a. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT 

OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

1110 West Washington Street Phoenix. Arizona 85007 

Janet Napolitano 

Governor 

Mr. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

Mail Code OM-1 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

RE: Clean Air Act Section 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i) - Regional Transport 

Dear Mr. Nastri: 

Stephen A. 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 1.102 through 45 1.104, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Final Revision to the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan Under Section 1 lO(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 SIPS addressing 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 AI IMS 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 contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone and PMz,5 standard in any other state. 

This demonstration also shows that new and existing sources are subject to preconstruction 

review, State and County permitting programs, nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements. 

Northern Regional Office Southern Regional Office 

1801 W. 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. Compliance with 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 PN62.5 sta~dard is not possible until regional haze SPs are 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 md PM2.5 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 49-404 
0 

c 

V) 

.- 

e 

3 

- .- 

2 E 0 - a 

-E 

- 

@ 

2 

G 

€ 

s.22 

E 

fz 

s 5 

amm 
Luizolza Revised 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 

Professions and Occupations 

Property 

Public Buildings and Improvements 

Public Finances 

Public Health and Safety 

Public Lands 

Public Officers and Employees 

Public Records, Printing and Notices 

Public Utilities and 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 of 3 

&sS TELE PAGE KEXT E$#CZB EN+ 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 of the 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 in this state to collect data and conduct projects in the 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 comply 
P" 

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-ansportation and 

rn disposal. The rules shall: 

(a) Prescribe minimum standards for human excreta storage, handling, treatment, transportation and 

disposal and shall provide for inspectian of pr2rnises, 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 subject to comptiance with the rules. P-m 

15. Perform the responsibilities of implementing and maintaining a data automation management system to 

support the 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 fee fund 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 department to 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 the dean 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 
STATE HRIPLEBENTATION PLAN COPvtPLETENESS ClBXXLIST 

Final RRaion fo fhe Arizona Sfate Iqfenzenfation Piaa Under Sectwn IIO(a)(2f{D]fi) - Eegionnl 

Transport, May 2007 

1. SUBMZTFAL LETTER FROM GOPvTERNORPDESIGmZ 

See cover letter. 

See cover letter. 

3. STATE LEGAL AUTHORfI7yr FOR ~OPTION~a(TPLEMENTATI0N 

See Enclosure I. 

4. COMPLETE COPY OF STAIXTEBEGUZATHON/DOCWNT 

See Enclosure 3. 

Not applicable. 

6. RULE CZIYLNGES INDICATED BY UNDERLmG AND CROSS-OUTS 

Not applicable. 

7. EVIDENCE THAT ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE PRWEDW ACT EQIAKE~NTS m"ERE 

IvET FQE RLZE/PLfi< 

See Enclosure 3. 

8. EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC PHEmG PER 40 CFR 5 1.102 

See Enclosure 3, Appendix D. 

9. PLBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE 

See Enclosure 3, Appendix D. 

10. ~E~PCATION OF POLLUTANTS REGULATED BY RULEPLAN 

This State Implementation Plan 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 RFP ARE PROTECTED 

See Enclosure 3. 

14. MODELING SUPPORT 

See Enclosure 3. 

15. EVIDENCE THAT EMISSIONS LIMITATTONS ARE BASED ON COJQTNI30US EhGSSIONS mm 

REDUCTION IFECmOLOGY 

fit applicable. m 

16. IDENTIFICATION OF RULE SECTPONS CONTMMNG EMISSION LIMITS, WORK PRACrrCE 

STAPFDARDS, AND/OR RECORD KEEPmG/REPORmG REQUIREMENTS IC"P 

Not applicable. 

1 7. COTYBPLE4NCE/Eh'FORCEENT STRATEGIES 

Not applicable. mm 

18. ECONOMIC TECHNICAL JUSTFICATION FOR DEWATION FROM U.S. 

PROTECTION AGENCY @PA) POLICES a= 
Enclosure 3 

Final Revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan Under Clean Air Aeit 

Section I IOfa)(2)@)(i) - Regional Transport 
Janet Napolitano, Governor 

Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ Director 

Final 

Revision to the Arizona State implementation Plan Under 

Clean Air Act Section I IO(a)(Z)(D)(i) - Regional Transport 

Air Quality Division 

May 2007 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CWTER I : 

CWTER 2: 

CWTER 3 : 

CWTER 4: 

CWTER 5: 

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

APPENDIX C 

APPENDIX D 

Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 11 0(a) (2) (D) (0 for the &Hour Ozone 

and PIM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, August 15,2006 

Arizona Nitrogen Oxides, Volatile Organic Compound, 

PM2.5, and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventories 

Ambient Air Quality Data 

State Implementation 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 Summary 
PTER 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 1 lO(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 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)or to approve a SIP that 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 of the law. 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requests that this demonstration be approved 

by EPA as a component of the Arizona SIP. 

