

would not qualify for the exemption. 

R18–2–302(C) provides that equipment 

used in normal farm operations ‘‘does 

not include equipment classified as a 

source that requires a permit under title 

V of the Act, or that is subject to’’ an 

New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) or National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 

In addition, permit applicability is 

determined on a stationary-source-wide 

basis. Thus, if a stationary source that 

engaged in normal farm operations 

qualified as a title V source or included 

equipment subject to an NSPS or 

NESHAP, the entire source would 

require a permit and potentially be 

subject to minor NSR if its emissions 

were above the NSR permitting 

exemption thresholds. In the ADEQ’s 

experience, most permitted sources 

include one or more pieces of 

equipment subject to an NSPS. It is 

therefore likely that if equipment used 

in normal farm operations were 

collocated with equipment with stack 

emissions exceeding the permitting 

exemption thresholds, at least some of 

that equipment would be subject to an 

NSPS, and the normal farm operations 

exemption would not apply. 

Additionally, a source with equipment 

subject to a NESHAP or a source that 

qualifies as a title V source would not 

be exempted. 

Finally, the ADEQ stated that under 

R18–2–302(C), equipment used in 

normal farm operations is not exempt if 

‘‘operation [of the equipment] without a 

permit would result in a violation of the 

Act,’’ which provides a final safeguard. 

In the few remaining potential 

situations where equipment used in 

normal farm operations is located at a 

stationary source with stack emissions 

above the permitting exemption 

threshold that is not subject to 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, 63 or title V, the ADEQ will 

invoke this provision to ensure that any 

such source does not endanger 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS or enforcement of the control 

strategy. 

In sum, the ADEQ has demonstrated 

that its exemption for agricultural 

equipment used in normal farm 

operations is extremely limited in 

scope, and the potential sources 

exempted from permitting would be 

inconsequential to attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. This 

determination is based on the ADEQ’s 

interpretation of the narrow manner in 

which the exemption applies, the 

limited types of operations that are 

considered to be ‘‘normal farm 

operations,’’ and the ADEQ’s retention 

of authority to address any potentially 

exempt sources that may endanger 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS or enforcement of the control 

strategy. We agree that the vast majority 

of these operations are likely already 

exempted from the ADEQ’s SIPapproved minor NSR program under the 

general exemption for excluding fugitive 

emissions in permitting applicability 

determinations. We find the ADEQ’s 

basis and explanation for the exemption 

from minor NSR review for agricultural 

equipment used in normal farm 

operations to be acceptable. 

2. Deficiencies Corrected Related to 

Public Availability of Information 

In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA 

identified several deficiencies with the 

ADEQ’s NSR program concerning the 

requirements related to public 

availability of information in 40 CFR 

51.161. First, the ADEQ’s program did 

not ensure that all minor sources subject 

to NSR review under the ADEQ’s NSR 

program, as the ADEQ defined it 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160(e), are 

subject to public notice and comment 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.161(a). The 

ADEQ corrected this deficiency by 

revising R18–2–334 to remove the 

previous public notice exemption for 

certain permit applications. 

Additionally, the 2020 Minor NSR 

submittal clarifies that the use of the 

term ‘‘construction,’’ as defined in R18– 

2–101(32), in R18–2–302.01 ensures that 

modifications to a registered source at or 

above the permitting exemption 

thresholds will be subject to public 

notice. Next, the ADEQ’s registration 

program at R18–2–302.01 previously 

did not contain sufficient enforceable 

procedures for sources taking ‘‘elective 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83874 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

10A copy of the SIP-approved R18–2–330 is 

included in the docket for this action. 

11See Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements, 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016). 

12See 81 FR 40525. 

13See id. Our 2016 proposed action contained a 

detailed discussion of the ADEQ’s PM2.5 NSR 

program and this limited disapproval issue. See 

Proposed Rule, Limited Disapproval of Air Plan 

Revisions; Arizona; New Source Review; PM 2.5. 81 

FR 26185 (May 2, 2016). 

