The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following rule on September 30, 2014 and EPA is 

submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this 

version of this rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication 

appearing on the Government Printing Office website, http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action, and on 

www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0258.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0258; FRL-______ 

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 

Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 

the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted 

by the State of Arizona to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 Lead 

(Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State 

adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. We refer to such 

SIP revisions as "infrastructure" SIPs because they are intended 

to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS including, but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory 

structure, resources, permit programs, monitoring, and modeling 

necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. 

In addition, we are proposing to approve several state 

provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest and monitoring 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 

requirements into the Arizona SIP. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. 

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

date 30 days from date of publication]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPAR09-OAR-2014-0258, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), at fax 

number 415-947-3579. 

4. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, 

San Francisco, California 94105. 

5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Section (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. 

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2014-0258. EPA's policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or e-mail 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from 

disclosure. The www.regulations.gov website is an anonymous 

access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other contact information in the 

body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

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

consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 

are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at the Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection during 

normal business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air 

Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 

947-4152, e-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms 

“we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. EPA’s approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals 

II. Background 

III. Arizona’s Submittals 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that 

address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 

The requirement for states to make a SIP submittal of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals “within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submittals 

are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on 

states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the 

requirement to make the submittals is not conditioned upon EPA’s 

taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements 

that “[e]ach such plan” submittal must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made 

for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submittals. 

Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the 

CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of 

SIP submittal from submittals that are intended to satisfy other 

SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or 

“attainment SIP” submittals to address the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional 

haze SIP” submittals required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals 

to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 

requirements for infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 

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

of these submittals. The list of required elements provided in 

section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, 

some of which pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 

authority and substantive program provisions.1 EPA therefore 

believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are 

ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required 

elements for infrastructure SIP submittals provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submittal. 

The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need 

for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 

110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submittals for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of 

 

1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide 

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

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

SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of 

title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have 

legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 

ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP 

submittal must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is 

internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.2 Section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part 

D addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 

172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submittal of 

such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator 

promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and 

section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases 

three years, for such designations to be promulgated.3 This 

ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA 

must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submittal. 

 

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

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

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163–25165, May 

12, 2005 (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the 

fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal of 

certain types of SIP submittals in designated nonattainment areas for various 

pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for 

submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 

the new or revised NAAQS. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 

Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements in a single SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act 

upon such SIP submittal in a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these 

requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make 

multiple SIP submittals separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP 

requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either 

individually or in a larger combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal 

for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire 

submittal. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at 

different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submittal.5

 

4 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the 

State separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and 

“Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 

78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the infrastructure SIP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may 

also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal 

requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, 

or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The 

states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submittals for each NAAQS 

therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring 

requirements that a state might need to meet in its

infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 

for example because the content and scope of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal to meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to 

an existing NAAQS.6 

EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 

necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals 

required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant 

elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these 

other types of SIP submittals. For example, section 172(c)(7) 

requires that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D 

 

14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 

took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 submittal. 

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

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

species for the new NAAQS. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 

have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). 

Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable 

emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is 

clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D 

would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 

pertains to the air quality prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program required in part C of title I of the 

CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 

requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP 

submittal may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but 

not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory 

language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous 

portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the 

context of acting on a particular SIP submittal. In other words, 

EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the 

history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would 

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

way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it 

reviews infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 

elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each 

element applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to 

make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some 

cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues 

and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already 

been developed and applied to individual SIP submittals for 

particular elements.7 EPA most recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this document to provide states 

with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic 

structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about 

many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant 

in the context of infrastructure SIP submittals.9 The guidance 

 

7 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance 

or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The CAA 

directly applies to states and requires the submittal of infrastructure SIP 

submittals, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations 

pertaining to such submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to 

assist states, as appropriate. 

8 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under 

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. 

Page, September 13, 2013. 

9 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect 

to infrastructure SIP submittals to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA 

issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 

interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the 

uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide 

additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 

also discusses the substantively important issues that are 

germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews 

each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as 

appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required 

element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. 