1.2 General SIP Requirements 

Section 1 lO(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 SIPS must 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 which will - 

(0 contribute signzficantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

state with respect to any...national_~rimary or seconday air quality standard, or 

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

any other state ... toprevent signzfzant deterioration of air 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 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

Appendix A). The guidance outlines the four elements states should address in their SIPs: 

1) "significant contribution to nonattainment," 

2) "interference with maintenance," 

3) "prevention of significant deterioration," and 

4) "protection of visibility." 

I Chapters 2 through 4 present data and information, as suggested in EPAYs guidance, that demonstrate 

Arizona meets the interstate transport requirements of Section 1 10(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 its Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone or Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (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 analyzing signzjkant 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 of the 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 declaration may include but is not limited 

to the following: 

emission inventories for sources that contribute to 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 Sections 2.1 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 limited to 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 

significantly impact any other state. 

Boundary Designations for 8-Hour Ozone in Arizona - On April 15, 2004, EPA issued final area designations for the 8-hour ozone standard which 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 8 1.303). 

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

+ County Seals 

0 Cclunljes 

@jj Ozone B-Hour Areas 

K2 WW Paneritan Lands 

-6 

+.r moa Backgmund kg* -$& 

Emissions 

The Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area encompasses an area of the state where emissions of 

poQutants contributing to 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) 3 
of the nitrogen oxides (NOx), known precursors to ozone. The inventories confm that 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 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 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 summarizes the 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 -from Maricopa County monitoring sites or -from those 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 southwestern portion of the state. Elevations range from near sea level in the southwest to 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) 4 
by local topography. Because of its valley location, backed by high terrain to the north and east, the 

Phoenix-Mesa Nonattaimient 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 Ozoile Nonattainment Area when mzking fial designatio~s. 

The closest 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in California is located in Imperial County just 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 

emissions sources. 

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 unclassifiablelattainment for &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) 5 
Figure 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 ' ........ 1 Attainment 

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 maintenance by, 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 distance to 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 maintenance in 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 of Arizona 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 PM2 5 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 

PM2.5 emissions. The inventories confirm that no other county totals for these pollutants equate to the 

level of emissions generated by Maricopa County (see Appendix By 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 By Table 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 of total 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 of highest 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 States Neighboring 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 8 1.305). 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 8 1.332 - 

New Mexico; 40 CFR 8 i .306 - Colorado; 40 CFR 8 1.345 - 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 CAIR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA modeled PM2 5 emissions to determine which, if any, 

Western states significantly contributed to interstate transport affecting nonattainment in an adjacent state. 

The modeling showed that the westemmost states, including Arizona, did not make contributions above 

the significance threshold. EPA stated in its Corrected Response To Sign#cant Public Comments On the 

Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005, Corrected April 2005, Document ID No. EPA-HQ2003-0053-21 72, 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 37 for 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 states not modeled for the final rule are Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. 

FINAL1 10(a)(2)(D)(i) Regional Transport SIP (May 2007) 9 
showed 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 deterioration of air quality. 

EPA's Section 1 lO(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 of the Phase II ozone implementation rule. 

For the PM 2.5 standard, States need only provide 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 of PM-10 as a 

surrogate for PM-2.5 in the PSD and NNSRprograms. " 

All new sources and modifications to existing sources in Arizona are subject to state requirements for 

preconstruction review and permitting pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 

2, Articles 2 and 4 or relevant county rules. All new major sources and major modifications to existing 

major sources in Arizona are subject to 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 1 lO(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 regarding RAW: 

"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 of visibility 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. Arizona Administrative Code Sections R18-2-1601 through R18-2-1606 

require Arizona to analyze and implement control strategies where applicable should a source be certified 

and found attributable for causing or contributing to visibility impairment. 

Arizona Administrative Code Section R18-2-410 hrther provides protection of visibility by 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 impacts to 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 submitted under 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 currently premature to determine whether or not State SIPs for 8- 

hour ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate provisions to prohibit 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 'brotect visibility" for the 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NMQS until regional haze SIPs are submitted and approved" 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality concurs with this assessment regarding regional haze. 