14See 83 FR 19631. 

limits’’ to limit their potential to emit in 

a manner that allows the source to avoid 

the public participation requirements in 

40 CFR 51.161(a), while otherwise being 

subject to the registration program. The 

ADEQ corrected this deficiency by 

adding additional specificity to how 

elective limits are set, ensuring that 

such limits will include the time period 

over which the limitations apply, and 

ensuring sufficient recordkeeping to 

demonstrate compliance. See R18–2– 

302.01(F). 

The ADEQ’s NSR program also did 

not include sufficient public notice 

procedures for registrations or the 

proposed disapproval of an application 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.161(a). The 

ADEQ revised R18–2–330 to clarify the 

public notice procedures for 

registrations and to require public 

notice for a proposed disapproval of an 

application. See R18–2–330(A). We 

approved the revisions to R18–2–330 in 

our 2018 Major NSR action but did not 

note in that action that the revisions 

corrected this deficiency.10

Finally, in our 2015 NSR action, the 

EPA identified as a deficiency that the 

ADEQ’s NSR program did not provide 

notice to the necessary parties identified 

in 40 CFR 51.161(d) for sources required 

to obtain registrations under R18–2– 

302.01. The ADEQ corrected this 

deficiency by adding this requirement at 

R18–2–302.01(B)(4). 

3. Deficiencies Corrected Related to 

Administrative Procedures 

40 CFR 51.163 requires each NSR 

program to include the administrative 

procedures that will be followed in 

reviewing new and modified sources, as 

specified in 40 CFR 51.160(a). In our 

2015 NSR action, we found that the 

ADEQ’s 2012 NSR SIP submittal 

contained administrative procedures 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.163; 

however, not all the procedures 

referenced in the 2012 NSR SIP 

submittal were submitted for inclusion 

into the SIP. The ADEQ corrected this 

deficiency by submitting R18–2–317, 

R18–2–317.01, and R18–2–317.02. 

These rules generally identify the types 

of changes at Class I and II sources that 

do or do not require a permit revision 

and require that projects triggering 

minor or major NSR review obtain 

permit revisions in advance. We have 

reviewed these rules for inclusion in the 

ADEQ’s SIP-approved NSR program and 

find them acceptable. 

4. Resolution of Minor NSR Program 

Deficiencies 

For the reasons stated above, we 

propose to find that the 2019–2020 NSR 

submittals correct all remaining 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s minor NSR 

program that were identified in our 

2015 NSR action as the basis for our 

limited disapproval. 

5. Resolution of PM2.5 NNSR Program 

Deficiency 

The only outstanding deficiency in 

the ADEQ’s NNSR program identified in 

our earlier actions relates to the 

treatment of ammonia as a precursor to 

PM2.5 for the West Central Pinal and 

Nogales PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As 

background, in 2016, the EPA finalized 

regulatory requirements for SIPs related 

to implementing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(‘‘2012 PM2.5 implementation rule’’).11

The 2012 PM2.5 implementation rule 

included regulatory requirements that 

states must adopt in permitting 

programs in PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

to address the requirements for PM2.5

precursors for major stationary sources 

under section 189(e) of the Act. For 

purposes of the NNSR program, the EPA 

specified that PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5

nonattainment areas include NOX, VOC, 

SO2, and ammonia. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2). 

In the EPA’s 2016 PM2.5 precursor 

action, we finalized a narrow, limited 

disapproval action for deficiencies in 

the ADEQ’s NNSR program related to 

PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas.12 For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

CAA section 189(e) requires that the 

control requirements applicable under 

plans in effect under part D of the CAA 

for major stationary sources of PM2.5

also apply to major stationary sources of 

PM2.5 precursors, except where the EPA 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 

