# ARIZONA 

# DEPARTMENT

a. 

### OF 

# ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1110 West Washington Street Phoenix. Arizona 85007 JanetNapolitano Governor



### Mr. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX Mail Code OM-1 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 

### RE: Clean Air Act Section 11 

### O(a)(2)(D)(i) -

### Regional Transport Dear Mr. Nastri: StephenA. Owens Director



### Consistent with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes 549-104 and 549-404 (Enclosure 1) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, 55 1.102through 45 

### 1.104, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) "Final Revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan Under Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) -

### Regional Transport,May 2007" as 

### a revision to the Arizona State Lilemectation Plan (SIP). On April 25,2005 EPA issued a finding of failure of States to submit SIPSaddressing interstate transport for the National Ambient Air 

### Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 (76 

### FR 21 147). n: C-J:-- -r --L:-.- 

### --. qc qnnr -A AIIMS 1111uu1gY CL~CLLIVC T&y LJ, 

### LUUJ, SL& LC$ 

### a 24-~~iith 

### clock f~i* EPA t~ kiie a federal implementation plan addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)or approve a SIP. Arizona's demonstration shows that ozone and PM2.5 emissions; ozone and precursor emissions fiom Arizona do not significantly contributeto nonattainmentor interfere with maintenance of the ozone and PMz,5 standard in any other state. This demonstrationalso shows that new and existing sources are subjectto preconstruction review, State and Countypermitting programs, nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)requirements.

Northern Regional Office Southern Regional Office 1801W. Route 66 * Suite 117 * Flagstaff, AZ 86001 400 West Congress Street Suite 433 Tucson, AZ 85701 (928) 779-03 13 (520) 628-6733
Printed on recycledpaper

### Mr. Wayne Nastri Page 2

Regarding visibility requirements, Arizona has promulgated a reasonably attributable visibility impairment 

### (MVI)mle md

### will analyze and implement control strategies where appropriate. Arizona has further provisions for protection of visibility regarding regulation of new major source or major modifications. Compliancewith provisions related to regional haze is demonstrated by Arizona's concmence with EPA that assessment of interference with measures for the 8-horn ozone and PN62.5sta~dard is not possible until regional haze SPsare submitted and approved by EPA. With this submission, 

### ADEQ requests that EPA approve this demonstration of no significant impact with respect to interstate transport of 8-hour ozone mdPM2.5 emissions towards maintenance or attainment of 8-hour ozone and/or Phd2.5 in downwind states and demonstrates that Arizona meets the required prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 

### an8 protection of visibility. Enclosure 

### 2 is the SIP Completeness Checklist. Enclosure 3 contains five copies of the SIP revision for your review and action. If you have any questions, please contad Nancy Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, at (602) 771-2308. Sincerely,

Director

Enclosures (3)

cc: Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region 

### IX Wienke 

### Tax, EPA Region IX

# Enclosure 1
Arizona Revised Statues 

# $549-104 and 49-404V) c 0 

### .- 

# - 3 e .- 

### 2 

## E 0 

### - a 

## - 

# -E 2 @ G 

# fz E s.22 € 

## s 5 amm

### LuizolzaRevised 

### Statutes

Title 10 Title 1 1 Title 12 Title 13 Title 14 Title 15 Title 16 Title 17 Title 18 Title 19 Title 20 Tille 21 Title 22 Title 23 Title 24 Title 25 Title 26 Title 27 Title 28 Title 29 Tille 30 Title 31 Title 32 Title 33 Title 34 Title 35 Title 36 Title 37 Title 38 Title 39 Title 40 Title 41 Title 42 Corporations and Associatio~~s Counties Courts and Civil Proceedings Criminal Code Trusts, Estates and Protective Prococdings Education Elections and Electors Game and Fish TlllS TITLE MAS BEEN REPEALED Initiative, Referendum and Recall Insurance Juries Justices of the Peace and Other Courts Not 05 Record Labor THIS TITLE HAS BEEN REPEALED Marital and Domestic Relations Military Affairs and Emergency Management Minerals, Oil and Gas Transportation Partnership Power Prisons and Prisoners Professionsand Occupations Property Public Buildings and Improvements Public Finances Public Health and Safety Public Lands Public Officers and Employees Public Records, Printing and Notices Public Utilitiesand Carriers State Government Taxation

### lls 

# r Title 43 Taxation of Income 

### E Title 44 Trade and Gon~merce

u-l Tille 45 Waters 

### i-3 Title 46 Welfare 

## rl Title 47 Uniform Commercial Code 

### 1[1 Title 48 Special Taxing Districts 

# r? Tille 49 The Environment

02,2009 Arizona State Legislature. privacy stal.ment

### Page 

### 2 

### of3

&sS TELEPAGE KEXT E$#CZBEN+ m!El&QEJS QBCUIE@T 49-104. mers and duties of the deoartment and direm A. The department shail: 1. Formulate psiicies, plans and programs to implement this title to protect the environment. 2. Stimulate and encourage aZA local, state, regional and federal gwernrnental agencies and all private persons and enterprises that have similar and related objectives and purposes, cooperate with those agencies, persons and enterprises and correlate department plans, pragraxs and operations with those of the zgencles, persons and enterprises. 3. Conduct research on its OCVQ initiative or a: the request ofthe governor, the legisiature or state or focal agencies pertaining to any department objectives. 4. Provide information and advice on request of any local, state or federal agencies and private persons and buslness enterprises on matters iivlthin the scope of the department. 5. Consult with and make recammendations to the governor and the legisiature on all matiers concerning department objectives. 6. Promote and coordinate the management of air resources to assure their protection, enhancement and balanced utilization consistent with the environmental policy of this state. 7. Promote and coordinate the proiection and enhancement of thz quality of water resources consistent with the environmental policy of this state. 8. Encourage industrial, commercial, residentiaf and community development that maximizes en~visonmental benefits and minimizes the effects of less desirable environmental conditions. 9. Assure the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty and man-made scenic qualities. 10. Provide for the prevention and abatement of all water and air pollution including that related to particulates, gases, dust, vapors, noise, radiation, odor, nutrients and heated liquids in accordance with article 3 of this chapter and chapters 2 and 3 of this title. 11. Promote and recommend methods for the recovery, recycling and reuse or, if recycling is not possible, the disposal of solid wastes consistent with sound health, scenic and environmental quality policies. 12. Prevent poilution through the regulation of the storage, handling and transportation of solids, liquids and gases that may cause or contribute to poilution. 13. Promote the restoration and reclamation of degraded or despoiled areas and natural resources. 14. Assist the department of health services 

### in recruiting and training state, local and district health department personnel. 15. Participate in the state civil defense program and develop the necessary organization and facilities to meet wartime or other disasters. 16. Cooperate with the Arizona-Mexico commission in the governor's office and with researchers at universities inthis state to collect data and conduct projects inthe United States and Mexico on issues that are within the scope of the department's duties and that relate to quality of life, trade and economic development in this state in a manner that will help the Arizona-Mexico commission to assess and enhance the economic competitiveness of this state and of the Arizona-Mexico region. 5. The department, through the director, shall: 1. Contract for the services of outside advisers, consultants and aides reasonably necessary or desirable to enable the department to adequately perform its duties. 2. Contract and incur obligations reasonably necessary or desirable within the general scope of department activities and operations to enable the department to adequately petform its duties. 3. Utilize zny medium of communication, publication and exhibition when disseminating information,

### Page 2 

### of 3

advertising and pubficikf in any field of its purposes, objectives or duties. 4. Adopt procedural rules that air; necessary to implement the authority granted under this title, but that are not inconsistent with other provisions of this title. 5. Contract with other zgencies including laboratories En furthering any department progarn. 6. Use monies, fscilities or services to pmvide matching contributions under federal or other programs that further the objectives and programs of the department. 7.Accept gifts, grants, matching monies 3r direct payrner~ts from public or ~rivate agencies 03- private persons and enterprises for depanrnent sewices and publications and to conduct programs that am consistent with the general purposes and objsctlves of this chapter. Monies received pursuznt to this paragraph shall be deposited in the department fund corresponding to the service, publication or program provided. 8. Provide for the examination of any premises if the director has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of any environmentai law or rule exists or is being committed on the premises. The director shall give the owner or operator the opportunibi for its repmsentakive cho accompany the director on an examination of those premises. Within forty-five days affer the date of the examination, the department shall provide to the owner or operator a copy of any report produced as a result of any examination of the premises, 9, Supervise sanitary engineering facilities and projects in this state, authority for which is vested in the department, and own or Fease Iand on which sanitary engineering fsciiities are located, and operate the facilities, if the direckor determines that owning, leasing or operating is necessary for the prabfic health, safety or welfare. 10. Adopt and enforce rules relating to approving design documents for constructing, improving and operating sanitary engineering and other facilities for disposing of solid, liquid or gaseous deleterious matter. If. Define and prescribe reasonably necessary rules regarding the water supply, sewage disposal and garbage collection and disposai for subdivisions. The rules shall: (a) Provide for minimum sanitary facilities to be installed in the subdivision and may require that water systems plan for future needs and be of adequate size and capacity to deliver specified minimum quantities of drinking wateiand to treat all sewage. (Q) Provide that the design documents showing or describing the water supply, sewage disposal and garbage collection facilities be submitted with a fee to the department for review and that no lots in any subdivision be offered for sale before compliance with the standards and rules has been demonstrated by approval of the design documents by the departrnent. 12. Prescribe reasonably necessary measures to prevent pollution of water used in public or semipubfic swimming pools and bathing places and to prevent deleterious conditions at such places. The rules shall prescribe minimum standards for the design of and for sanitary conditions at any public or semipublic swimming pool or bathing place and provide for abatement as public nuisances of premises and facilities that do not comply with the mihimum standards. The rules shall be developed in cooperation with the director of the department of health services and shall be consistent with the rules adopted by the director of the department of health services pursuant to section 36-136, subsection H, paragraph 10. 13. Prescribe reasonable rules regarding sewage collection, treatment, disposal and reclamation systems to prevent the transmission of sewage borne or insect borne diseases. The rules shall: (a) Prescribe minimum standards for the design of sewage collection systems and treatment, disposal and reclamation systems and for operating the systems. (b) Provide for inspecting the premises, systems and installations and for abating as a public nuisance any coClection system, process, treatment plant, disposal system or reclamation system that does not complyP" 

### Fctmat Document

with the mintmum standards.