The SIPs for %-hour ozone are not due to be submitted until mid-2007, and SIPs for PM2 5 are due in April 

of 200%. The Regional Haze SIPs are due in December 2007. The SIP development process will enable 

Arizona to determine the degree of the 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 

regarding the 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) 12 
regional haze SIP will address visibility impairment. The State also comits to continue to review 

available information and to take whatever actions may be necessary to ensure that emissions activities 

within the State do not interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 

plan for any other state to protect visibility. 

F- FINAL-I I O(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 

1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i). 

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

F 

Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations 

Under Section IlO(a)(2)(D)(i)for the &-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

F= Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 15,2006 
UNITED 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 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the $-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

FROM: William T. Harnett, Director 

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS (C539-01) 

TO: Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance concerning the State 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions States should make to meet their currently outstanding 

obligations under section 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i). 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously indicated through 

ruiemaking what States affected by the Ciean Air Interstate Rule (CkiRj must do concerning 

emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8- 

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

another State. This guidance, therefore, addresses what States that are not affected by 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 outside the CNR region) 

should consider with respect to making submissions to meet the "prevention of significant 

deterioration" and "protect visibility" requirements of section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i). Because the 

CATR region differs for purposes of 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, some States may 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 for this distinction. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated NAAQS for ozone and for frne particulate matter. 

Section 1 1 0(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act requires States to submit new SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS. Section 1 lO(a)(2) 

lists the elements that the new SIP submissions must contain. Among other things, SIPs for new 

or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions to address interstate transport of air 

pollution, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)@)(i). 

Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclable . Prinled with Vegetable Oil Based Ink on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Poslwnsumer) 
Section 110(a)(l) explicitly provides that States must 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 ozone NAAQS and the Pikf2.5 NAAQS by no later than 

July 2000. However, at this time no State has submitted a new SIP. We recognize that litigation 

over both the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the Phf2,5 NMQS created substantial uncertainty as to 

how to proceed. Moreover, in the case of PM2.5, additional time was needed for creation of a 

monitoring network, collection of at least three years of data, and analysis of those 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 submit to the requirements of 

section 11 O(a)(2)@)(i) pertaining to interstate transport. The finding of failure to submit action 

started a 24-month clock for EPA to issue a finalSFederal Implementation Plan PIP) to meet the 

requirements of section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i), for both the $-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, unless 

EPA instead approves a State SIP submission to meet those requirements in advance of that date. 

The finding of failwe to submit SIPs addressing section 110(a)(2)@)(i) is the first action 

required under a Consent Decree between EPA and plaintiffs who sued the Agency for failure to 

take action to require the submission of new SIPs for the &hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, or to 

issue FEs in iieu thereor: The EPA has also cornmirted in the Consent Decree io mke later 

actions to determine whether States have submitted the remaining SIP elements required by 

section 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 8-hour ozone and PW.5 NAAQS by no later than December 15, 

2007, for ozone, and by no later than October 5,2008, for PM2.5. The Agency intends to provide 

States with additional information concerning the 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 deviate from this guidance, as appropriate. The ultimate determination of whether a 

given SF submission by a state meets the stahtory requirements of section i 10 jaj(2 jQ3) ji j wiii 

be accomplished through case by case notice and comment rulemaking in which the facts and 

circumstances of each State submission will be evaluated by EPA. We ask that the EPA 

Regional Offices work with their respective States in the development of their 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 States in your 

Region are made aware of this guidance. 
ars Attachment 

cc: Margo Oge, OTAQ 

Steve Page, OAQPS 

Brian McLean, OAP 

Scott Mathias, AQPD 

Kevin McLean, OGC 

Barbara Driscoll, AQPD 

Larry Wallace, AQPD 

Kimber Scavo, AQPD 

Geoffrey Wilcox, OGC 

Norm Possiel, AQAD 
Guidance for State Implementation 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. Ian troduction: 

This document provides guidance to States concerning State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions that States must make pursuant to section B lO(a)(2)@)(i). The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) emphasizes that this guidance document merely provides suggestions 

and that States or EPA may elect to follow or deviate fiom this guidance, as appropriate. The 

ultimate determination of whether a given SP submission by a State meets the requirements of 

section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i) will be accomplished by area specific notice and comment rulemaking in 

which-the facts and circumstances of each State submission will be evaluated by EPA. Sections 

110(a)(l) and (2) of the CIean Air Act (CAA), require States to submit SPs that implement, 

maintain, and enforce a new or revised national ambient a2 quality standard (NAAQS) within 3 

years following the promulgation of the standard. 

In July 1997, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. States were 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 of pollutants pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The. 