that exceed the standards in the area. In 

our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action, we 

determined that the ADEQ’s 2012 NSR 

SIP submittal did not fully satisfy the 

major NNSR requirements for PM2.5

under section 189(e) of the Act for the 

Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5

nonattainment areas, based on our 

finding that the submittal did not 

include rules regulating VOCs or 

ammonia as PM2.5 precursors under the 

NNSR program, nor did it include a 

demonstration showing that the 

regulation of VOCs and ammonia was 

not necessary under section 189(e).13

In our 2018 Major NSR action, we 

found that the ADEQ’s April 28, 2017 

SIP revision submittal (‘‘2017 Major 

NSR submittal’’), which mostly 

pertained to NSR program updates for 

major sources, contained revisions that 

updated the ADEQ’s NNSR program to 

address all the deficiencies with that 

program that were identified in our 

2015 NSR action. We also found that the 

ADEQ’s 2017 Major NSR submittal 

addressed the deficiencies we identified 

in our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action 

related to PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5

nonattainment areas, with one 

exception: We found that the ADEQ’s 

rule revisions did not fully meet the 

requirements of the 2012 PM2.5

implementation rule as it relates to 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. 

Specifically, while the ADEQ’s NNSR 

program included ammonia as a 

precursor to PM2.5, at R18–2– 

101(124)(a)(iv), we found that the 2017 

Major NSR submittal did not define the 

threshold at which emissions increases 

of ammonia are considered ‘‘significant’’ 

for determining when modifications at 

existing major sources of ammonia are 

major modifications subject to NNSR, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(F).14

Accordingly, while our 2018 Major 

NSR action approved the rule revisions 

in the ADEQ’s 2017 Major NSR 

submittal, our action also included a 

conditional approval with respect to 

ammonia as precursor to PM2.5

emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

A December 6, 2017 commitment letter 

from the ADEQ provided adequate 

assurance that the remaining NNSR 

program deficiency related to ammonia 

as a PM2.5 precursor in PM2.5

nonattainment areas would be 

addressed in a timely manner, 

consistent with CAA section 110(k)(4). 

Our 2018 Major NSR action 

conditionally approved the ADEQ’s 

NSR program with respect to ammonia 

as a PM2.5 precursor based on this 

commitment. The ADEQ’s Ammonia 

PM2.5 NSR submittal satisfies the 

requirements of our conditional 

approval and corrects this outstanding 

deficiency. 

Specifically, the ADEQ’s Ammonia 

PM2.5 NSR submittal includes a rule 

revision that sets a rate of 40 tons per 

year as ‘‘significant’’ in reference to the 

significant emission rate (SER) used to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83875 

15For example, the EPA has approved an 

ammonia SER of 40 tpy for Alleghany County, 

Pennsylvania (85 FR 36161, June 15, 2020); Knox 

County, Tennesse (83 FR 46880, September 17, 

2018); Imperial County, California 84 FR 44545, 

(August 26, 2019); and Los Angeles—South Coast 

Air Basin, CA (83 FR 61551, November 30, 2018). 

16See 83 FR 19631, 19633, 19634 (May 4, 2018). 

17 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017). 18 82 FR 14324 (March 20, 2017). 

determine those projects that constitute 

a major modification at major sources of 

ammonia. See R18–2–101(131)(f). A SER 

of 40 tpy for ammonia has been 

approved by the EPA for several other 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas,15 and the 

ADEQ set this value in consultation 

with EPA Region 9. Our approval of the 

submitted ammonia SER will resolve 

the remaining deficiency that formed 

the basis for our conditional approval in 

our 2018 Major NSR action, and 

therefore we are proposing to remove 

the conditional approval language from 

40 CFR 52.119(a), as the condition has 

been met. We also note that the 

sanctions and sanctions clocks triggered 

by our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action, as 

discussed in Section II.A of this 

preamble, would be permanently 

terminated on the effective date of our 

final approval of the Ammonia PM2.5

NSR submittal.16

6. Resolution of PSD Program 

Deficiency 

In our 2015 NSR action, we 

determined that the ADEQ had adopted 

the PSD increments, or maximum 

allowable increases, in R18–2–218— 

Limitation of Pollutants in Classified 

Attainment Areas, but noted that in 

other rules, the ADEQ used the terms 

‘‘increment’’ or ‘‘incremental ambient 

standard’’ where it appeared the intent 

was to refer to the standards established 

in R18–2–218 and identified in the 

ADEQ’s rules as the ‘‘maximum 

allowable increases.’’ The ADEQ’s April 

2017 NSR submittal included 

corrections to these provisions, which 

now consistently refer to these 

maximum allowable increases. See R18– 

2–406(E), R18–2–412(G)(2)(b), R18–2– 

101(51). However, we noted in our 2018 

Major NSR action that the ADEQ needed 

to also correct this issue in R18–2– 

319(A)(3) and R18–2–320(B)(6). While 

the ADEQ had revised these rules to 

address this issue, these rules were not 

included in the April 2017 NSR 

submittal. The 2020 Minor NSR 

submittal contains R18–2–319 and R18– 

2–320 with the necessary corrections. 