6-m {c) Require that design documents for ail sewage collection systems, sewage collection system extensions, treatment paants, processes, devices, eqkipment, disposat systems, on-site wastewater treatment facilities and reclamation systems be submiEed with a fee for review to the department and may require that the Fasli design documents anticipate and provide for future sewage treatment needs. fd) Require rhat construction, reconstruction, installation or initiation of any sewage coiiection system, swage collection system extension, treatment plant, process, device, equipment, dispossi system, on-site Fm= wastewater treatment facility or recPamatjon system conform with applicable requiremen%. 14, Prescribe reasonably necessary rdes regarding excreta storage, handling, treatment, tra-ansportationand

rn disposal. The rules shall: (a) Prescribe minimum standards for human excreta storage, handling, treatment, transportation and disposal and shall provide for inspectian ofpr2rnises, processes and vehicles and for abating as pubfic

m nuisances any prernis~,~, pr~cesses or vehicles that do not comply with the rninirnurri standards. (b) Provide that vehicles transporting human excreta from privies, septic tanks, cesspools and other treatment processes shall be licensed by the department subjectto comptiance with the rules. P-m 15. Perform the responsibilities of implementing and maintaining a data automation management system to supportthe reporting requirements of titie III of the superfund amendments and rzattthorization act of 1986

P"P (P.L. 99-499) and title 26, chapter 2, article 3, 15. Approve remediation levels pursuant to article 4 of thjs chapter. C. The department ,nay charge fees to cover the costs of all permits and inspections it performs to insure compliance with rules adopted under section 49-203, subsection A, paragrzph 6, except that state agencies are exempt from paying the fees. Monies collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in the water quarity feefund established by section 49-210. D. The director 

### may: 1. If he has reasonable cause to believe rhat a violation of any environmental ldw or rut@ exists or is being committed, inspect any person or property in transit through this state and any vehicle in which the person or property is being transported and detain or disinfect the person, property or vehicle as reasonably necessary to protect the environment if a vioiatien exists. 2. Authorize in writing any qualified officer or employee in the departmentto perform any act that the director is authorized or required to do by law.

### Page 

### i 

### of l



### i"" 49-404. State implernent&on plan I A. The director sha81 maintain a state implementatjon plan that provides for impLernentation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air qualiQ standards and protection of visibility as required by the clean 

# " air act. 8. The director may adopt rtdles that describe procedures 

### for adoption of revisions to the state impifmentation ptan, C. The stste implementation pIan and a61 revisjons adopted before September 30, 1992 remain in effect accord-cling to their: terms, except to the extent otherwise provided by the clean air act, inconsistent with any provision of the ciearg air act, or revrsed by the administrator. Wo cocontroE requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement or plan in effect befare the enactment of thedean arr act in any area which is a nonattainrnent or maintenance area

### for any air pollutant nay be modiffed after enactment in any manner uraless the modjfjcation insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the air pollutant. The director shall evaluate 2nd adopt revisions to the plan in conformity with federal regulations and guidelines pr6rnulgated by the administrator fot those purposes untii the rules required by sclbsediora B are effective.

# Enclosure 2
State Implementation

# Plan Completeness Checklist

### STATEHRIPLEBENTATION 

### PLAN COPvtPLETENESS ClBXXLIST

FinalRRaion fofhe Arizona SfateIqfenzenfation Piaa UnderSectwn IIO(a)(2f{D]fi) 

## -Eegionnl Transport, 

### May 2007

1. SUBMZTFALLETTER 

### FROM GOPvTERNORPDESIGmZ See coverletter.

See coverletter. 3. STATELEGAL AUTHORfI7yrFOR ~OPTION~a(TPLEMENTATI0N See 

### Enclosure I. 4. COMPLETE COPY OF STAIXTEBEGUZATHON/DOCWNT See 

### Enclosure3.

Not 

### applicable. 6. RULE CZIYLNGES INDICATEDBY UNDERLmG

### AND CROSS-OUTS Not 

### applicable. 7. EVIDENCE THAT ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE PRWEDW ACT EQIAKE~NTS m"ERE IvET FQE

### RLZE/PLfi< See 

### Enclosure3. 8. EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC PHEmG PER 40 CFR 51.102 See Enclosure 3,AppendixD. 9. PLBLIC COMMENTS

### AND AGENCY RESPONSE See 

### Enclosure 3, AppendixD. 10. ~E~PCATION OF POLLUTANTS REGULATED BY RULEPLAN This State 

### ImplementationPlan revision is pertinent to PM2 

### and 8-hour Ozone.See Enclosure 3. 12. 

### RULE'SFLAY'S EFFECT ON Eh41SSIONS Not applicable. 13. DEMONSTMT1ON 

### TAT NMQS, PSD INCREMENTS

### AND RFPARE PROTECTED See Enclosure 3. 14. MODELING SUPPORT See Enclosure 3. 15. EVIDENCE THAT EMISSIONS LIMITATTONSARE BASED ON COJQTNI30US EhGSSIONS mm REDUCTIONIFECmOLOGY fit applicable. m 16. IDENTIFICATION OF 

### RULE SECTPONS CONTMMNGEMISSION LIMITS, WORK PRACrrCE STAPFDARDS,AND/OR RECORD 

### KEEPmG/REPORmG REQUIREMENTS IC"P Not applicable. 17. COTYBPLE4NCE/Eh'FORCEENTSTRATEGIES Not applicable. mm 18. ECONOMIC TECHNICAL JUSTFICATIONFOR DEWATIONFROM U.S. 

### PROTECTION AGENCY @PA) POLICES a=

# Enclosure 3

Final Revision to the 

### Arizona StateImplementation 

### Plan Under Clean 

### Air Aeit Section 

### IIOfa)(2)@)(i) 

# -Regional Transport

## JanetNapolitano, 

## Governor 

## Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ 

## Director



# Final

Revision to the Arizona State 

## implementation Plan Under CleanAirAct Section I 

## IO(a)(Z)(D)(i) 

# - Regional Transport



# Air Quality 

# Division
May 

# 2007TABLE OF CONTENTS

CWTERI :

CWTER 2:

CWTER 3 :
CWTER 4:

CWTER5: INTRODUCTION


## .......................... 

## ...... ................................................................. 1 1.1 Overview


### ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 General SIP Requirements


### ....................................................................... 1

ANALYSIS OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO NONATTAINPUIENT" and "INTERFERENCE OF MAINTENAI!JCCE"


## .................................................... 2 2.1 %Hour Ozone


### ......................................... : 

### ........................... 

### I.. ............so..-.. 2

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION


## ................................... 11

PROTECTION OF VISIBILITY


### ......................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION


## .................................................................................................... 14APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D Guidance for State ImplementationPlan (SIP) Submissions toMeet Current Outstanding Obligations UnderSection 110(a)(2)(D) 

## (0 for the &Hour Ozone and PIM2.5 National AmbientAir Quality Standards, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, August 15,2006

ArizonaNitrogen Oxides, Volatile Organic Compound, PM2.5, and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventories

Ambient Air Quality Data

StateImplementation Plan Revision Public Comment and Hearing Documentation Notice of Public Hearing Public Hearing Agenda Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet Public Hearing Officer Certification Public Hearing Transcript Responsiveness SummaryPTER 1: lPaTRODUCTION

m 1.1 Ovewiew In July 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the National Ambient Air Quality m Standards (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM25). Section 110(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) within 3 years following the promulgation of new standards. Implementation of the standards was 

# - delayed, however, due to subsequent litigation. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Earth Justice to address the interstate transport of these pollutants, a required SIP component, under CAA Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) and on April 25, 2005, published a "Finding of Failure To Submit Section P 110 State Implementation Plans for Interstate Transport for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5" (70 FR 21 147). The April 25, 2005, finding, effective May 25, 2005, started a 24-month clock for EPA to either issue a final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the

W= requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)or to approve a SIPthat addresses these requirements. This document is a revision to the Arizona SIP to address kterstate transport of air pollution under CAA Section llO(a)(2)(D)(i). It contains a demonstration showing that Arizona does not sigd5cantly contribute to interstate transport of pollutants that impact nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and demonstrates that Arizona meets the required prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and protection of visibility provisions ofthe law. The Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ) requests that this demonstration be approved by EPA as a component of the Arizona SIP. 1.2 General 

### SIP Requirements Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean 

### Air Act requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions which adversely affect another state. The SIPSmust contain adequate provisions 

### - '>rohibitifig


## ...

aitj,sowce or other type i~f emissions activity within t,he state from emitti~g any air pollutant in amounts whichwill -



## (0 contribute signzficantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state withrespect to any...national_~rimary orseconday air quality standard, or interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation planfor any other state


## ... toprevent signzfzant deteriorationofair quality or to protect visibility. " On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance for states to use as they developed SIPS to meet their outstanding obligations under CAA Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (see Appendix A). The guidance outlinesthe four elements states should address in their SIPs: 1)"significant contributionto nonattainment," 2) "interference with maintenance," 3) "prevention of significantdeterioration," and 4) "protection ofvisibility." 

### I Chapters 2 through 4 present data and information, as suggested in EPAYs guidance, that demonstrate Arizona meets the interstate transport requirements of Section 110(a)(2)@)(i). $" 

# I" FINAL-1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i) Regional Transport SP (May 2007)TER 2: mALY$P$OF NONATT mIP6TENMGE AmA IMPACTS


### In the preamble to itsRule to Reduce Interstate Transportof Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone or Clean Air InterstateRule (CAR) 

### (69 FR 458 1, January 30, 2004), EPA provided the following rationale for the exclusion of the Western U.S., ii~cluding Arizona, from further consideration of transport for both 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the requirements of CAIR. 'Yn analyzingsignzjkant contribution to nonattainment,we determined it was reasonable to exclude the Western 

### US., including the States of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona from further analysis due to geography, meteorology, and topography. Based on these factors, we concluded that the Phf2,5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment problems are not likely to be afSected signzpcantly by pollutiorz transported across these States' boundaries. Therefore, for the purpose of assessing State's contributions to nonattainment in other States, we have only analyzed the nonattainment counties located in the rest ofthe US. " EPA's August 15, 2006, guidance states "the EPA anticipates,based upon existing information developed in connection with the CrUR, that emissions fiom sources in states not covered by tKe CAIR do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone or PM2 NAAQS in any other State." The guidance indicates that to satis@ the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), non-CAW states may submit a negative declaration that the state does not significantly contribute to interstate transport of emissions impacting nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. Information to support a negative declarationmay include but is not limited to the following: emission inventories for sources that contributeto ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels; meteorological data; information about the distance to the nearest 8-hour ozone or Phi2.5 nonattainment area in another state; and air quality modeling. As detailed in Sections2.1 and 2.2, AYEQ used these and other factors in deveioping its demonstration of noninterference for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards.