EPA hzs ddeteImiiied that ~~cti~ii 1 1G(a)(2)(Dj@ is mong the SIP rqLiirerneiis with wkik~ich 

States must comply in accordance with the schedule of section 110(a)(l).' 

On April 25,2005, lEPA notified States of their failure to make the required SP 

submission addressing interstate transport of pollutants related to ozone and PM2.5 in downwind 

~tates.~ 

Pursuant to section 1 1 O(c), EPA's April 25,2005 finding of failure to submit started a 

24-month clock for EPA to issue a final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 

req~ii-exr;e~ts of section 1 !0(~)(2)@)(i), z;i!ess a State makes the reqirzd s-irAssion md EPA 

approves such submission within that 24-month period. The 24-month FP clock began on 

'See, - "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter a. Ozone 

(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO, SIP 

Call; Final Rule," 70 FR 25,162 at 25,263-69 (May 12,2005). 

'See, "Finding of Failure to Submit Section 1 10 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 (April 25,2005). 
May 25,2005, the effective date of the finding of failure to submit, and will end on May 25, 

2007. 

The EPA's finding of failure to submit SPs that 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 determinations by December 15,2007, for SIP submissions for the $-hour 

ozone NAAQS, 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 applies to each pollutant covered by a NAAQS and to all areas of each 

State regardless of the attainment or nonattainment designation of such areas. Section 

110(a)(2)@)(i) specifically provides that each State's SIP must contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions fiom within the State that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the.NAAQS, or that interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other 

State. In addition, this section requires that each State's SIP must 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. 

The EPA intends to provide additional information to States concerning the remaining 

secti~r? 1 !O(a)(!) (2) SIP elcmmts, either in regu!&ions irnpleme~thg the 8-hur azace nr 

PMX5 NAAQS, or in later guidance documents. 

-m 2. What is required under section 11 O(a)(Z)@)(i): 

Section 1 10(a)(l) requires States to make a SP submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

within 3 years of promulgation of such new or revised NAAQS. 

S~.ti.tinn 110@)(2) lists the elemwts those SPs must 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 of the standards. An important SIP element 

3The Consent 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 gave notice of, and took comment on, the proposed consent 

decree in accordance with CAA section 113(g). &, 70 FR 15,623 (March 28,2005). 
listed in section 110(a)(2) is the requirement that States address missions 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 in the ways contemplated in the 

statute. Section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of 

interstate transport. Each State must submit a SIP which contains adequate provisions: 

prohibiting ... any source or other type of emissions activity within the State fkom 

emitting any air pollutant in mounts which will - 

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainrnent in, or interfere with maintenance by, 

my other State with respect to any ... national primary or secondary air quality 

standard, or 

(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan 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 

States had not yet made SIP submissions for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS necessary to 

meet the requirements of section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i). 

The precise nature and contents of such a submission is not stipulated in the statute. EPA 

believes that the contents of the SIP submission required by section 1 lO(a)(2)@)(i) may vary 

depending upon the facts and circumstances related to the specific NAAQS. In particular, the 

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

revised NMQS iie~~ssarily affects the content of the rquiied submission. In some instances, 

this submission may 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 information to support a 

dete-iniiti~n t32t there me hterstzte trmsporf iipxts, or whez~ ether !2kr regd2tcry atie~s 

are prerequisites to making such a determination. 

The sections below provide guidance concerning the types of SIP submissions that EPA 

believes would be appropriate in response to the April 25,2005, finding of failure 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 NOx emissions 

fkom sources in 25 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment 

md interfere with maintenance of the 8-how ozone standard in other downwind States. The 

EPA also determined that SO2 and NOx emissions from sources in 23 States and the District of 

Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the PM 2.5 

standards in other downwind States. Subsequently, EPA determined that two additional States 

contribute to nonattaipment and interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 NMQS.' (See 

Attachment A listing the States subject to the CAW). 

In the CAIR, BPA concluded that the States will'meet their section 110(a)(2)@)(i) 

obligations to address the "significant contribution" and "interference with maintenance" 

requirements by complying with the CAIR requirements. Consequently, States within the CAR 

region need not submit a separate SIP revision to satisfy the section 1 10(a)(Z)@)(i) requirements 

provided that they submit a SIP revision to satisfy CAIR. 