Thus, we find that this deficiency 

identified in our 2015 NSR action has 

been fully addressed. 

7. Additional Revisions Made to the 

ADEQ’s NSR Program 

In 2017, the EPA finalized revisions to 

the Guideline on Air Quality Models at 

Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.17 The 

revisions became effective on May 22, 

2017.18 The ADEQ updated its NSR 

program to reference 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W as of June 30, 2017 in R18– 

2–301, R18–2–334, and R18–2–406. The 

updated cross-reference in these ADEQ 

rules to 40 CFR part 51, appendix W 

incorporates the latest revisions to the 

Guideline on Air Quality Models. Our 

proposed approval of R18–2–301, R18– 

2–334, and R18–2–406 will ensure that 

the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP is 

updated to incorporate these new 

revisions. 

In addition to the other revisions 

discussed above, the ADEQ has made 

other minor revisions and updates to 

some of the submitted rules that have 

not yet been approved into the Arizona 

SIP. Two final rule actions completed 

by the ADEQ, which are included in the 

docket for this action, show the specific 

revisions that have been made to the 

rules in the 2019–20 NSR submittals. In 

the ADEQ’s February 10, 2017 final rule, 

see revisions to R18–2–301, R18–2–302, 

R18–302.01, R18–304, R18–2–306, R18– 

2–306.01, R18–2–319, R18–2–320, and 

R18–2–334. In the ADEQ’s December 

20, 2019 final rule, see revisions to R18– 

2–101, R18–2–301, R18–2–302.01, R18– 

2–304, R18–2–334, and R18–2–406. We 

have reviewed each of the changes and 

determined that they are acceptable and 

do not create any new disapproval 

issues. The changes generally relate to 

correcting typographical errors, 

clarifying rule language, and moving 

permit application requirements from 

an appendix to R18–2–304. 

C. Evaluation of Rules Requested To Be 

Removed From the SIP 

Table 2 of this preamble identifies the 

rules, or portions thereof, that the ADEQ 

has requested to be removed from the 

Arizona SIP, and which we are 

proposing in this action to remove from 

the Arizona SIP. All but one of these 

rules will be replaced by the newer 

rules in the 2019–20 NSR submittals 

that are the subject of our current action. 

Except for R9–3–217, paragraph A, the 

rules we are proposing to replace are 

older versions of the rules in the 2019– 

20 NSR submittals. The older versions 

contained deficiencies that the ADEQ 

needed to correct, or language that the 

ADEQ otherwise determined needed to 

be updated to enhance the ADEQ’s 

program or to ensure that it meets new 

requirements. The removal of these 

older rules would not relax any 

requirements in the Arizona SIP. For the 

reasons stated above, we find the 

removal of these rules from the SIP to 

be acceptable and we propose to 

approve the ADEQ’s request to remove 

these rules from the SIP. 