Designation of areas for new or revised air quality standards under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment areas include any area that does not meet or that contributes to ambient 

### air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the air quality standards. As such, attainment and nonattainment designations for areas in Arizona were based, in part, on analyses of emissions, monitored ambient air quality, and modeling. A review of these criteria, included below, show that the highest emissions rates and ambient impacts for the 8-hour standard are primarily limitedto the central portion of the state, 

### in and near the Phoenix metropolitan area. Additionally, topography, meteorological patterns, and distance to downwind nonattainment areas demonstrate that emissions fiom Arizona sources do not significantlyimpact any other state. Boundary Designationsfor 8-Hour Ozone 

### in Arizona


### - On April 15, 2004, EPA issued final area designations for the 8-hour ozone standardwhich were effective June 15, 2004. The only area within Arizona designated as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone is located in

FINAL-1 1 0(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007)the central part of the state (see Figure 2-1). The nonattainment area, referred to as the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area, includes much of eastern Maricopa County and Apache Junction in Pinal County. As required, the Maricopa Association of Governments is currently developing a SIP revision for the area to demonstrate attainment by 2009. All other counties in the state are designated as attainmentlunclassifiable(see 40 CFR 

### 81.303). Figure 2-1. 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in Arizona

+ County Seals 

# 0Cclunljes 

### @jj Ozone B-Hour Areas 

## K2 WWPaneritan Lands -6
+.r moa Backgmund kg*-$&

Emissions The Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area encompasses an area of the state where emissions of poQutants contributingto ozone formation are highest. The most recently available emissions inventories from EPAYs AirData for Arizona counties show that while it 

### is the fifth largest county, Maricopa County sources emit approximately 50 percent of the State's volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 36 percent
FINAL-1 10(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 3of the nitrogen oxides (NOx), known precursors to ozone. The inventories confmthat no other county totals for these pollutants equate to the level of emissions generated by Maricopa County (see Appendix B, Table B-1). A review of the largestNOx emitting counties in Arizona shows that emissions in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties in north-central and northeast Arizona are dominated by point sources rather than area and mobile sources. According to 2001 inventories from EPA's AirData, emissions from coal fired electric generating units comprised 68, 63, and 50 percent of total NOx emissions in these counties, respectively. Emissions of VOCs are primarily from area and mobile sources.

An examination of historic monitored ambient air quality data demonstrates that Maricopa County is the only county in the state where monitors have recorded violations of the 8-hour standard. Appendix C, Table C-1 summarizesthe 2004 through 2006 monitored air quality data for Arizona counties. These data show that all monitored areas are currently meeting the 8-hour standard. The highest recorded ambient concentrations from this period are -fromMaricopa County monitoring sites or -fromthose of nearby sites in Gila and Pinal Counties. Topoaavhy One of the factors affecting interstate transport of pollutants is topography. Arizona has three main topographical areas: 1) a high plateau in the northeast; 2) a mountainous region in the central part of the state, oriented southeast to northwest; and 3)broad desert valleys separated by narrow mountain ranges in the southwesternportion of the state. Elevations range from near sea level in the southwestto more than 11,000 feet in the north and east. This complex terrain divides the state into 11 distinct airsheds which impact the dispersion of emissions within and outside local areas. As noted above, the highest emissions levels for VOCs and NOx are generated by Maricopa County sources. The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area in eastern Maricopa County is located primarily in the broad and mostly flat Salt River Valley and is separated from other areas of the state by mountainous, complex terrain on the north, northeast, east, and southwest. Meteorologv/Climatolow Large scale airflow over Arizona is generally from the west to the east. This circulation pattern, most pronounced in winter, brings occasional storm systems that progress eastward on the westerly flow. 

### In the warmer months, the region is dominated by high pressure which produces a more southerly component to the air flow over the state. Localized complex terrain windflow patterns also occur and impact the dispersion of emissions from sources in Arizona. As noted above, Arizona is divided into a number of airsheds. Airshed refers to areas with common weather or meteorological conditions and sources of air pollution. Generally speaking, an airshed includes source and receptor areas. Most often airsheds are defined by topographical features that affect meteorology, as in Arizona, where interconnected mountain ranges form barriers between areas of lower elevation. This differential topography helps create discrete atmospheric conditions or characteristics within a particular airshed where air pollutants from sources within the area are emitted and dispersed. Individual airsheds can also contain local areas of complex terrain responsible for more complicated wind patterns. Both the larger scale synoptic or regional flows and local topographically driven surface winds can influence the speed and direction of transport of emissions. However, because the atmosphere within an airshed acts in a more cohesive and uniform way with respect to the dispersion of emissions, local wind patterns and flow within an individual airshed are most influential in affecting the impact of local emissions. For example, wind patterns in the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainrnent Area are greatly influenced

FINAL-1 10(a)(2)@)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 4by local topography. Because of its valley location, backed by high terrain to the north and east, the Phoenix-MesaNonattaimient Area is subject to distinct up-valleyldown-valley wind patterns. Generally, up-valley or up-slope flows occur during the day and down-valley or down-slope winds occur at night. With nighttime down-slope or drainage flow under stable atmospheric conditions, winds typically are from the east. These conditions can lead to pooling within low lying areashasins at night causing pollutants to concentrate in these areas. Up-slope flow and convection during the day increases dispersion and flow out of the lower lying areas. Under normal daytime conditions in the Phoenix area, surface winds rotate clockwise through south and become southwesterly (up-slope) replacing nighttime down-slope winds as the atmosphere becomes less stable. The up-slope winds that occur during the daytime ozone formation period are generally stronger and more persistent than the night time drainage and pollutants horn the Phoenix area generally track in an easterly direction. The prevailing winds and high elevation blocking terrain to the east of the area were two of the factors that helped determine the

,impacts of transported emissions and the eastern extent of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area.

Similar patterns are repeated across Arizona's many airsheds and areas of complex terrain. Stronger regional flow can at times override local patterns and overcome elevational differences. Under these conditions direction of flow can vary. However, mixing, dispersion, and dilution of emissions are increased, especially with distance. The greatest emissions impacts are local, and any cross-airshed boundary contributions that may occur are minimal relative to local impacts. Location of 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in States Neighboring Arizona Nonattainment areas for 8-hour ozone in states neighboring Arizona are located in southern Nevada (40 CFR 81.329), southern California (40 CFR 81.305), and north-central Colorado (40 CFR 81.306) (see Figure 2-2). The nonattainment area in southern Nevada covers portions of Clark County in and around the Las Vegas metropoiitan area west of the Nevada-Arizona border. because the default ~iorraitaiinent area 

### as defiried in EPA's March 28, 2000, guidance, "Boundary Guidance on Air Quality Designations for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards" was the Las Vegas metropolitan statistical area, which included Mohave County in Arizona, ADEQ submitted a demonstration, in March 2004, that concluded Mohave County did not contribute to nonattainment 

### in the Las Vegas area. EPA concurred and excluded Mohave County fiom the Las Vegas %hour OzoileNonattainment Area when mzking fialdesignatio~s. The closest 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in California is located 

### in Imperial Countyjust west of the Arizona-California border. This area is more than 80 miles west of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area m-c! more than 200 _miles from large point sources in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties. Based on regional and local air flow patterns, California nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissionssources. The 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Colorado is located in the DenverEort Collins area and includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson Counties, as well as portions of Larimer, and Weld Counties. Nonattainment areas in Colorado are separated fiom Arizona by the Rocky Mountains with elevations greater than 14,000 feet and are more than 200 miles hom the ArizonaColorado border and more than 400 miles from the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area. New Mexico and Utah are designated as unclassifiablelattainmentfor &hour ozone. To the east, and downwind of Arizona, the closest 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are the Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio Nonattainment Areas located in north-central and south-central Texas, respectively. The distance fiom the eastern Arizona border to either the Dallas-Fort Worth or the San Antonio areas is more than 600 miles.

FINAL-I 10(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 

### 5Figure 2-2: &Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in the Southwest U.S.

New Mexico

Source US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, AQS L tobase Nonottoinrnent Status:

~~-~~ Part of Cognty Vlhole County '

........ 

### 1Attainment Interstate Hvjy
Conclusion G5m As presented in this SIP revision and EPA documentation fiom CAIR records, the location of emissions sources, monitored air quality data, topography and meteorology, and distance to dowxwind nonattainment areas, all demonstrate that ozone and ozone precursor emissions from Arizona do not mm significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in any other state. The State commits to continue to review available information regarding monitored air quality, existing and projected emissions, and modeled air quality and to take whatever actions may be PP necessary to ensure that emissions activities within the State do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenanceby, other states with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS.
mm

FINAL-1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 6 L~SP,As discussed in section 2.1, designation of areas for new or revised air quality standards under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment areas include any area that does not meet or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the air quality standards. Designations for Phf2.5 areas in Arizona were based primarily on monitored ambient air quality. A review of monitoring data in addition to emissions, modeling information, and distanceto nonattainment areas in other states demonstrate that all areas of Arizona continue to attain the PM25 standards and emissions from Arizona sources do not significantly impact nonattainrnent or maintenancein any other state. Boundary Designations for PMu in Arizona On December 17, 2004, (modified in April 2005) EPA issued designations for the PW.5 standards. All counties within the state ofArizona are designated as attainment/unclassifiable(see 40 CFR 8 1.303). Emissions PMZ5 aerosol consists of crustal particles, elemental carbon, organic carbon, nitrate, and sulfate, the last two of which are secondary pollutants, formed in the atmosphere from gaseous nitrogen oxides @Ox) and sulfur oxides emissions. A small portion of the organic carbon is also secondary, formed from gaseous and semi-volatile hydrocarbon emissions. Emission inventories for PM2 typically account for the primary species: crustal, elemental carbon, and the directly emitted organic carbon. The most recently available PM25 emissions inventories from EPA's AirData for Arizona counties show that while it is the fifth largest county, Maricopa County sources, emit approximately 30 percent of the State's total PM2.5emissions. The inventories confirm that no other county totals for these pollutants equate to the level of emissions generated by Maricopa County (see AppendixBy Table B-2). As noted above, gaseous emissions that contribute to fine particuiate formation include nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides emissions. Emissions inventories liom EPA's AirData for Arizona counties show that Maricopa County sources emit approximately 36 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions. The inventories confirm that no other county totals for these pollutants equate to the level of emissions generated by Maricopa County (see Appendix ByTable B-1). A review of the largest NOx emitting counties in Arizona shows that emissions 

### in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties 

### in north-central and northeast Arizona are dominated by point sources rather than area and mobile sources. According to 2001 inventories from EPA's AirData, emissions liom coal fired electric generating units comprised 68, 63, and 50 percent oftotal NOx emissions in these counties, respectively (see Appendix B, Table B-1). Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties are the largest emitters of sulfur dioxide in Arizona. Emissions in these counties are dominated by point sources rather than area and mobile sources. According to 2001 inventories from EPA's AirData, emissions from coal fired electric generating units and non-ferrous metals processing comprised 99, 69, and 89 percent of total sulfur dioxide emissions in these counties, respectively (see Appendix B, Table B-3). Ambient Monitoring Appendix C, Tables C-2 and C-3 summarize the latest available monitored air quality data for Arizona counties. These data show that all monitored areas are currently meeting the PM25 standards. The highest recorded ambient concentrations liom 2003 through 2005 are from Maricopa County monitoring sites, the area ofhighest PM2.5 emissions within Arizona, and from Santa Cruz County along the ArizonaMexico border.

F- FINAL-1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport 

### SIP (May 2007)Toponaphy and Meteorolonv/Climatolo~ Topography and regional and local circulation patterns for Arizona and the Phoenix area are presented in BF46 section 2.1. Information demonstrates a general west to east wind flow pattern on a regional and local Maricopa County level.

rPW. Location of PMu Nonattainment Areas in StatesNeighboring Arizona California is designated nonattainment for PM2 5 in portions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and all of Orange County (40 CFR 81.305). The Los Angeles Nonapainment Area is more than 100 miles west of the Arizona-California border and approximately 200 miles from m Maricopa County, the area of highest PM25 emissions in Arizona and more than 200 miles from large sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide point sources 

### in Apache, Coconino, Gila, and Navajo Counties. Nonattainment areas to the north in the San Joaquin Valley are more distant from Arizona (see Figure 2- sW 3). Based on regional and local air flow patterns, California nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissions sources.

mw All other states that border Arizona are designated unclassifiable/attainment for Ph& 5 (40 CFR 81.332 

### - New Mexico; 40 CFR 

### 8i .306 - Colorado; 40 CFR 81.345 

### -Utah, 40 CFR 

### 8 1.329-Nevada). The closest nonattainment area to the east, downwind of Arizona, is the St. Louis area in Missouri more than 800 P=D miles from the eastern Arizona border.