Pursuant to section 1 10(a)(l), those States not within the CAIR region must also make a 

submission with respect to those two requirements. Also in accordance with the statute, all 

States, both inside and outside the CAJR region must make a submission with 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 fir ppzses zf ezene 

and PM2.5, some States may be inside the CAIR region for purposes of one NAAQS, but outside 

the CAW region for the other, and should make section 11 0(a)(Z)@)(i) SIP submissions that 

account for this distinction. 

Azcordi~gly, EPA has stmctured +&s guidance ts address the different types of 

considerations that States may need to evaluate in making their respective submissions. 

4. SIP S~b~&siecs ftcm Sf&s pe&zi&hg ic 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 contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 

8-hour ozone and PM25 NAAQS in any other States. 

*98 

4See, supra note 1. 

'see -y Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in Clean Air Interstate Rule, 71 FR 25288 

(April 28,2006). 
The EPA anticipates, based upon existing information developed in connection with the 

CAR, that emissions from sources in States not covered by the CAW do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 

NAAQS in any other State. Unless a State excluded from the CAR has 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 nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone or PM25 in another State. EPA believes that a negative 

declaration from each of the non-CAR States, which certifies that the State in question does not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

State, should be adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i). 

States should submit a technical demonstration to support a negative declaration. EPA 

believes that this demonstration should contain the information which the State deems 

appropriate to support its claim that it does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the standards in another State. Suitable information might include, 

but is not be limited to, information concerning emissions in the State, meteorological conditions 

in the State, the distance to the nearest nonattainment area in another State, reliance on modeling 

conducted by EPA in determining that such State should not be included within the ambit of the 

CAIR, or such other information as the State considers probative on the issue of significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance. The EPA 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 of the year 2010, and evaluating mitigation strategies based upon 

emissions reductions achievable through highly cost effective controls. 

In addition, States that are not subject to the CAE, but are subject to the NO, SIP Call, 

nzy wish to indicate that SIPS sm'bzritted t~ meet the NO, SIP Call should be suficiernt to sz~sfy 

the section 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i) obligation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA initially addressed 

interstate transport for ozone in the NO, SIP Call rule published in 1998.~ The NOx SIP Call is 

substantially reducing ozone transport, and is helping downwind areas meet the 8-hour ozone 

st=dzrr!e. Thz SPA belie-.res fh~t .tktes octside th~, CAD. regen th~t as mez?ihg ?hz NGx SP 

Call should not significantly be contributing to nonattainment or interferring with maintenance in 

any down wind state. 

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 1 10(a)(2)@)(i). 

"Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone 

Transport Assessment Group Region for the Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of 

Ozone Rule, (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). 
EPA will take action on the SIP submissions made by States through notice 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 1 lO(a)(2)@)(i)(I][) also contains a requirement for all States to submit SlPs that 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting ".... any source or other type of emission activity within 

the State &om emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will - interfere with 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 SIP rnust include a preconstruction review program for 

major sources to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act. 40 C.F.R. § 

5 1.1 65@)(1). In nonattainment areas, the preconstruction review program is known as 

Monattainment Mew Source Review (NNSR) and in attainment areas, preconstruction review is 

part of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. These programs require 

preconstruction permits to protect the air quality within each state and also serve to prohibit 

construction of new major sources and major modifications at existing major sources from 

contributing to nonattainment in adjacent states. The PSD permitting program is also the 

primary measure that each SIP must include to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in 

accordance with Title I, Part C and section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i)(II) of the Act. See, 40 CFR 9 5 1.166. 

Section 110(~)(2)(D)(i)&I reqlaires tbt SPs mntain adequate provisions pr~bibitifig snlxces or 

emissions activity within each state "from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will -- . . . interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any 

other State under part C of this subchapter to prevent significant deterioration of air quality ... ." 

42 U.S .C. § 74 1 O(a)(2)@)(i)(II). 

Because all areas are currently subject to some form of preconstruction permitting 

program for ozone and PM2.5, it is not necessary, at this time, for States to make a SIP 

submission containing rule changes or modeling demonstrations in order to address 

sectinn 1 In(a)?!(2)(D)(i))(IT) for the 8-hnnr nrnne 2nd pb!f2.5 N-A-4Q.C. EPA has established K will 

establish schedules for SJP submissions that incorporate revisions to EPA's preconstruction 

permitting regulations that are specific to the 8-hour ozone and PM25 MAAQS. Areas will need 

to revise their SlPs consistent with such schedules. 

Each area of the country is currently subject to an equivalent PSD or NNSR permitting 

program for the 8-hour ozone standard and an interim PSD or NNSR permitting program for 

PM2.5. If a particular state SIP lacks an approved PSD program, the PSD permitting 

requirements must be implemented in that state or local area through a federal PSD program that 

can be administered by the state or local permitting authority under a delegation agreement with 

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 other topics) the implementation of the PSD and NPdSR programs under the 

$-hour ozone NAAQS. See69 FR 23951 (Apr. 30,2004); 70 Fed. Reg. 71612 (Nov. 29,2005). 

The first phase of these rules requires implementation of NNSR in accordance with an area's 8- 

hour ozone classification after revocation of the l-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR at 23985. 

The EPA revoked the 1 -hour ozone NAAQS on June B 5,2005. Thus, new and modified major 

sources of volatile organic compound md NO, are currently subject to WSR based on the 

designation and classification of the area in which they are located under the %hour ozone 

NAAQS. h an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that currently has no approved nonattainment 

plan or otherwise lacks authority to implement nonattainment NSR for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through a SIP-approved permitting program, perrnits for new and modified major stationary 

sources in such areas must be consistent with the requirements in appendix S of 40 CFR. Part 5 1. 

EPA determined that states did not need to submit any revisions of their existing PSD prografns 

to implement of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but the Agency simultaneously promulgated new 

rules to establish NOx as a precursor for ozone under the PSD program. See 68 FR 32802, 

32843-44 (Jun. 2,2003); 70 FR at 71679. The EPA established June 15,2007 as the deadline for 

states to provide SIP submissions that incorporate the requirements ofthe phase I1 ozone 

implementation rule 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 states to adopt PSD and NNSR programs 

for PM2,5. See, Memorandum from John Seitz, EPA OAQPS, "Interim Implementation for the 

New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5," (October 23, 1997); Memorandum fi-om Steve 

Page, EFA BAQPS, "Lipleiiimtation of New S~urce Review Requiremeats in FM2.5 

Nonattainrnent Areas." (April 5,2005). In November 2005, EPA has proposed regulations that 

establish the minimum requirements for PSD and WSR programs for PM25 70 FR 65984, 

66033 (Nov. 1,2005), but the Agency has not promulgated final regulations 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, states may continue to implement interim programs based on PMlo and need not provide 

PSD or NNSR program submissions containing rule changes for PMz.5. 

The air quality demonstrations required for issuance of a PSD and NNSR permit must be 

made for all areas that are potentially impacted by the emissions fiom a proposed source or 

modification requiring a permit. As a result, the implementation of a PSD and NNSR permitting 

program in each state serves to prevent significant deterioration in neighboring states and thus 

largely satisfies the requirements of section 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. A PSD permit may . not be issued unless the new or modified some demonstrates that emissions fiom the 
constsuction or operation of the facility will not cause or contribute to air pollution in any area 

that exceeds of any NAAQS or any maximum allowable increase (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 increases in 

emissions of the pollutants for which an area is in nonattainrnent, consistent with reasonable 

further program toward attainment. These offsetting reductions could also help serve to prevent 

significant deterioration in any instance where the emissions of a nonattainment pollutant from a 

source in a nonattainment area would impact a nearby attainment area for that pollutant. 

In addition to PSD permitting program, a SIP may include additional 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 SIP would interfere with such 

additional measures in another state's SIP. However, notwithstanding the absence of PSD 

increments for ozone and PM2.s, states may continue to rely on their existing PSD 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 contribute to air pollution 

in excess ~f the FIPAQS i~ nleigllbori2g ~tztes zr thzt ssourses ir~ ncnz?taimsnt xem proclxe 

offsets, EPA believes that states need not make an additional SIP submission containing rule 

changes or modeling demonstrations to address the "prevent significant deterioration" 

requirement of section 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i)(LI) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For 8-hour 

ozone, each state only needs to make a SIP submission confirming that major sources in the state 

are cmently sdbject to PSD and WJER permittkg prcgrams that implenient the 8-how ozone 

standard and that SIP-approved states are on track to meet the June 15,2007 deadline for SIP 

submissions adopting the requirements of the Phase I1 ozone implementation rule. For PM2.5, 

states need only provide a SIP submission confirming that major sources in the state are subject 

tso PSD ad NXSK permittkg prr?gmm bplaentec? k ,n,~ccardmce with EPAe hteim 

guidance calling for use of PMlo as a surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD and NNSR programs. 

Additional SIP submissions will be due after the final NSR implementation rules for Phd2.5 are 

promulgated. 

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 1 1 O(a)(2)@)(i). 