D. Approval of Program for Visibility 

Protection in Class I Areas 

The ADEQ’s 2020 Minor NSR 

submittal requests that the EPA remove 

the FIPs at 40 CFR 52.145(b) related to 

visibility protection in Class I areas at 

40 CFR 51.307, as they pertain to major 

stationary sources for which the ADEQ 

has PSD or NNSR jurisdiction. The 

relevant substantive visibility FIP 

requirements that currently apply to 

such sources are found at 40 CFR 52.27 

(PSD sources) and 40 CFR 52.28 (NNSR 

sources). These FIPs were established 

for sources subject to the ADEQ’s PSD 

and NNSR programs because the EPA 

had not approved the ADEQ’s visibility 

program under 40 CFR 51.307. Approval 

of the ADEQ’s visibility program under 

40 CFR 51.307 would mean that these 

FIPs are no longer needed to satisfy the 

CAA visibility program requirements at 

40 CFR 51.307 for sources subject to the 

ADEQ’s PSD and NNSR programs. The 

evaluation in Attachment 1 to our TSD 

for this action includes the results of our 

review from 2017 of how the ADEQ’s 

NSR program rules meet each of the 

required elements for CAA visibility 

programs in 40 CFR 51.307. Based on 

our review, we have determined that the 

ADEQ’s PSD and NNSR program rules 

satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.307, and we are proposing to approve 

the ADEQ’s SIP-approved NSR rules as 

meeting those requirements. In 

conjunction with our SIP approval of 

ADEQ’s visibility program for major 

sources subject to review under the PSD 

and NNSR programs, we also propose to 

revise the applicability of the visibility 

FIPs at 40 CFR 52.27 and 40 CFR 52.28 

as they pertain to Arizona at 40 CFR 

52.145(b), as these FIPs will no longer 

apply to sources subject to review under 

ADEQ’s PSD and NNSR programs. This 

revision will clarify the application of 

these FIPs in Arizona following our 

final action. 

We note that the visibility FIP at 40 

CFR 52.28 would continue to apply to 

sources within Arizona subject to 

review under the CAA NNSR program 

that are or would be located on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. Similarly, the FIP at 40 

CFR 52.28 would also remain in place 

for sources in Arizona subject to review 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83876 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

19See 40 CFR 52.144(a) and (b). 

20See 83 FR 42214 (September 20, 2018); 

including ‘‘Technical Support Document for Notice 

of Final Rulemaking: Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Infrastructure SIP for 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2’’ July 

30. 2018 (document ID number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2015–0472–0042), 24–28. 

under the Pima County Division of 

Environmental Quality’s SIP-approved 

NNSR program. The EPA has previously 

approved the visibility review 

requirements in the Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department’s SIP-approved 

NNSR program as satisfying the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. See 84 

FR 13543 (April 19, 2019). We also note 

that for sources within Arizona subject 

to PSD review that are or would be 

located on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction, the FIP at 40 CFR 

52.27 would not apply; rather, the PSD 

FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 that otherwise 

applies to such sources 19 includes 

requirements that fully address the 

visibility program requirements at 40 

CFR 51.307. 

E. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria under Sections 110(a)(2)(A), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i), 110(l) and 193 of the 

Clean Air Act? 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP 

approval be clear and legally 

enforceable. We have determined that 

the rules listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble are clear and legally 

enforceable and therefore satisfy this 

requirement. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires 

SIPs to provide ‘‘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).’’ In the EPA’s recent actions on 

Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, we conducted a 

detailed evaluation of Arizona legal 

authorities that provide for the ADEQ’s 

implementation and enforcement of 

CAA requirements related to that 

Infrastructure SIP, as well as 

information showing that the ADEQ has 

adequate funding and personnel to 

implement the relevant CAA SIP 

requirements, and approved that SIP 

submittal with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i).20 Accordingly, the ADEQ 

has provided the necessary assurances 

that the ADEQ will have adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority under 

State law to carry out the proposed 

revisions to the ADEQ’s SIP, consistent 

with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

Section 110(l) states: ‘‘Each revision 

to an implementation plan submitted by 

a State under this chapter shall be 

adopted by such State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ With respect to the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 110(l), 

based on our review of the public 

process documentation included in the 

submittal, we find that the ADEQ has 

provided sufficient evidence of public 

notice and opportunity for comment 

and public hearings prior to submittal of 

this SIP revision and has satisfied these 

procedural requirements under CAA 

section 110(l). With respect to the 

substantive requirements of section 

110(l), we have determined that our 

action on the 2019–20 NSR submittals 

would, as described herein, strengthen 

the applicable SIP. This action is 

primarily intended to correct numerous 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s NSR 

program and provides other revisions to 

enhance and update the program. 

Accordingly, this action will not 

interfere with attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement. 