Under this element, a state must meet the substantive 

requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that 

approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive 

agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which 

states can appropriately address these substantive statutory 

requirements, depending on the structure of an individual 

state’s permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits 

and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by 

 

elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state’s 

CAA obligations. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 

the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are 

necessarily included in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires 

that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP 

submittals with respect to the PSD program requirements in 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements contained in part C, title I 

of the Act and EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and regulated NSR pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD 

program requirements do not include provisions that are not 

required under EPA’s regulations at 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option 

for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of 

complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA’s review 

of a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring 

that the state’s SIP meets basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the 

requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIPapproved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on 

an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think it 

is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of 

a state’s existing minor source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA 

and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal is 

necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address 

possible deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. These issues 

include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related 

to “director’s variance” or “director’s discretion” that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to 

SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with 

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

FR 80186, December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 

2007 (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submittal without scrutinizing the totality 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15 

of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions 

and may approve the submittal even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions. 10 It is important to note that EPA’s 

approval of a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal should not be 

construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 

specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals 

is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically 

applicable to that submittal. EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submittal is 

appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of 

elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that 

the state in question has the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 

requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some 

outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

 

10 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in 

an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as a 

new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to 

evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 

requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16 

significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA 

believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus 

attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most 

likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the 

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives 

simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than 

other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not 

affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 

only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 

infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading 

of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive 

deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow 

EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 

110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is substantially inadequate 

to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17 

transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such 

as past approvals of SIP submittals.12 Significantly, EPA’s 

determination that an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time and place to address all 

potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA’s 

subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part 

of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later 

time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require 

a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s 

discretion provisions in the course of acting on an

infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies 

upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13 

 

11 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP 

deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. 

See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah 

State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011. 

12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP 

submittals related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536, December 30, 

2010. EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 

approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, 

June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, 

and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to California 

SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 (corrections to Arizona and Nevada 

SIPs). 

13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal from Colorado on the 

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

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, 

e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of 

such provisions). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

As discussed in section I of this proposed rule, CAA 

section 110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary 

NAAQS or any revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision 

that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets the content 

requirements of such a plan, which generally relate to the 

information and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural 

requirements, and control measures that constitute the 

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

These infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) 

are as follows:

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 

measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and modified stationary 

sources. 

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

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

pollution abatement. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19 

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

conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional 

government agencies. 

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

reporting. 

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

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

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

officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility

protection. 

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

modeling data. 

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

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

affected local entities. 

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

governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These 

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

refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment 

NSR), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this 

action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory History 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.14 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure 

SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

within three years of issuance of the revised NAAQS. On October 

14, 2011, EPA issued “Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS”, referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Pb 

Guidance.15 Depending on the timing of a given submittal, some

states relied on the earlier draft version of this guidance, 

referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Draft Pb Guidance.16 EPA issued 

additional guidance on infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013.17 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

 

14 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a 

quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 month average not to be 

exceeded of 0.15 μg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m3and 

made it identical to the revised primary standard. Id. 

15 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 

(October 14, 2011). 

16 “DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” June 

17, 2011 version. 

17 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, EPA 

Regions 1-10, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (referred to 

herein as “2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21 

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8-hour 

Ozone.18 This action triggered a requirement for states to submit 

an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the revised 

NAAQS. EPA did not, however, prepare guidance at this time for 

states in submitting I-SIP revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.19

On September 13, 2013, EPA issued “Guidance of Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” which provides advice on the 

development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

(among other pollutants) as well as infrastructure SIPs for new 

or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.20 

III. The State’s Submittals 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA’s 

promulgation of the NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule, 

including the following: 

• October 14, 2011 – “Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) and 

(2); 2008 Lead NAAQS,” to address all of the CAA 

 

18 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

19 Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS was postponed given EPA’s 

reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 34183 (June 6, 2013). 

20 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, EPA 

Regions 1-10, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (referred to 

herein as “2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, except for section 

110(a)(2)(G)21 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I-SIP 

Submittal). 