The EPA will take action on the SIP submissions made by States through notice and comment 

rulemaking, thereby assuring that the requirements are met. 
6. SIP Snbannissiolns from States pertaining to the 6'protect visibility" requirement of 

section 11 O(a)(Z)(D)(o: 

Section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) also contains a requirement for all States to submit SPs that 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting " ... any source or 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 visibility protection, issuing regulations in 1980 

to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment, i.e., visibility impairment that is caused 

by the emissions of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources, and issuing regulations 

in 1999 to address regional haze, i.e., "visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air 

pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area."' Under the 1980 

regulations, 33 States and the Virgin Islands were required to submit SIPS to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. At this point in time, EPA has made no determination that 

emissions fiom any State interfere 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 attributable irnpainnent of visibility 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 verifying that no source within the State emits pollutants that 

interfere with measures included in the visibility SPs under the 1980 regulations. 

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 SIPs that contain measures to address regional 

haze, including a long-term strategy to address visibility impairment for each Class I area which 

may be affected by emissions fiam a ~kte.~ The States and Regional Planning Qrgaiizatioiis are 

currently engaged in the task of identifying those Class I areas impacted by each State's 

emissions and developing strategies for addressing regional haze to be included in the States' 

regional haze SIPS. These SIP submissions are due no 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 adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere 

with measures in other States' SIPs designed to address regional haze. Accordingly, EPA 

believes that States may make a simple SIP submission confirming that it is not possible at this 

time to assess whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another 

See, 40 CFR section 51.300-308. 

'see, 'Xegional Haze Regulations," 64 FR 35,714,35,721 (July 1, 1999). 

'40 CFR 5 1.308(d)(3). 

9 
ssw 

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

SIPS are 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 submissions made by States through 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 of 2005, with an effective date of 

May 25,2005. As a result of the finding of failure to submit, the CAA imposes a 24-month 

clock for EPA to issue a FP, unless a State has made the required submission to cure the failure 

to submit and EPA has acted to approve such submission filly in advanc; of the end of the 

24-month period. 

In conjunction with the CAIR, EPA has promulgated a FIP for all jurisdictions in the 

CAIR region to provide a federal backstop to insure timely and effective reductions of emissions 

fiom those States in accordance with section I IO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA has not, however, 

promulgated a FIP addressing section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i) for any States outside of the CAlR region. 

States outside the CAlR region must therefore make suTbmissions to meet the significant 

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

avoid a FIP addressing those requirements. In addition, all States have 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 those requirements. 

The EPA is currently mder m 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 State makes the necessary SIP submission sufficiently in advmce of 

that date for EPA to evaluate the submission md to take the necessary rulemaking action to 

approve or disapprove iti EPA may need to injtiate the I;P mlern&ir?g p~oces in order t~ meet 

the May 2007 FIP deadline. For this reason, EPA believes that it would be appropriate for each 

State to make the SIP submission necessary to meet its outstanding obligations under 

section 1 10(a)(2)@)(i) well in advance of the May 25,2007 FIP deadline. The EPA therefore 

suggests that States should make their SIP submission by no later than November 25,2006, in 

order to allow adequate time for the necessary Agency action on the submission. 

The EPA recognizes that this target SIP submission date is only 18 months after the 

effective date of the finding of failure to submit,, and that the Agency is issuing this guidance 

concerning the necessary SIP submissions only shortly in advance of the target date. As a result, 

EPA intends to be as flexible as possible with respect to the target SP submission date md will 

work with States to insure that they can make appropriate SIP submissions as close to 
November 25,2006, as possible. However, in the event of submissions significantly later than 

this date, EPA may need to initiate the FIP process to meet its own statutory obligations to 

implement FIPs where States fail to submit SPs that the Agency can approve in advance of the 

May 25,2007 FP deadline. 
AQtachment A: States subject to the CMR 
Appendix 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 Compounds Emissions (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 EPA AirData 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: Emission inventories for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds 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 

8,3 84 
1 Table 8-2: 2001 Arizona State and County Point, 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 

PPP 

4,752 

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 EPA AirData for point, area, 

I 

113,864 74,395 

5,371 

1,236 

8,125 

4,917 

877 

5,030 
Table B-3: 2001 Arizona State and County Point, Area, and Mobile Source Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions (tons) 

1 Cochise 

Area 

(square miles) 1 County Sulfur Dioxide 

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 

P inal 

Santa Cruz 

Yavap ai 

105 

3 9 

13 1 4,5 18 

Yuma 

Arizona Total 

142 , 

6 

Source: Emission inventories for sulk dioxide 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 