Section 193 of the Act, which was 

added by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, includes a 

savings clause which provides, in 

pertinent part: ‘‘No control requirement 

in effect, or required to be adopted by 

an order, settlement agreement, or plan 

in effect before November 15, 1990, in 

any area which is a nonattainment area 

for any air pollutant may be modified 

after November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ We 

find that the provisions included in 

2019–20 NSR submittals would ensure 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions as compared to the current 

SIP-approved NSR program in the 

nonattainment areas under ADEQ’s 

jurisdiction. Further, this action does 

not modify any pre-1990 requirements 

applicable to nonattainment areas. For 

the reasons set forth above, our 

proposed approval of the 2019–20 NSR 

submittals is consistent with section 193 

of the Act. 

F. Conclusion 

As discussed in detail above, we 

propose to find that the ADEQ has 

corrected all remaining deficiencies 

identified as the bases for limited 

disapproval in our 2015 NSR action and 

the basis for our conditional approval in 

our 2018 Major NSR action. In addition, 

we reviewed all other changes the 

ADEQ made to its NSR program in the 

submitted rules for consistency with 

CAA requirements to ensure that no 

new disapproval issues have been 

created. With the corrections and 

demonstrations discussed above, our 

prior limited disapproval in 2015 and 

conditional approval in 2018 will 

become a full approval of the ADEQ’s 

minor NSR program, PSD program, and 

NNSR program, and we are proposing 

full approval of the 2019–20 NSR 

submittals. The new and revised rules 

evaluated herein meet the applicable 

CAA requirements. Our proposed action 

would have the effect of updating the 

ADEQ’s SIP-approved NSR program and 

correcting previously identified 

deficiencies and recognizing that the 

ADEQ’s NSR program requirements also 

satisfy the CAA visibility requirements 

in 40 CFR 51.307. 

III. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA and for the reasons provided 

above, the EPA is proposing to approve 

the revisions to the ADEQ portion of the 

Arizona SIP that govern the issuance of 

permits for stationary sources, under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and parts 

C and D of title I of the Act. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing to approve the 

new and amended ADEQ regulations 

listed in Table 1 of this preamble, as a 

revision to the ADEQ portion of the 

Arizona SIP. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the existing SIPapproved rules listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Further, for the West Central 

Pinal and Nogales PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas, the sanctions and sanctions clock 

triggered by our 2016 PM2.5 precursor 

action under CAA section 179 would be 

permanently terminated on the effective 

date of our final approval of the 

Ammonia PM2.5 NSR submittal. Finally, 

we are also proposing that the ADEQ’s 

SIP-approved program meets the 

visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307 

for NSR programs and are proposing to 

remove the existing visibility FIPs for 

sources subject to review under the 

ADEQ’s SIP-approved PSD or NNSR 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83877 

permitting program. We are proposing 

this action because we find that the 

2019–20 NSR submittals meet the 

applicable requirements under parts C 

and D of title I of the CAA, and that our 

action is consistent with sections 

110(a)(2), 110(l) and 193 of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until January 22, 

2021. If we take final action to approve 

the 2019–20 NSR submittals, our final 

action will incorporate the identified 

rule(s) into the federally enforceable 

SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the ADEQ rules described in Table 1 of 

this preamble. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

John Busterud, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27952 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0695; FRL–10018– 

78–Region 7] 

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal 

of Kansas City, Missouri Reid Vapor 

Pressure Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

revision to the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MoDNR) on September 15, 

2020. The proposed revision removes 

the Kansas City, Missouri low Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirement 

which required gasoline sold in the 

Kansas City, Missouri area to have a 

seven pounds per square inch Reid 

Vapor Pressure from June 1 to 

September 15. The majority of the state 

is subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

nine pounds per square inch Reid Vapor 

Pressure from June 1 to September 15. 

If approved the Kansas City, Missouri 

area would be subject to the Clean Air 

Act Reid Vapor Pressure requirement. In 

addition, EPA anticipates issuing a 

separate proposal for the Kansas side of 

the Kansas City metro area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2020–0695 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed 

Wolkins, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7588; 

email address: wolkins.jed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS