The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on 06/15/2012, and EPA is submitting it for publication 

in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of 

the rule for purposes of public comment. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the 

Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. Once the official version of this document is published in the FR, this 

version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version. 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398; FRL-_________] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially 

disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted 

by the State of Arizona to address the requirements of section 

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

110(a) of the CAA requires that each State adopt and submit a 

SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On September 18, 2008 and October 

14, 2009, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted a revision to Arizona’s SIP, which describes the 

State's provisions for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing 

the standards listed above. On June 1, 2012, ADEQ submitted a 
2 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

supplement to these SIP revisions, including certain statutory 

and regulatory provisions. We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert 

date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398, by one of the following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions 

for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov

3. Fax: 415-947-3579 

4. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e- 
3 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an anonymous access system, 

and EPA will not know your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action 

are 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, 

large maps), 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 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

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 
4 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

“we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP Evaluation 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP 

submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision 

thereof),” that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement” of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a 

list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission 

must meet. Many of the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to 

the general information and authorities that constitute the 

"infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program and 

SIP submittals that address these requirements are referred to 

as “infrastructure SIPs.” These infrastructure SIP elements 

include: 
5 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

• 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): Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and modified stationary 

sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 

conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional 

government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission 

of modeling data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 
6 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

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

affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by 

the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 

therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to 

part D of title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them 

are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment 

area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two 

elements are: (i) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers 

to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining 

to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address infrastructure elements 

related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory History 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone1 and 

a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently 

 

1 The 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). 

2 The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from 

single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
7 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

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 March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with 

Earthjustice that obligated EPA to make official findings in 

accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to whether 

states had made required complete SIP submissions, pursuant to 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by December 15, 2007 for the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA made such findings for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 

27, 2008 (73 FR 16205) and for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 

22, 2008 (73 FR 62902). In each case, EPA found that Arizona had 

failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) for the relevant pollutant. On September 8, 

2011, EPA found that Arizona had failed to make a complete 

submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

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

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP Evaluation 

 

hour PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3 The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3

was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 
8 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. 

Commenters on EPA’s recent proposals for some states raised 

concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain 

substantive issues in the context of acting on those 

infrastructure SIP submissions.4 Those commenters specifically 

raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that it would address two 

issues separately and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing provisions related 

to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); and 

(ii) existing provisions related to “director’s variance” or 

“director’s discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited public process or without 

requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the 

CAA (“director’s discretion”). EPA notes that there are two 

other substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated in other 

proposals that it would address the issues separately: (i) 

 

4 See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. 

Docket # EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three 

states in Region 5). 
9 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

existing provisions for minor source new source review programs 

that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs (“minor source 

NSR”); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 

FR 80,186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32,526 (June 

13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). In light of the comments, EPA believes 

that its statements in various proposed actions on 

infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues 

should be explained in greater depth. 

EPA intended the statements in other proposals concerning 

these four issues merely to be informational, and to provide 

general notice of the potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that might require future 

corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, 

or members of the public to be under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a 

given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger 

existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that some states may have 

existing SIP-approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the 

CAA and EPA policy, but that “in this rulemaking, EPA is not 
10 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions 

with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at 

facilities.” EPA further explained, for informational purposes, 

that “EPA plans to address such State regulations in the 

future.” EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with 

respect to the director’s discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR 

Reform issues. EPA’s objective was to make clear that approval 

of an infrastructure SIP for these NAAQS should not be construed 

as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing provisions 

that relate to these four substantive issues. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently 

interpreted these statements to mean that EPA considered action 

upon the SSM provisions and the other three substantive issues 

to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, and therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking 

final action on the issues in the context of the infrastructure 

SIPs. This was not EPA’s intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types 

of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any 

misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to convey its position that the 

statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these 

specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these 

issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of 
11 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

acting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be 

clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a full 

final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a 

required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) 

or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting 

from EPA’s statements in those other proposals, however, we want 

to explain more fully the Agency’s reasons for concluding that 

these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be 

addressed separately from actions on infrastructure SIP 

submissions. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 

requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents 

of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the 

specific statutory provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some 

of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which 

pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive 

provisions.5 Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) are 

 

5 For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must provide 

assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law 
12 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

relatively straightforward, but others clearly require 

interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a 

particular NAAQS.6

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that “each” 

SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is 

internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 

110(a)(1).7 This illustrates that EPA must determine which 

provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. Likewise, EPA has previously 

decided that it could take action on different parts of the 

larger, general “infrastructure SIP” for a given NAAQS without 

 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a 

substantive program to address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority 

to address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such 

an emergency. 

6 For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure that each 

state’s SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant contribution 

to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains 

numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to 

determine such basic points as what constitutes significant contribution. 

See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25,162 (May 12, 

2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase “contribute significantly to 

nonattainment”). 

7 See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63 – 65 (May 12, 2005)(explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus 

section 110(a)(2)(I)). 
13 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

concurrent action on all subsections.8 Finally, EPA notes that 

not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that 

NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might be necessary for a 

different pollutant. Thus, the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a state might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to 

an existing NAAQS.9

Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions 

required under the statute also must meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to 

identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For 

example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D likewise have to 

meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that 

 

8 For example, EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 

submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,” from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division 

OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006. 

In addition, EPA bifurcated the action on these “interstate transport” 

provisions within section 110(a)(2) and in most instances, substantive 

administrative actions occurred on different tracks with different schedules. 

9 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment 

of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator 

species for the new NAAQS. 
14 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements 

applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by 

part D also would not need to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such 

requirements would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As 

this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may 

implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language 

of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of 

acting on the infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of 

the inherent ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 

110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews 

infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements “as 

applicable.” In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not 

have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of 

the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would 

meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 

way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for 

infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making 

recommendations for the infrastructure SIP submissions for both 
15 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 Within 

this guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make 

these submissions to meet what the Agency characterized as the 

“infrastructure” elements for SIPs, which it further described 

as the “basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards.” 11 As further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, “attachment A” to the guidance 

document included a short description of the various elements of 

section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of 

issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such 

infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended “to 

constitute an interpretation of” the requirements, and was 

merely a “brief description of the required elements.”12 EPA also 

stated its belief that with one exception, these requirements 

were “relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs 

for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these requirements 

with assistance from EPA Regions.”13 For the one exception to 

 

10 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions I – X, dated October 2, 2007 (the “2007 Guidance”). 

11 Id. at page 2. 

12 Id. at attachment A, page 1. 

13 Id. at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with 

respect to EPA’s approach to some substantive issues indicate that the 

statute is not so “self explanatory,” and indeed is sufficiently ambiguous 
16 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

that general assumption, however, i.e., how states should 

proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific 

recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, 

and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a 

State’s submittal based on an assessment of how the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 

structure of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make 

recommendations to states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.14 In the 2009 Guidance, EPA 

addressed a number of additional issues that were not germane to 

the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 

2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among 

specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in 

 

that EPA needs to interpret it in order to explain why these substantive 

issues do not need to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and 

may be addressed at other times and by other means. 

14 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS),” from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I - X, dated September 

25, 2009 (the “2009 Guidance”). 
17 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any 

more specific recommendations with respect to how states might 

address such issues even if they elected to do so. The SSM and 

director’s discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and 

the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 2009 Guidance, 

however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission 

to address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in 

the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, 

EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states 

should make submissions in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that 

they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. 

EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP 

requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to 

read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a comprehensive review 

of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic 

structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have 
18 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, 

nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes 

of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or 

revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of 

the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 

110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given 

NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are most 

likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or 

revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of the 

absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in 

existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable 

reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute 

provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, 

depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP 

call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 
19 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the 

CAA.15 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past 

actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that an action on the 

infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude 

the Agency’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 

110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state 

to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, 

EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the 

statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of 

addressing the issue in a subsequent action.17

 

15 EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific SIP deficiency 

related to the SSM issue. See, “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision,” 76 FR 

21,639 (April 18, 2011). 

16 EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions 

on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See, “Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82,536 

(December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 

110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined 

it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 

34,641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, 

Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona 

and Nevada SIPs). 

17 EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds 

that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent 

with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42,342 at 42,344 (July 21, 2010)(proposed disapproval of director’s 
20 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

II. The State’s Submittals 

On September 18, 2008, ADEQ submitted the “Analysis of 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Control Program 

Elements for Arizona – PM2.5,” to address several elements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2008 

Infrastructure Analysis”).18 On October 14, 2009, ADEQ submitted 

the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2) and (2); 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 

NAAQS and 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,” to address all of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements except for section 110(a)(2)(G)19

for these three NAAQS (“2009 Infrastructure Analysis”).20 The 

2009 Infrastructure Analysis includes public process 

documentation (including public comments) and evidence of 

adoption. 

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 includes a 

 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (January 26, 2011)(final disapproval of 

such provisions). 

18 See letter dated September 18, 2008, from Stephen A. Owens, Air Quality 

Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

19 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). 

20 See letter dated October 14, 2009, from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality 

Director, ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 
21 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

number of statutes and regulations that are currently effective 

under State law but that have not been adopted specifically for 

submittal to EPA as a SIP revision under CAA section 110. By 

letter dated June 1, 2012, ADEQ submitted unofficial copies of 

these statutes and regulations to EPA with a request for 

“parallel processing”21 and stated its intention to submit these 

statutes and regulations as a formal SIP submittal, following 

reasonable notice and public hearings, by late August 2012.22

ADEQ amended this request by letter dated June 14, 2012, to 

remove several statutes and regulations from the 2012 

Supplement.23 With respect to two Pima County regulations 

included in the 2012 Supplement (rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040), 

ADEQ has informed us that it is awaiting confirmation that the 

Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ) will 

commence a local rulemaking process to adopt these regulations 

as SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and thereafter submit the 

 

21 Under EPA’s "parallel processing" procedure, EPA proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the State's proposed rulemaking. If the State's proposed 

plan is changed, EPA will evaluate that subsequent change and may publish 

another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA 

will publish a final rulemaking on the plan after responding to any submitted 

comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the plan has 

been fully adopted by Arizona and submitted formally to EPA for approval into 

the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. We note that because 

ADEQ’s rulemaking process here is solely for purposes of adopting the 2012 

Supplement as a SIP revision under CAA section 110 and not for purposes of 

revising any of the statutes or regulations contained therein, we do not 

expect any significant changes between the proposed and final plans. 

22 See letter dated June 1, 2012, from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality Director, 

ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

23 See letter dated June 14, 2012, from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality Director, 

ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 
22 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

rules to ADEQ for transmittal to EPA.24 In a separate proposal 

published in today’s Federal Register, we are proposing to 

approve these Pima County regulations, among others, into the 

Arizona SIP contingent upon ADEQ’s submittal of them as fully 

adopted SIP revisions. See “Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, and Pima County 

Department of Environmental Quality,” proposed rule, signed June 

15, 2012. 

Because the 2009 Infrastructure Analysis includes 

comprehensive updates to and essentially supersedes the 2008 

Infrastructure Analysis, we are proposing to act on the 2009 

Infrastructure Analysis, as supplemented and amended by the 2012 

Supplement. We refer to the 2009 Infrastructure Analysis and 

2012 Supplement collectively as the “2009 Infrastructure SIP.” 

Although we are proposing to act only on the 2009 Infrastructure 

SIP, we have reviewed materials provided in the 2008 

Infrastructure Analysis to the extent applicable to our 

evaluation. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

EPA has evaluated the 2009 Infrastructure SIP and the 

existing provisions of the Arizona SIP for compliance with the 

 

24 See e-mail dated June 14, 2012, from Danielle Dancho, ADEQ, to Jeanhee 

Hong, EPA Region 9. 
23 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

CAA section 110(a) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Our Technical Support 

Document (TSD) contains more detailed evaluations and is 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be 

accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. 

Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to approve the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the following infrastructure 

SIP 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)(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)(iii): State oversight of local or 

regional government agencies. 
24 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

• 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 proposing to approve into the SIP certain 

statutory and regulatory provisions included in the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP, as discussed in the TSD.25 With respect to 

the requirements for stationary source monitoring and reporting 

in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), our proposed approval is contingent 

upon receipt of fully adopted versions of the two Pima County 

regulations discussed above, which must go through a local SIP 

rulemaking process before ADEQ submits them to EPA as SIP 

revisions.26 We propose, in the alternative, to disapprove the 

2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) in Pima County, if ADEQ does not submit 

these regulations as SIP revisions following all required 

 

25 Copies of these Arizona statutes and regulations are included in the 2012 

Supplement, which is available in the docket for this action and online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. 

26 See fn. 24, above. 
25 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

procedures before we take final action on the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP. 

Simultaneously, we are proposing to disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP 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 (PSD). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): Provisions to prohibit 

interference with other states’ PSD measures. 

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

abatement and international air pollution. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission 

of modeling data. 

As explained more fully in the TSD, we are proposing to 

disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP with respect to these 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) because the Arizona SIP 

does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements 

for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs under part C, title I of the Act. Both the Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) and the Pima County 

Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) currently implement 
26 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. 40 CFR 

52.144.27 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 SIPapproved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except for 

PM-10 and GHGs28 (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 GHGs29

(61 FR 15717, April 9, 1996, as amended by 65 FR 79742, December 

20, 2000). EPA understands that both ADEQ and the PCAQCD intend 

 

27 See 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 MC,” 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. 

28 For PM-10 and GHGs, ADEQ implements the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

pursuant to delegation agreements executed in 1999 and 2011, respectively. 

40 CFR 52.37; “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the PM-10 Regulations 

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

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

Department of Environmental Quality Agreement for Delegation of Authority to 

Issue and Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,” executed March 30, 2011. 

29 For GHGs, Pinal County implements the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

pursuant to a delegation agreement executed in 2011. 40 CFR 52.37; “U.S. EPA 

— Pinal County Air Quality Control District Agreement for Delegation of 

Authority to Issue and Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,” executed August 10, 2011. 
27 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

to submit, in the near future, PSD SIP revisions addressing the 

deficiencies identified in our TSD.30

We are not proposing to act today on those elements of the 

2009 Infrastructure SIP that address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act regarding significant contribution 

to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other 

State (referred to as “interstate transport” provisions). EPA 

previously approved Arizona’s interstate transport SIP as 

satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 

(July 31, 2007). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

intends to propose action on the interstate transport element of 

the 2009 Infrastructure SIP in a subsequent rulemaking and to 

take final action on this element of the SIP by September 30, 

2012, consistent with the terms of the consent decree entered 

October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 3:11-

cv-00190. 

 Additionally, we are not proposing to act today on those 

elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP that address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act regarding 

interference with measures to protect visibility in other 

 

30 On 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. 
28 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

states.31 EPA intends to act on these visibility-related 

elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP in a subsequent 

rulemaking that will address the requirements of the Regional 

Haze program, under the terms of a separate consent decree. 

Finally, we are not proposing to act today on the portion 

of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP that addresses requirements 

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

will propose action on this element in a subsequent rulemaking. 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any 

SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 

All of the elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP that we are 

proposing to approve, as explained in the TSD, would improve the 

SIP by replacing obsolete statutes or regulations and by 

updating the state and local agencies’ SIP implementation and 

enforcement authorities. We propose to determine that our 

approval of these elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that 

requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

 

31 EPA’s action on this element of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP is not subject 

to the same consent decree and settlement agreement deadlines that apply to 

our action on most other elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP. See Consent 

Decree entered October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 3:11-

cv-00190 (paragraph 22) and Settlement Agreement executed November 30, 2011 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 3:10-cv-04060 (paragraph 8(a)). 
29 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the submitted SIP revision clarifies and updates the SIP. Our 

TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a 

submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, 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 2009 

Infrastructure SIP was not submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, any action we take to finalize the 

described partial disapprovals will not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 

promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (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. 

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
30 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

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 proposed SIP disapproval under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will 

not in-and-of itself create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 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. 
31 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed

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 proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 

and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves 

certain 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. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various 

consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow 

from this disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. 

Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of 

this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on 

issues related to such impacts. 

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 
32 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

governments or the private sector.” EPA has determined that the 

proposed 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 proposes to disapprove preexisting 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 
33 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132, because it merely disapproves certain 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 EPA is proposing to disapprove 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, 
34 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

April 23, 1997).This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 

and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This proposed 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 No. 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. 
35 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

___6-15-2012_______ ______________/s/_____________________

Date Jared Blumenfeld, 
36 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

6/15/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

 Regional Administrator, 

Region IX