2,556 
Appendix C 

Ambient Air Qualie Data 
Table C-1: 2004-2006 Eight-Hour Ozone Ambient Monitoring Data by County 

(in PP~)* 

(1997 Eight-Hourozone NAAQS: The three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

eighr-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08partsper million (bpm). Because 

of rounding conventions 0.085 ppm is considered an exceedance of the standard. **) 

Fourth-Highest Value 1 ThreeCity or Site 

Cochise County 

Chiricahua NNI 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 

Humboldt Mt. 0.078 0.079 

JLG Supersite 1 0.072 

Rio Verde 

South Phoenix 

0.076 

0.087 0.081 

Pinnacle Peak 

0.076 

0.084 

NI A 

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 

NI A 

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 0.075 
Table C-1: 2004-2006 Eight-Hour Ozone Ambient Monitoring Data by County 

(in PP~)* 

(1997 Eight-Hourozone NAAQS: The three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

eight-hour average ozone concenb-ation is less than or equal to 0.08partsper million (ppm). Because 

conventions 0.085 ppm is considered an exceedance o the standard ** 

Fourth-Hi hest Value ThreeI 

City or Site 

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 - Maintenance Yard 

Casa Grmde - Airport 

Queen Creek 

Queen Valley 

0

Maricopa 0.064 0.061 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 follow EPA 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, operational during April 1 to 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 PM2.5 Ambient Monitoring Data by County 

(in pg/m3) 

(1997 PM2 5 Annual NAAQS: The three-year average of the annual inem is less than or equal to 15 

tnicropanu per cubic meter (&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 I-- Flagstaff Middle School 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 11,4 

TbreeYear 

Average 

I Payson Well Site 

I Pima County 

9.01# 9.54 

JLG Supersite 1 11.27 

Orange Grove 5.79 6.32 

Pinal County 

Tempe Community Center (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 

NI A 

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 of Environmental Quality, Pinal County Air Quality 

Control District 

'~ndicates the data do not satisfy EPAts summary criteria, usually meaning less than 75 percent valid 

data recovery available in 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 

(1997 Pd&,S 24-hr NAAQS: The three-year average of the 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 Cruz County 

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 comparison to the standard. 

**The 98" percentile value is the second highest value for sites on an every 6" day sample schedule. 

The 98" percentile value is the third highest value for sites oneevery 3Id day sample schedule. 

'~ndicates the data do not satisfy EPA's summary criteria, 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 

19.1 
Appendix D 

State Implementation Plan Revision Public Comment and Hearing Docnmentation 
Appendix D.1 

Notice sf Public Hearing 
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

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. 2007 
Appendix D.2 

Public Hearing Agenda 
ic Hearing Agenda 

AIR QUALITY DInSION 

PUBLIC HEANNG 

ON A PROPOSED WEVISION TO THE 

ZONAMR QUALITY STATE IMPkEMENTAIFIgaN PLAN (SIP) ER 

@LEm AJR ACT SECTION IlO(a)(Z)(D)(i) - mGIONAL IF 

Monday, April 38,2007; 300 p.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 available in alternative formats by contacting ADEQ TDD phone number at (602) 771-4829. 

Printed on recycled paper 

- 
Appendix D.3 

Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet 

'EZ 

'ZZ 

'OZ 
ia"" 

Appendix D.4 

Public Hearing BfGeer Certification 
Air Quality Division 

Public Hearing Presiding Officer Certification 

I, Balaji Vaidyanathan, the designated Presiding 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 of Arizona ) 

) ss. 

county of Maricopa ) 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this / day of 

Y 

My cornmission expires: 7/4 f 
Appendix D.5 

Public Hearing Transcript 
PROPOSED REVISION TO THE 

$ai+ 

2 AMZONA AIR QUALITY STATE LEMENTATHON PLAN (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 the time is 3: 10 p.m. The location is conference 

room 145 at the aPizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1 1 18 W. Washington 

Street, Phoenix, Arizona. My name is Balaji 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 opportunity to: 

(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 TransportJ March 200 was made 

available at the ADEQ Phoenix Records Office. 

The procedure far making a p~blicon~e~t on the record is straightforward. If you 

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 on the official record with the comments. You 

may also submit written coments to me today. Please note, the comment period 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 10 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 850 f 2 or emailed directly to friedl.bruce@,azdeq.gov or 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 writing to written and oral comments made during the formal 

comment period. 
1 The agenda for this hearing is simple. First, I will conduct a question and answer wm 

2 session. The purpose ofthis question and answer session is to 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 Please be aware that any comments at today's hearing that you want the Department to 

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