FINAL_ 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007)Figure 2-3: 

### PM2,5 Nonattainment Areas in the Southwest 

### U.S.

Nonottainment Status:

" .... . 

### "i" i Part of County Whole County i..._-~ Attainment 1 ;- Interstate Hwy .- Modeling For the 

### CAIRNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA modeled PM2 5 emissions to determinewhich, if any, Western states significantlycontributed to interstate transport affectingnonattainment in an adjacent state. The modeling showed that the westemmost states, including Arizona, did not make contributions above the significancethreshold. EPA stated in its CorrectedResponse To Sign#cant Public Comments 

### On the Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005, Corrected April 2005, Document ID No. EPA-HQ2003-0053-2172, pages 200-201): "Regarding modeling of all States, in the PM2.3 modeling for the NPRM; we modeled 41 States, and found that the westernmost of these States made very small contributions to nonattainment in any other state.' For the revised modeling for the final rule, we reduced the set of States modeled [to 37for Pw for reasons of e~cienc~.~ The results again

1 The nine westernmost states that were not modeled for the NPRM are Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Utah, Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii. 2 The additional four statesnot modeled for the final rule are Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
FINAL110(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 

### 9showed that the westernnzost States modeled did not make contributions above the sign@cance threshold, indicating that had other even nzore western States been modeled they also would not have done so. " Conclusion As presented in this SIP revision and EPA documentation from CAIR records, the location of emissions sources, monitored air quality data, topography and meteorology, distance to downwind nonattainment areas, and air quality modeling all demonstrate that PM2,5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions from Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 standards in any other state. The State commits to continue to review available information regarding monitored air quality, existing and projected emissions, and modeled air quality and to take whatever actions may be necessary to ensure that emissions activities within the State do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, other states with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS.

FINAT,-1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007)

### CWTER 3: 

### PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION Section llO(a)(2)(D)(i)(LI) of the CAA requires states to prohibit emissions within the state from interfering with implementation plans from other states falling under Part C of Section 110 to prevent significant deteriorationof air quality. EPA's Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) guidance, issued on August 15, 2006, included the following provisions regarding prevention of significant deterioration: "For the 8-hour ozone standard, each State only needs to make a SIP submission that conjrms that major sources in the State are currently subject to PSD and 

### NNSR permitting programs that apply to the 8-hour ozone standmd and that SIP-approved States are on track to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline for SIP submissions adopting requirements ofthe Phase 

### IIozone implementation rule. For the PM 2.5 standard, States need onlyprovide a SIP submission that conjrms that major sources in the State are subject for PSD and 

### NNSR permitting programs implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for use ofPM-10 as a surrogate for PM-2.5 in the PSD andNNSRprograms. " All new sources and modifications to existing sources in Arizona are subject to state requirements for preconstruction review and permitting pursuant toArizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 2 and 4 or relevant county rules. All new major sources and major modificationsto existing major sources in Arizona are subjectto the nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) provisions of these rules (including ozone nonattainment areas) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for attainment areas. Arizona will update the NSR rules when EPA's PM2.5 implementation guidance is finalized. Arizona will implement the current rules 

### in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PMlo as a surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD and NNSR programs. The State commits to continue to review new information regarding monitored air quality, existing and projected emissions, and modeled air quality, and to take whatever actioris may be necesshy to ensure that emissions iictivities within the State do not interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state to prevent significant deterioration.

FINAL-1 10(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007)TER 4: PROTECTION OF VISKBILITlr' Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) contains a requirement for states to prohibit emissions that interfere with plans from other states that protect visibility. In 1980, EPA issued regulations requiring states to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). EPA's guidance for section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) issued on August 15,2006, states the following regardingRAW: "At this point in time, EPA has made no determination that emissions +om any State interfere with measures required to be included in a plan to address reaso~zably attributable visibility impairment. Further, EPA is not aware of any certiJication of existing reasonably attributable impairment ofvisibility by a Federal Land manager that has not already been resolved. The EPA accordingly believes that States should be able to make a relatively simple SIP submission verrJfying that no source within the State emits pollutants that interfere with measures included in the visibility SIPs under the 1980 regulations. " The state of Arizona promulgated a iCAW rule, effective December 2003, to address visibility impairment from existing stationary sources. ArizonaAdministrative Code SectionsR18-2-1601through R18-2-1606 require Arizona to analyze and implement control strategieswhere applicable should a source be certified and found attributable for causing or contributingto visibility impairment. Arizona Administrative Code SectionR18-2-410 hrther provides protection of visibilityby requiring new major sources or sources making major modifications to complete an analysis of the anticipated impacts on visibility to any Class I area that may be affected by the emissions from the source. Federal Land Managers (FLMs) may also submit a visibility impact analysis for additional consideration during the permitting process. Regarding visibility impairment caused by regional haze, Arizona submitted a Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 in December 2003 for its four Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau and will be submitting a SIP for its remaining eight Class I areas in December 2007 under 40 CFR 5 1.309(g). The 2003 SIP will be updated in 2007 to include an analysis of visibility impactsto Arizona Class 

### I areas fiom other states' sources as well as impacts to other states' Class I aieas fiom Arizona sources. This analysis is also required for the SIP submittedunder Section 309(g). EPA guidance for section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) issued on August 15, 2006, included the following provisions related to regional haze: "EPA believes that it is currentlypremature to determine whether or not State SIPs for 8- hour ozone or PM2.5 contain adequateprovisions toprohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other State's SIPs designed to address regional haze. Accordingly, EPA believes that States may make a simple SIP submission conjirming that it is not possible at this time to assess whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another State designed to 'brotectvisibility" for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NMQS until regional haze SIPs are submittedand approved" The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality concurs with this assessment regarding regional haze. The SIPs for %-hour ozone are not due to be submitteduntil mid-2007, and SIPs for PM2 5 are due in April of 200%. The Regional Haze SIPs are due in December 2007. The SIP developmentprocess will enable Arizona to determine the degree ofthe impact of emissions on regional haze and the protection of visibility as it pertains to %-hour ozone and PM2.5.Until these SIPs are submitted, accurate assessments regardingthe impact of emissions and control measures on other states' SIPs cannot be made. Arizona's

FINAL-1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 12regional haze SIP will address visibility impairment. The State also comitsto continue to review available information and to take whatever actions may be necessary to ensurethat emissions activities within the State do not interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other stateto protect visibility.

F- FINAL-I IO(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007)
F,

### CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Based on the information and conclusions presented in this SIP submission, the Arizona Department of Environmeiltal Quality has determined that the state of Arizona will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of $-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. 

### In addition, Arizona meets the PSD and protection of visibility requirements under CAA Section 11

O(a)(2)(D)(i).

FINAL-1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 14 rnAppendix A

F Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions toMeet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section IlO(a)(2)(D)(i)forthe &-HourOzone andPM2.5National Ambient Air Quality

F= Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 15,2006UNITED STAPES ENVIRONMENTAL PWBTEC'I'ION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2771 1


### AUG 1 

## 5 2006

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS


### SUBJECT: Guidance for StateImplementation Plan (SIP) Submissionsto Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)for the $-HourOzone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards FROM: William T. 

### Harnett, Director 

### Air QualityPolicy Division, OAQPS (C539-01) TO: Regional Air 

### Division Director, Regions I-X 

### The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance concerningthe State implementationplan (SIP) submissions States should make to meet their currentlyoutstanding obligations under section 1 1 

### O(a)(2)@)(i). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) haspreviously indicated through ruiemaking what States affectedby the Ciean Air InterstateRule (CkiRj

### must do concerning emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainmentor interfere with maintenance ofthe 

### 8- hour ozone or fine particulates (F'M2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

### in another State. This guidance, therefore, addresseswhat Statesthat are not affectedby the CAlR should consider 

### in meeting the "significant contribution'' and "interfere with maintenance" requirements of section i 

### 10(a)(2)@)(i), and what all States (inside or outsidethe CNRregion) should consider with respect to making submissions to meet the "prevention of significant deterioration" and "protect visibility" requirementsof section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i). Becausethe CATR region differs forpurposes of 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, some Statesmay be within the 

### CAIR region for purposes of one iu'AAQS,

### bui not the other, and should make 

### section 11

O(a)(2)@)(i) SIP submissions that account forthis distinction. On July 18, 1997,EPA promulgatedNAAQS for ozone and for frneparticulatematter. Section 1 1 0(a)(l) ofthe CleanAir Act requires Statesto submitnew SIPsto provide for the implementation,maintenance, and enforcementofnew orrevised NAAQS. Section 1 

### lO(a)(2) lists the elements that the new SIP 

### submissionsmust contain. Among other things, SIPs for new orrevised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions to address interstate transport of air pollution, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)@)(i).

InternetAddress (URL) http://www.epa.gov RecycledlRecyclable

# . Prinledwith Vegetable Oil Based Inkon RecycledPaper (Minimum 25% Poslwnsumer)

### Section 110(a)(l)explicitly provides that Statesmust adopt 

### md submit to the EPA fidmiIistrat0r new 

### SIP submissions within 3 yeas after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, meeting the provisions of 110(a)(2), as applicable. Therefore, States should have submitted SIPs to EPA for the 8-hour ozoneNAAQS and the Pikf2.5NAAQS by no later than July2000. However, at this time no State has submitted a new 

### SIP. We recognize that litigation overboth the 8-hour ozoneNAAQS and the Phf2,5 NMQS created substantial uncertainty as to how to proceed. Moreover, in the case ofPM2.5, additionaltime was needed for creation of a monitoring network, collectionof at least three years of data, and analysis ofthose data. On April 25,2005, EBB published an action in the Federal Re&ter making a finding that States had failed to make statutorily required SIP submissions for the 8-how ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA explicitly limited this finding of failure to submitto the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)@)(i) pertaining to interstatetransport. The finding of failure to submit action started a 24-month clock for EPA to issue 

### a finalSFederal Implementation Plan PIP)to meet the requirementsof section 1 

### 10(a)(2)@)(i), forboth the $-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, unless EPA instead approves a State SIP submissionto meet those requirementsin advance ofthat date. The finding of failwe to submit SIPs addressing section 110(a)(2)@)(i) 

### is the first action required under a ConsentDecree between EPA andplaintiffs who sued the Agency for failure to take action to require the submissionof new SIPs for the &hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, or to issueFEs

### in iieu thereor: The 

### EPA has also cornmirtedin the Consent Decreeio mke later actions to determine whether Stateshave submittedthe remaining SIP elements requiredby section 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 8-hour ozone and PW.5NAAQS by no laterthan December 15, 2007, for ozone, and by no later than October 5,2008, forPM2.5. The Agency intends to provide Stateswith additionalinformation concerningthe remaining section 11 O(a)(l) and (2) SIP eiements, in separate regulations or guidance documents. We emphasize that this document is merely guidance and that States or EPA may elect to follow or deviatefrom this guidance, as appropriate. The ultimate determinationofwhether a given 

### SFsubmissionby a statemeets the stahtoryrequirements of section i 

### 10 

### jaj(2 jQ3)jij 

### wiii be accomplished through case by case notice and comment rulemaking 

### in which the facts and circumstancesof each Statesubmission will be evaluatedby EPA. We 

### ask that the EPA Regional Offices work with their respective States in the developmentoftheir SIP submissions.

m 

### If you have questions concerning this guidance, please contact 

### Mr. Larry D. 

### Wallace (919) 541-0906. Please ensure that the appropriate

### air agency oficials for the Statesin your Region are made aware ofthis guidance.ars 

### Attachment

cc: Margo Oge, OTAQ StevePage, OAQPS Brian McLean, OAP ScottMathias, AQPD KevinMcLean, OGC 

### Barbara Driscoll, AQPD Larry Wallace, AQPD 

### Kimber Scavo, AQPD Geoffrey Wilcox, OGC Norm Possiel, AQAD

### Guidance 

### for StateImplementation Plan Submissions to Meet Current 

### Outstanding Obligsfltiesllas Under 

### Seetion IPO(a)(2)@)(i) 

### for the 

### 8-Honr Cbzomne 

### a~d 

### PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

### QnaliQ Staendards

1. 

### Iantroduction: 

### This documentprovides guidance to Statesconcerning State ImplementationPlan (SIP) submissions that Statesmust make pursuant to section 

### B lO(a)(2)@)(i). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasizesthat this guidance document merely provides suggestions and that States or EPA may elect to follow or deviate fiom this guidance, as appropriate. The ultimate determinationofwhether a given SP submissionby a Statemeets the requirements of section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i) will be accomplishedby area specific notice and commentrulemaking in which-the facts and circumstancesofeach State submission will be evaluated by EPA. Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) ofthe CIean Air Act (CAA), require States to submit SPsthat implement, maintain, and enforce a new or revised national ambient 

### a2quality standard (NAAQS) within 3 

### years followingthe promulgation ofthe standard. In 

### July 1997,EPA issued the 8-hour ozone and 

### PM2.5 NAAQS. Stateswere thus required to 

### submit SIPS that satisfy the applicable CAA requirements under section 110(a)(l) and (2) for these NAAQS by July 2000. bong the SIP elements identified 

### in section 110(a)(2)is the requirement to address interstate transport ofpollutants pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The. 

### EPA hzs ddeteImiiied that 

### ~~cti~ii 11G(a)(2)(Dj@ is mong the 

### SIP rqLiirerneiis with wkik~ich 

### Statesmust comply in 

### accordance with the schedule of section 110(a)(l).' On April 25,2005, lEPA notified States oftheir failure to make the required SP submission addressing interstate transport ofpollutants related to ozone and PM2.5

### in downwind ~tates.~ Pursuant to section 1 1 O(c), EPA's April 25,2005 finding offailureto submit started a 24-month clock for EPA to issue a finalFederal ImplementationPlan (FIP) to address the req~ii-exr;e~ts of 

### section 1!0(~)(2)@)(i), 

### z;i!ess a Statemakes the 

### reqirzd s-irAssion

### md

### EPA approves such submissionwithin 

### that 24-month period. The 24-month FPclockbegan on

'See,



### - "Rule to Reduce InterstateTransport ofFine Particulate Matter a. 

### Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to theNO, SIP Call; Final Rule," 70 

### FR 25,162 at 25,263-69 (May 12,2005). 

### 'See, "Finding ofFailure to Submit Section 1 10 StateImplementation Plans for InterstateTransport for the National Ambient Air Quality Standardsfor 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5," 70 FR 

### 21,147 (April 25,2005).

### May 25,2005, the effective date ofthe finding of failure to submit, and will end on May 25, 2007. The EPA's finding of failureto submit SPsthat address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)is the first action required under a Consent ~ecree.~ Under the Consent Decree, EPA is also obligated to make later determinations as to whether States have made the required SIP submissions to meet the remaining applicable requirements of section 110(a)(l) and (2). The EPA is obligated to make these later determinationsby December 15,2007,for SIP submissions forthe $-hour ozoneNAAQS, and by October 5,2008, for SIP submissions pertaining to the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes that Section 

### I lO(a)(2)(D)(i)provides an important tool for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS by addressing the problem of interstate transport of 

### air pollutants. This provision appliesto each pollutant covered by a NAAQS and to all areas of each Stateregardless of the attainment ornonattainment designation of such areas. Section 110(a)(2)@)(i) specifically provides that each State's SIPmust contain adequate provisions to 

### prohibit air pollutant emissionsfiom within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe.NAAQS, or that interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other State. 

### In addition, this section requires that each State's SIPmust contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions of air pollutants within the State that interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in any other State. TheEPA 

### intends to provide additional informationto 

### States concerning the remaining secti~r? 1

!O(a)(!) 

### (2) SIP 

### elcmmts, either 

### in regu!&ions irnpleme~thg the 

### 8-hurazace

### nr PMX5 NAAQS, or in 

### later guidance documents.

-m 

### 2. What is 

### required under section 11O(a)(Z)@)(i): Section 110(a)(l) requires Statesto make a SP submissionfor a new orrevised NAAQS within 3 years ofpromulgation of such new orrevised NAAQS. S~.ti.tinn 110@)(2) 

### lists the 

### elemwts those SPsmust 

### contab-I;nr 

### example, 

### this section lists certain SIP infkastructure elements related to the new or revised standards such as requirements for provisions pertaining to modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe standards. 

### An important SIP element

3TheConsent Decree is between Environmental Defense and American Lung Association, as 

### plaintiffs, and EPA, as defendant, signed March 10,2005. The Consent Decree resolved the case entitled "Environmental Defense, et al. v. Johnson," No. 1:05CV00493@.D.C.). EPA 

### gavenotice of, and took comment on, the proposed consent decreein accordance with CAA section 113(g). 

### &,70 FR 

### 15,623 (March 28,2005).

### listed 

### in section 110(a)(2)is the requirementthat States addressmissions that impact other States through interstate transpo&. The "good neighbor" provisions in section 

### 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i)require each State to submit a SP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another State 

### inthe ways contemplated in the statute. Section 

### 1 10(a)(2)@)(i) contains four distinct requirementsrelated to the impacts of interstatetransport. Each Statemust submit a SIP which contains adequateprovisions: prohibiting


## ... any source or other type of emissions activity within the State fkom emitting any airpollutant in mountswhich will 

## - (I) 

### contribute significantlyto nonattainrnent in, or interfere with maintenanceby, myother Statewith respect to any


### ...national primary or secondary air quality standard, or 

### (II) interfere with measures required to be includedin the applicable implementationplan for any other State


## ....to prevent significant deterioration of air 

### quality or to protect visibility. 

### The EPA's April 25,2005 finding of failure 

### to submit reflected EPA's determination that Stateshad not yet made SIP submissions for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

### NAAQS necessaryto meet the requirements of section 1

### 10(a)(2)@)(i). The precise nature and contents of such a submissionis not stipulated 

### in the statute. EPA believes that the contents of the SIP submission requiredby section 1lO(a)(2)@)(i) may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances related to the specificNAAQS. 

### Inparticular, the data and analytical tools aviiilable at the time the State develops and submits a SIP for a new or revised 

### NMQSiie~~ssarily affects the content of the rquiied submission. 

### In someinstances, this submissionmay be more detailed and substantive, as 

### when existing data and analyses already provide the requisite information. 

### In other instances, the submission may be more preliminary and simplified, as 

### when there is currently insufficient informationto support a dete-iniiti~n t32t 

### there me 

### hterstztetrmsporf 

### iipxts,or whez~ ether !2kr regd2tcryatie~s 

### are prerequisites to making such a determination. The sectionsbelow provide guidance concerningthe types of SIP submissionsthat 

### EPA believes would be appropriate

### in response to the April 25,2005, finding offailure to submit.

### 3. 

### States subject 

### to the Clean Air Interstate Rule: In March of 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

## CAR).^ Based upon the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i),EPA determined 

### in the CAIR that NOxemissions fkom sources in 25 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantlyto nonattainment mdinterfere with maintenance of the 8-how ozone standard in other downwind States. The EPA also determinedthat SO2and NOxemissions from sources in 23 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe PM 2.5 standardsin other downwind States. Subsequently, EPA determined that two additional States contribute to nonattaipment and interfere with maintenance ofthe PM2.5 

### NMQS.' (See Attachment A listing the States subjectto the 

### CAW). In the CAIR, 

### BPA concluded that the Stateswill'meet their section 110(a)(2)@)(i) obligations to address the "significant contribution" and "interference with maintenance" requirementsby 

### complying with the CAIRrequirements. Consequently, Stateswithin the CAR region need not submit a separate SIPrevision to satisfy the section 110(a)(Z)@)(i) requirements provided that they submit a SIPrevision to satisfyCAIR. Pursuantto section 110(a)(l),those Statesnot within the CAIRregion must also make a submission with respect to those two requirements. Also in 

### accordance with the statute, all States,both inside and outside the CAJRregion must make a 

### submissionwith respect to the "prevention of significant deterioration" and "protect visibility" requirements of section !



### !0(2)(2)@)(i). It should be

### mted thzt becz~se LIE 

### C-. 

### rsgion 

### differs firppzses

### zf ezene andPM2.5,some Statesmay be inside the CAIR region forpurposes of oneNAAQS, but outside the CAWregion forthe other, and should make section 11 0(a)(Z)@)(i) SIP submissionsthat 

### account for this distinction. Azcordi~gly, EPA 

### has stmctured +&s 

### guidance ts 

### address the 

### different types of 

### considerationsthat States may need to evaluate

### in making their respective submissions.

4. SIP S~b~&siecs 

### ftcm Sf&s 

### pe&zi&hgic 

### 6cefgaificant co~trff?n$~~yy 2nd 

### "interfere with maintenance5'requirements of section 110(a)(2)@)(i): States not covered by the CAJR must make a section 110(a)(2)@)(i)SIP submission addressing significant contributionto nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 8-hour ozone and 

### PM25 NAAQS in any other States.

*98 

### 4See,supra note 1. 'see -y 

### Inclusion ofDelaware and New Jersey in Clean

### Air Interstate Rule, 71 FR 25288 (April 28,2006).

### The EPA anticipates, based upon existinginformation developedin connectionwith the CAR, that emissions from sources in Statesnot coveredby the CAW do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interferewith maintenance of the 8-hour ozone or 

### PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State. Unless a 

### State excluded from the CARhas 

### contrary information or analysis, EPA believes that such State should be able to make a relatively simple SIP submission verifpng that the State does not sipificantly contribute to nonattainmentor interfere with maintenance ofthe 8-hour ozone or 

### PM25in another State. EPA believes that a negative declarationfrom each of the non-CAR States, which certifies that the State in question does not significantly contribute to nonattainmentor interferewith maintenance ofthe NAAQS in another State, should be adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)@)(i). States should submit a technical demonstrationto support a negative declaration. EPA 

### believes that this demonstration should containthe informationwhich the State deems appropriate to support its claim that it does not significantly contribute to nonattainmentor interferewith 

### maintenance ofthe standardsin another State. Suitable information might include, but isnot be limited to, information concerning emissions in the State, meteorological conditions in the State,the distanceto the nearestnonattainment area in another State, reliance on modeling conductedby EPA in determiningthat such State should not be included within the ambit ofthe CAIR, or such other information as the Stateconsiders probative on the issue of significant contributionand 

### interferencewith maintenance. TheEPA believes that it would be appropriate for States to make this assessment using considerations comparable to those used by EPA in 

# -. r,,l,ating n ,, 

### sigcificmt -,t~=fitr;lb.dt;io~ 

### in the CAE, 

### ~sessing t5e ixpacts of

### e~issicns on nearby nonattainment areas as ofthe year 2010, 

### and evaluating mitigation strategiesbased upon emissions reductions achievablethrough highly cost effective controls. 

### In addition, Statesthat are not subjectto the CAE,but are subject to theNO, SIP Call, nzywish to indicatethat SIPSsm'bzrittedt~meet the NO, 

### SIP Call should

### be suficierntto 

### sz~sfy the section 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i) obligation for the 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. EPA initially addressed interstate transport for ozone in the NO, SIP Call rule published 

### in 1998.~ The NOxSIP Call is substantiallyreducing ozonetransport, and ishelping downwind areas meet the 8-hour ozone st=dzrr!e. 

### ThzSPA

### belie-.res fh~t 

### .tktesoctside th~, 

### CAD. regenth~t 

### as mez?ihg ?hz

### NGx 

### SP Call should not significantlybe contributing to nonattainmentor interferringwith maintenance in any down wind state. The EPA will assist each State to evaluate the available information and to develop a sufficient SIP submissionand demonstration to meet this element of section 110(a)(2)@)(i).

"Finding of SignificantContribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in 

### the Ozone TransportAssessment GroupRegion for the Purposes ofReducing Regional Transportof OzoneRule, (63 

### FR 57356, October 27, 1998).

### EPA will take action on the SIP submissions made by States throughnotice and comment rulemaking,thereby assuring that the requirements are met. 5. 

### SIP Submissions

### from States pertaining td the "prevention of significant deterioration9'requirement of section PlO(a)(2)@)(i): 

### Section 1lO(a)(2)@)(i)(I][) also contains a requirement for all States to submit SlPs that contain adequateprovisions prohibiting 

## ".... any source or other type of emission activity within the State &om emitting any airpollutant in amounts which will 

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


## .... to prevent significant deterioration of air 

### quality 

## ..." Under EPA regulations, each SIPrnust include a preconstruction review program for major sourcesto satisfythe requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act. 40 C.F.R. § 

### 5 1.165@)(1). 

### In nonattainment areas, thepreconstructionreview program is known as 

### MonattainmentMew SourceReview (NNSR) and in attainment areas, preconstruction review is part of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Theseprograms require preconstructionpermits to protect the 

### air quality within each state and also serve to prohibit construction ofnew major sources and major modifications at existing major sources from contributingto nonattainment in adjacent states. The PSDpermitting program is also the primarymeasure that each SIPmust includeto prevent significant deterioration ofair quality in accordance with Title I, 

### Part C and section 110(a)(2)@)(i)(II) ofthe Act. See,

### 40 CFR 

### 9 5

### 1.166. Section 110(~)(2)(D)(i)&I reqlaires tbtSPsmntain adequate provisions pr~bibitifig snlxces or emissions activity within each state "from emittingany airpollutant in amountswhich will 

### -- 

### .

## .

# . interferewith 

### measuresrequired to be includedin the applicable implementation plan for any other Stateunder part 

### C ofthis subchapterto prevent significant deterioration of 

### air quality


### ... ." 42 U.S 

### .C. § 

### 741 O(a)(2)@)(i)(II). Because all areas are currently subjectto some form ofpreconstruction permitting program for ozone and PM2.5, it isnot necessary, at this time, for Statesto make a SIP submission containing rule changes or modeling demonstrations

### in orderto address 

### sectinn 1 

### In(a)?!(2)(D)(i))(IT) for 

### the 8-hnnrnrnne 2nd 

### pb!f2.5 

### N-A-4Q.C. EPA has established K

### will establish schedules for SJP submissionsthat incorporaterevisionsto EPA's preconstruction permitting regulations that are specificto the 8-hour ozone and PM25 MAAQS. Areas will need to revise their SlPs consistent with such schedules. Each area ofthe countryis currently subject to an equivalentPSD or NNSR permitting program for the 8-hour ozone standard and an interim PSD orNNSR permittingprogram for PM2.5. If 

### a particular state SIP lacks an approved PSD program, the PSD permitting requirementsmust be implementedin that state or local area through a federalPSD program that can be administered by the state or local permitting authority under a delegation agreementwith EPA. 

### Where a state lacks an approved NNSR program, the state may issue NNSR permits

### pursuant to 

### an EPA regulation at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S. 

### If such a state lacks authority to issue permits consistent with appendix 

### S,DA is the permitting authority. In April 2004 and November 2005, EPA promulgated regulations 

### in two phases tbat addressed (among othertopics) the implementationof the PSD and NPdSR programs under the $-hour ozoneNAAQS. See69FR 23951 (Apr. 30,2004); 70 Fed. Reg. 71612 (Nov. 29,2005). The first phase ofthese rules requires implementationofNNSR in accordance with 

### an area's 

### 8- hour ozone classification after revocation ofthe l-hour ozoneNAAQS. 

### See 69 FR at 23985. The EPA revoked the 1 -hour ozoneNAAQS on June 

### B5,2005. Thus, new and modified major sourcesofvolatile organic compound md

### NO, are currently subject to WSRbased on the designation and classification of the area in which they are located under the %hour ozone NAAQS. 

### h an 8-hour ozonenonattainment area that currently

### has no approved nonattainment plan or otherwiselacks authority to implement nonattainmentNSR for the 8-hour ozoneNAAQS through a SIP-approved permittingprogram,perrnits fornew and modified major stationary sources 

### in such areas must be consistent with the requirementsin appendix S of 40 CFR. Part 51. EPAdetermined that states did not need to submit

### anyrevisions oftheir existingPSD prografns to implement of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but the Agency simultaneouslypromulgated new rules to establish NOx as 

### a precursor for ozone under the PSD program. 

### See 68 

### FR 32802, 32843-44 (Jun. 2,2003); 70FR at 71679. The EPA established June 15,2007 as the deadline for statesto provide SIP submissions that incorporate the requirementsofthephase 

### I1 ozone implementationrule into their PSD and NNSR programs. See 70

### FR at 71683. For

### PP&.5, EPA htis reccilllie~ded 

### :Elst st~tea employ kterim 

### PPJ2.5 pragrz= &st 

### involves implementing existing PSD and NNSR programs for PMlo

### as a surrogate for the PM2-5 requirements until the necessary tools are in place for statesto adopt PSD and NNSR programs for PM2,5.

### See,Memorandum from John Seitz, EPA OAQPS, "Interim Implementation for the New SourceReview Requirements for PM2.5," (October 23, 1997); Memorandum fi-omSteve Page, EFA BAQPS, "Lipleiiimtation ofNew 

### S~urce Review Requiremeats 

### in FM2.5 NonattainrnentAreas." (April 5,2005). In November 2005, EPA has proposed regulations that establishthe minimumrequirements forPSD and WSRprograms forPM25 70 

### FR 65984, 66033 (Nov. 1,2005),but the Agency has not promulgated finalregulations on this subject. Stztes zire 

### not 

### reqiired to submit

### PSD =d FD=SR 

### ~r=gm SPs

### fcr PMz5 

### =ti! EPA 

### cmpletes these regulations and finalizes the submission schedule, which we have proposed to be April 5, 2008. Until the submission date is established in EPA's final PM2.s implementation rule for NSR, statesmay continue to implement interimprograms based on PMlo and need not provide PSD or NNSR program submissionscontaining rule changes for PMz.5. The air quality demonstrationsrequired for issuance of a PSD and NNSR permit must be made for all areas that are potentially impactedby the emissionsfiom aproposed source or modification requiring a permit. As a result, the implementationof a PSD and NNSR permitting program in each state serves to prevent significant deteriorationin 

### neighboring states and thus largely satisfiesthe requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. A PSD permit may



## . not be issued unless the new or modified somedemonstrates that emissionsfiom the

### constsuction or operation ofthe facilitywill not cause or contributeto air pollution in any area that exceeds of any NAAQS or any maximum allowableincrease (known as the PSD increment). 42 U.S.C. $ 7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 

## 5 51.166(k). A 

### NNSR permit may not be issued unless the new or modified source shows it has obtained sufficient emissions reductions to offset increasesin emissions ofthe pollutants for which an area is in nonattainrnent, consistent with reasonable further

### programtoward attainment. These offsetting reductions could also help serve to prevent significantdeterioration in any instance where the emissions of a nonattainmentpollutant from a source in a nonattainment area would impact a nearby attainment area forthat pollutant. 

### In additionto PSD permitting program, a SIPmay includeadditional measures as necessary to prevent air pollution in excess of the PSD increment that defmes significant deterioration for each area. 40 

### CFR § 

### 51.166(a). The EPA has not established PSD increments for ozone or PM2.3. Without these components of a PSD program, it is difficult for states to determine if additional measures are needed to prevent significant deterioration within the state. Likewise, a neighboring state cannot determine whether its SIPwould interfere with such additionalmeasures in another state's SIP. However, notwithstanding the absence ofPSD increments for ozone and PM2.s,statesmay continue to rely on their existingPSD and NNSR permitting programs to prevent significant deterioration of 

### air quality within their own boundaries and in adjacent states. Because the PSD and NNSR permitting programs currently applicable in each area require a demonstration that new or modified sources will not cause or contributeto air

### pollution 

### in excess ~fthe 

### FIPAQS 

### i~ nleigllbori2g ~tztes 

### zr thzt ssourses

### ir~ ncnz?taimsnt xemproclxe offsets, EPA believes that statesneed not make an additional SIP submissioncontainingrule changes ormodeling demonstrations to addressthe "prevent significant deterioration" requirement of section 11 

### O(a)(2)@)(i)(LI) for the 8-hourozone and 

### PM2.5 NAAQS. For 8-hour ozone, each state onlyneeds to make a SIP submission confirming that major sources in the state are cmently sdbjectto PSD andWJER permittkg prcgramsthat implenient the 8-how ozone standard and that SIP-approvedstates are ontrack to meet the June 15,2007 deadline for SIP submissionsadopting the requirements ofthe Phase

### I1 ozone implementationrule. For PM2.5, states need onlyprovide a SIP submission confirming thatmajor sourcesinthe state are subject tso PSD 

### ad NXSK

### permittkg prr?gmmbplaentec? k ,n,~ccardmce 

### with EPAe hteim 

### guidancecalling foruse ofPMloas a surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD and 

### NNSR programs. Additional SIP submissions will be due after the final NSR implementationrules for Phd2.5 are promulgated. TheEPA will assist each Stateto evaluate the available information and to develop a sufficient SIP submissionand demonstrationto meet this element of section 11 

### O(a)(2)@)(i). The 

### EPA will take action on the SIP submissions made by Statesthrough notice and comment rulemaking, thereby assuringthat the requirementsaremet.

### 6. SIP 

### Snbannissiolnsfrom States pertaining to the 

### 6'protect 

### visibility" requirement 

### of section 

### 11

### O(a)(Z)(D)(o: Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) also contains a requirement for all Statesto submit SPsthat contain adequate provisions prohibiting " 

## ... any sourceor other type of emission activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will - 

### interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for

### my other State

## .... to protect visibility." The EPA adopted a phased approach to visibilityprotection, issuingregulations in 1980 to address reasonably attributable visibilityimpairment, i.e., visibilityimpairment that is caused by the emissions of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources, and issuingregulations in 1999to address regional haze, 

### i.e.,"visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographicarea."' Under the 1980 regulations, 33 States and the Virgin Islands were required to submit SIPSto address reasonably attributablevisibilityimpairment. At this point in time, EPA has made no determination that emissionsfiom any Stateinterfere with measures required to be included in a plan to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Further, EPA is not aware of any certification of existing reasonably attributableirnpainnent ofvisibilityby a Federal 

### Land Manager that has not already been resolved. The EPA accordingly believes that States shouldbe able to make a relatively simple SIP submissionverifying that no source within the State emitspollutants that interfere with measures included in the visibility SPsunder the 1980regulations. 

### In 1999,EPA found that all States contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in one or more Class I areas.8 Pursuant to this finding, States are currently under an obligation to submit SIPsthat contain measures to address regional haze, including a long-term strategy to address visibility impairment for each Class I area which maybe affectedby emissions

### fiam a 

### ~kte.~ The States and Regional Planning Qrgaiizatioiis are 

### currently engaged in the task ofidentifying those Class 

### I areas impactedby each State's emissions and developing strategies for addressingregional haze to be included 

### in the States' regional haze SIPS. These SIP submissionsare dueno later than December 17,2007. As a result, 

### EPA believes that it is currently premature to determine whether or not State SIPs for &hour ozone or contain adequateprovisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other States' SIPsdesigned to addressregional haze. Accordingly,EPA believes that Statesmay make a simple SIP submissionconfirmingthat it is not possible at this time to assess whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another
See, 40CFR section 51.300-308. 

### 'see, 'Xegional Haze Regulations," 

### 64 

### FR 35,714,35,721 (July 1, 1999). '40 CFR 5 1.308(d)(3). 9ssw 

### State designed to "protect visibility" for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until regional haze SIPSare submitted and approved.

w= 

### The EPA will assist each State to evaluate the available information and to develop a sufficient SIP submission and demonstration to meet this element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
F 

### EPA will take action on the SIP submissionsmade by Statesthrough notice and comment rulemaking, thereby assuring that the requirements are met.



### 7. When 

### sllaolnld States 

### make section 

### I%O(a)(z)@)(i) SIP 

### submissioaas? The EPA made the fmding of failure to submit in 

### April of2005, with an effective date of May 25,2005. As a result ofthe finding of failure to submit, the CAAimposes a 24-month clock for EPA to issue a FP,

### unless a Statehas made the required submission to cure the failure to submit and EPA has acted to approve such submission fillyin advanc; ofthe end of the 24-month period. 

### In conjunction with the CAIR, EPA has promulgated a FIP for alljurisdictions 

### in the CAIR region to provide a federalbackstop to insure timely and effectivereductions of emissions fiom those States 

### in accordancewith section IIO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA has not, however, promulgated a FIP addressing section 110(a)(2)@)(i) for any States outside ofthe CAlRregion. States outside the CAlRregion must therefore make suTbmissionsto meet the significant 

### co0%i2,u?ion btmference with mabtf:~?mce requirements of section 1IC!(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) t~ avoid a 

### FIP addressingthose requirements. 

### In addition, all Stateshave 

### an outstanding statutory obligation to make a SIP submission to meet the requirements of section lIO(a)(2)@)(i)(II) in avoid a FIP for thoserequirements. The EPA is currentlymderm obligation to issue a 

### PIP by May 25,2007, for any State that does not make a submission that cures the outstanding elements of section 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i) for that State. Unless the Statemakes the necessary SIP submission sufficientlyin advmce of that date for EPA to evaluatethe submissionmd to take the necessaryrulemaking action to 

### approve or disapprove iti EPA 

### may need 

### to injtiate the I;P

### mlern&ir?gp~oces in order t~meet the May 2007 FIP deadline. For this reason, EPA believes that it would be appropriate for each Stateto make the SIP submission necessary to meet its outstanding obligations under section 110(a)(2)@)(i) well 

### in advance ofthe May 25,2007 FIP deadline. The EPA therefore suggeststhat States should make their SIP submissionby no later than November 25,2006, 

### in order to allow adequate time for the necessaryAgency action on the submission. The EPA recognizes that this target SIP submission date is only 18 months after the effective date ofthe finding of failure to submit,, and that the Agency is issuingthis guidance concerning the necessary SIP submissions only shortlyin advance ofthe target date. As a result, EPA intends to be as flexible aspossible with respect to the target SP submission date md will work with Statesto insurethat they can make appropriate SIP submissions as closeto

### November 25,2006, as possible. However, in the event of submissions significantly later than this date, 

### EPA may need to initiatethe 

### FIP process to meet its own statutory obligationsto implement 

### FIPs where States fail to submit 

### SPsthat the 

### Agency can approve in advance of

### the May 25,2007 

### FP deadline.

### AQtachment A: 

### States subject 

### to the 

### CMRAppendix 

### B Arizona Nitrogen Oxides, Volatile Organic Compound, PMz.5,and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventories-- - Table B-1: 2001 Arizona State and County Point,Area, and Mobile Source Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic CompoundsEmissions (tons) County Area 

# i 1 Rfgng

# 1 (square miles) Oxides 

## (N03

I 

# 1 Coconino 18,608 

# 1 54,282 

# 1 13,913 

# 1 Volatile Organic 

## c~~~~~~~~ (VOC) Apache

1 

# 1 Gila 

### 1 11 

# 1 4,752 

# 1 3,332 

# 1 4,712 

# 1 1 Graham 

# I 12 

# I 4,630 

# 1 1,376 

# 1 2,257 

# I 3



# 1 Navajo 

# I 4I 9,949 

# 1 26,471 

# 1 7,812 

# 1 11,216

- LaPaz Maricopa Mohave I 40,45 1

13 5 2

I I I I 7,326

Santa Cruz 

# 1 l5 

# 1 1,236 Y avapai Yurna

recently available EPAAirData for area, and mobile sources (http:llwww.epa.g~v/air/data/em~atrep.html?st-AZizona; Febnimy 8,2007). 4,5 18 9,222 

### ---- 13,479

Arizonk ~btal 2,194 7 9 3,100 138,852

2,917

Source: Emissioninventories for nitrogen oxides and volatile organiccompounds were derived from the most 113,864 2,407 125,492

8,125 5,522 12,691

381,367

17,345 10,282 254;504 - 9,594 8,384

# 1 Table 8-2:2001 Arizona State and CountyPoint, Area, and Mobile Source PM2.5 Emissions (tons) 

### I County 

# 1 Apache Size Ranking Area (square miles)



### Greenlee Cochise Coconino Gila


# 1 LaPaz

Maricopa 8 1 11



### Mohave Graham

Navajo 6,2 15 18,608 4,752

PPP l2 1 4,630 

## 1 1,742 3,863 

# 1 7,483 2,060



### Pima

and mobile sources (http://ww~.e~a.~ov/a~/dataiemcatre~.l~tml?st-~~-~ri~ona; February 8,2007). 

### Pinal Santa 

### Cruz Yavapai

Arizona Total 10 15 7

Source: Emission inventories for PM2 were derived fiom the most recently available EPAAirData for point, area, I 113,864 74,395

5,371 1,236 8,125 4,917 877 5,030Table B-3: 2001 Arizona State and County Point, Area, and Mobile Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (tons)



# 1 Cochise Area (square miles) 

### 1 Sulfur Dioxide County Apache


# 1 Gila Size Ranking
I 

# 1 11,216



# 1 Maricopa 39,600



### I Graham

Greenlee LaPaz 

# 1 Mohave 

# 1 Navajo 12 14 4,630 1,837

Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai 105 3 9 13 

### 1 4,5 18

Yuma Arizona Total 142 ,

6

Source: Emission inventories for sulkdioxide were derived £tom the most recently available EPA AirData for point, area, and mobile sources @~:liwww.epa.~ovlair/datalenca~ep.~tml?st-AZ-izona; March 20,2007). 9 9,184 10 15 7 5,182

5,522 113,864 546 121,109 5,371 1,236 8,125 1,100 106 2,556Appendix C Ambient Air QualieDataTable C-1: 2004-2006 Eight-Hour Ozone Ambient Monitoring Data by County (in PP~)* (1997Eight-Hourozone NAAQS: The three-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum eighr-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08partsper million (bpm). Because ofrounding conventions 0.085 ppm is considered an exceedance of the standard.

### **) Fourth-HighestValue 

# 1 ThreeCity or Site Cochise County ChiricahuaNNI Entrance Station Year 2006 Average

Tonto 

### NM C~conino County

La Paz County Grand Canyon

### NP -Hance 0.072

Alamo Lake (Opened 05/20/05) 

# 1 NIA 0.071 

# 1 0.073 NIA Gila County 0.079

Maricopa County 0.070

Cave Creek 0.073

Blue Point Buckeye (Opened 0810 1/04)

Central Phoenix Dysart 0.075 0.058 #

Falcon Field Fountain Hills 0.081 0.065 0.062 0.067 0.072 0.063

Glendale 

# 1 0.076 

# ' 0.076 0.078 0.079 Humboldt Mt. 0.078 JLG Supersite 

# 1 0.072

Rio Verde South Phoenix 0.076 0.081 0.087

Pinnacle Peak 0.076 0.084 NIA North Phoenix Palo Verde (Closed 1 013 112004)

South Scottsdale 0.080 0.072

0.074 0.072 0.076 0.085 N/A

0.073 0.074 0.083 NIA

0.087 0.076
Tempe 0.077 0.083 0.069

0.072 0.081 0.072 0.080 0.076 0.076 0.079 0.075Table C-1: 2004-2006 Eight-Hour Ozone Ambient Monitoring Data by County (in PP~)* (1997Eight-HourozoneNAAQS: The three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concenb-ationis less than or equal to 0.08partspermillion (ppm). Because conventions 0.085 ppm is consideredan exceedanceo the standard 

### ** Fourth-Hi hest Value ThreeCity or Site 

## I Average West Chandler West Phoenix 0.072 0.068 

# 1 0.082 

# 1 0.074 

# 1 Navajo County 

# 1
Petrified Forest

### NP 1 Pima County

22nd St. & Craycroft 

# I Children's Park 

# 1 Green Valley 

# 1 Rose Elementary 

# 1 Saguaro

### NP East 

# 1 Tangerine 

# 1 Tucson Downtown

Tucson Fairgrounds 

# 1 Pinal County 

### '-

Apache Junction

## - MaintenanceYard Casa Grmde 

### - Airport Queen Creek

Queen Valley Maricopa 0.064 0.061 

# 0- 1
Yavapai County 

# @ 0.077 0.074 N/A N/A 0.070 0.059



# 1 Yuma county 0.072 

# 1 0.073 0.071 0.067 0.071 

# 1 0.065 0.068 

### I 0.064

I Yuma Game & Fish 0.073 0.078 0.073 

# 1 0.074 

# 1 Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, National Park Service, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, Pinal County Air Quality Control District 0.070 

### -- 0.071* These are preliminary data as reported to EPA's Air Quality System as of February 7,2007, and have not yet been certified by the submitting agencies. Data followEPA truncation and averaging rules. ** Due to rounding conventions a "concentration of 0.085 ppin is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm" and values equal to or less than 0.084 ppm are in compliance with the standard (see 40 CFR 50, Appendix I). S~easonal monitor, operationalduring April 1to Nov. 1. 'Indicates the data do not satisfy EPA's summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available. ## Formerly "Combs." N/A =Data not available.Table C-2: 2003-2005 Annual Average PM2.5Ambient Monitoring Data by County (in pg/m3) (1997 PM2 5Annual NAAQS: The three-year average ofthe annual inem is less than or equal to 15 tnicropanu per cubicmeter (&m3).


# I Cocbise County City or Site Federal Reference Monitors 

# 1 Douglas &d Cross 6.47# 

# 1 7.11 

# 1 7.33 

# 1 NIA 2003

Coconino County Flagstaff Middle School 

# I-- 5.69# 6.77 6.0 1 NIA 2004

Maricopa County Gila County 2005



# I West Phoenix 

# 1 10.68 

# 1 11.60 

# 1 11.87 

# 1 11,4TbreeYear Average

I Payson Well Site



# I Pima County 9.54 9.01#

JLG Supersite 

# 1 11.27

Orange Grove 5.79 6.32 Pinal County Tempe CommunityCenter (closed 7/26/2004)



# 1 Apache Junction Fire Station 

# 1 6.30# 

# 1 5.51# 

# 1 5.52 

# 1 5.8 8.38#

10.2 NIA I 9.63 N/A

9.73 7.30#

I 

## 1 Santa Cruz County 9.72 NIA

I I I

Nogales Post Office Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, National Park Service,Pima County Department ofEnvironmental Quality,Pinal County Air Quality Control District '~ndicates the data do not satisfyEPAtssummary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery availablein one or more calendar quarters. N/A =Data not available. Casa Grande Downtown 8.42 7.13 7.33 7.62

## I"' Table C-3: 2003-2005 24-Hour Average 

### PM25 Ambient Monitoring Data by County (in yg/m3 (1997Pd&,S24-hrNAAQS: The three-year average ofthe 98thpercentile value is less than or equal to 65 ,ugh3. 

### *)

Flagstaff Middle School 16.9 Gila County Cochise County

I 

## 1 Payson ThreeYear City 

### or Site Federal Reference Monitors

Douglas Red Cross



# 1 Maricopa County 9gth Percentile Samples**



# 1 Tempe Community Center (closed 7/26/2004) 25.0 

# 1 14.W 

# 1 NIA N/A 

# 1 2003

11.7#



# I West Phoenix 

# 1 25.9 

# 1 29.9 

# 1 40.5 

# 1 32.1 

# 1 2004 

# 1 2005 

### , Average



# 1 Pima County 22.5 

# 1 16.0



# 1 Children's 

### Park 16.7



# 1 Orange Grove I 

# 1 Pinal County 

# I Santa CruzCounty 

# Apache 1 Casa Grande Downtown 21.1 26.7
Nogales Post Office 10.3 13.7

*The three-year average is rounded to the nearest 1 yg/m3 for comparisonto the standard. **The98" percentile value is the second highest value for sites on an every 6" day sample schedule. The 98" percentile value is the thirdhighest value for sites oneevery 3Idday sample schedule. '~ndicates the data do not satisfy EPA's summarycriteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid data recovery available in one or more calendar quarters. N/A =Data not available. 35.0 

# 1 25.1 

# 1 33.0 31.0 10.6 ---- 16.9 14.0 19.1Appendix

### D State ImplementationPlan Revision Public Comment and Hearing DocnmentationAppendix 

### D.1 Notice sfPublic HearingAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OFMARICOPA


### Robert Lane, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: That he is a legal advertising representative of the Arizona Business Gazette, a newspaper of general circulation in the county of Maricopa, State of Arizona, published at Phoenix, Arizona, by Phoenix Newspapers Inc., which also publishes The Arizona Republic, and that the copy hereto attached is a true copy of the advertisement published in the said paper on the dates as indicated. 

# I The Arizona Republic

Sworn to before me this 3oTH day of March A.D. 2007Appendix D.2 Public Hearing Agenda

# ic Hearing 

# Agenda

AIR QUALITY

### DInSION PUBLIC HEANNG ONA 

### PROPOSED WEVISION TO THE 

### ZONAMR QUALITY STATE IMPkEMENTAIFIgaN 

### PLAN (SIP) ER 

### @LEm AJR ACT 

### SECTION IlO(a)(Z)(D)(i)

## -mGIONALIF Monday, April 38,2007; 

### 300p.m. 

### Arhona Department of 

### Environmental Qrualli$r,Room 145 1110 West Washington Street, Phocenk,Arizona

Pursuant to 40 CFR !j 

### 51.102 notice is hereby given that the above referenced meeting is open to the public.

1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Purposes of the Oral Proceeding 3. Procedure for Making Public Comment 4. Brief Overview of the proposed SP revision 5

## . Question and Answer Period 6. Oral Comment period 7. Adjournment of Oral Proceeding Copies of the proposal are available for' review at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Library, 111 0 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona. For additional information regarding the hearing please call Bruce Friedl,ADEQ Air.Quality Division, at (602) 771-2259 or 1-800-234-5677, Ext. 771-2259. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation, such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting Dan Flukas at (602) 771-4795 or 1-800-234-5677, Ext. 771-4795. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow sufficient time to make the arrangements for the accommodation. This document is availablein alternative formats by contactingADEQ TDD phone number at (602) 771-4829.

Printed on recycledpaper



# -Appendix D.3 Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet

## 'EZ 'ZZ

'OZia"" Appendix D.4 Public Hearing BfGeer Certification

### Air Quality Division

Public Hearing

### Presiding Officer Certification


### I, Balaji 

### Vaidyanathan, the 

### designatedPresiding Officer, do hereby certify that the public hearing held by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality was conducted on April 30, 

### 2007, at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Conference Room 145, 1110 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 

### in accordance with public notice requirements by publication 

### in The Arizona Republic 

### beginning March 29, 

### 2007. Furthennore, 

### I do hereby certify that the public hearing was recorded 

### from the opening 

### of the public record through concluding remarks and adjournment, and the transcript provided contains a full, true, and correct record of the above-referenced public hearing. Dated this 'tday of 

# pi, -/ 

### , L ru

### -7

Balaji Vaidyanathan 

# I State ofArizona ) ) ss. 

### county of Maricopa ) 

### Subscribed and sworn to before 

### me on this / day of

Y



### My cornmissionexpires: 

# 7/4 fAppendix D.5 Public Hearing Transcript

### PROPOSED REVISION TO THE

$ai+ 2 

### AMZONA AIR QUALITY STATE LEMENTATHONPLAN (SIP)

mow 3 

### UNDER CAA SECTION lBO(a)(2)p)(i) 

# -REGIONAL T SPORT

F 5 

### Oral Proceeding
I 

### Hearing Officer Transcript
April 30,2007

r- 10 1 

# .VAHDUANATHAN: Good afternoon, thank you for coming. I now open this I 11 

### hearing on a proposed revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (or SIP) 

# r 12 

### under Clean Air Act Section I.lO(a)(2)(D)(i) -

### Regional Transport.

It is now Monday, April 30,2007,and thetime is 3:10p.m. The locationis conference
room 145 atthe aPizonaDepartmentofEnvironmental Quality, 1 118W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. My name isBalaji Vaidyanathan and I have been appointed by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) io preside at this proceeding.
The purposes of this proceeding are to provide the public an opportunityto: (1) hear about the substance of the proposed SIP revision, (2) ask questions regarding the revision, and (3) present oral argument, data and views regarding the revision in the form of comments on the record.

### Representing the Department is Bruce Friedl and Lisa Tomczak of the Air Quality Planning Section. Public notice appeared in the Arizona 

### Republic 

### and on ADEQ9s website. A copy of the proposal titled, 

### Proposed Revision $0

### the Arizona State Implementation Pian U~der Section Pl O(a)

### (2)(23) 

# (0 - Regional TransportJMarch 200 

### was made available at the ADEQ 

### Phoenix Records Office.

The procedure far making a p~blic on~e~t on 

### the record is straightforward. Ifyou wish to comment,you need to fill out a speaker slip, which is available at the sign-in table, and give it to me. Using speaker slips allows everyone an 

### opportunity to be heard and allows us to match the name onthe official record with the comments. You may also submit written comentsto me today. Please note, the commentperiod for the 

### proposed SIP revisinn ends on 

### April 30i 

### 2007 

### A11 written 

### comments must be postmarked if sent via U.S. mail or received if sent via e-mail at ADEQ by April 30, 

### 2007. Written comments can be mailed to Bruce Friedl or Lisa Tomczak, Air Quality Planning Section,

## ADEQ, 1 1 10W. Washington Street,Phoenix, Arizona 850f

### 2 or emailed directly to friedl.bruce@,azdeq.govor tomczak.lisa@,azdeq.gov. 

### Comments 

# --- /~nq\ 711 ~LL 

### lrlay 

## SO be 

## f-zd to \vvL, I 1 

### 1-2Jvv.

Comments made during the formal comment period are required by law to be considered by the Department when preparing the final state implementation plan. This is done through the preparation of a responsiveness summary in which the Department responds in writingto written and oral comments made duringthe formal comment period.1 

### The agenda for this hearing is simple. First, I will conduct a question and answer

wm 2 

### session. The purpose ofthisquestion and answer sessionisto provide information that

P= 3 

### may help you in making comments on the record.

rn 5 

### Secondly, 

## I will conduct the oral comment period. At that time, I will begin to call
i 6 

### speakers in the order that 

## I have received speaker slips. I"" 7 

## -

(~n 8 

### Pleasebe aware that any comments at today's hearing thatyou want the Departmentto
9 

### formally consider must be given either in vcl-iti~g or on the record at today's hearing

i==- 10 

### during the oral comment period.

12 

### At this time, since nobody from the public is in attendance, this hearing is hereby i

### r 13 

### adjoined.

P""" 15 

## The time right now is 3:

### 12

### p.m.. I now close this hearing.
16 r"" 17 

## Thank you. I, Appendix D.6