• December 27, 2012 - “Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) and 

(2); 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,” to address all of the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2008 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal). 

• December 6, 2013 - “Submittal of Maricopa County Rule 

100 revising the Maricopa County Portion of the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director 

of ADEQ (2013 Maricopa County Submittal). Maricopa 

County Rule 100 was submitted to address a deficiency 

in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for Maricopa

County concerning conflict of interest requirements

for hearing boards. 

• December 19, 2013 - “Submittal of Pima County Rules

revising the Pima County Portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) 

 

21 In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved Arizona’s SIP to address the 

requirements regarding air pollution emergency episodes in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 62452 (October 15, 

2012). Although ADEQ did not submit an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requirements, we discuss them in our TSD, which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23 

Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ 

(2013 Pima County Submittal). This submittal included 

Pima County Rule 17.04.190 “Composition,” adopted 

September 28, 1993; Pima County Rule 17.12.040 

“Reporting for Compliance Evaluations,” adopted 

September 28, 1993; and Pima County Rule 17.24.040 

“Reporting Requirements,” adopted April 19, 2005 for 

inclusion into the Arizona SIP. These rules were 

submitted to address deficiencies in section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP concerning conflict of 

interest requirements for hearing boards and section 

110(a)(2)(F) of the SIP concerning stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• September 4, 2014 - “Submittal of Pinal County Rule 1-

3-140 Revising the Pinal County Portion of the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ 

(2014 Pinal County Submittal). This submittal included 

Pinal County Rule 1-3-140 “Definitions,” adopted July 

23, 2014 for inclusion into the Arizona SIP. Pinal 

County Rule 1-3-140 was submitted to address a 

deficiency in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for 

Pinal County concerning conflict of interest 

requirements for hearing boards. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24 

We find that these submittals meet the procedural 

requirements for public participation under CAA section 

110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. 

In addition to the above infrastructure submittals, on 

October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Review State 

Implementation Plan Submission” as well as “Supplemental 

Information to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan 

Submission” on July 2, 2014. In addition to addressing revisions 

to Arizona’s New Source Review (NSR) program, these submissions 

also relate to I-SIP elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2) (C), 

(D), (J) and (K), which EPA is not acting on in today’s 

rulemaking. The I-SIP elements in sections 110(a)(2) (C), (D), 

(J) and (K) will be addressed in a future rulemaking. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 

Ozone I-SIP Submittal, the 2013 Maricopa County Submittal, the 

2013 Pima County Submittal, and the 2014 Pinal County 

Submittal, as well as the existing provisions of the Arizona 

SIP for compliance with the CAA section 110(a) requirements 

for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Our Technical Support 

Document (TSD) contains more detailed evaluations and is 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may 

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

number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0258. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25 

Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to approve the 2011 

Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal, the 2013 

Maricopa County Submittal, the 2013 Pima County Submittal and 

the 2013 Pinal County Submittal with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 

measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system. 

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

conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional 

government agencies. 

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

reporting. 

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

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

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

of modeling data. 

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

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

affected local entities. 

In addition, we are proposing to approve into the SIP 

certain regulatory provisions included in the 2013 Pima County 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26 

and Maricopa County Submittals, and in the 2014 Pinal County 

Submittal, as discussed in the TSD.22 

On November 5, 2012, EPA approved in part and disapproved 

in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by 

the state of Arizona pursuant to the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).23 In today’s 

action, we propose to approve certain portions of the previously 

disapproved infrastructure SIP action. Specifically, today’s 

proposed action will correct the previous deficiencies with 

respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal Counties and section 110(a)(2)(F) for Pima County. If 

finalized before the end of the two-year FIP deadline 

established by our 2012 action on Arizona’s I-SIP for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, approval of 

these infrastructure SIP elements would relieve EPA of the 

obligation to promulgate a FIP, as required under CAA Section 

110(c)(1). 

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

infrastructure SIP that address the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) of the Act. On October 29, 2012, 

ADEQ submitted “New Source Review State Implementation Plan 

 

22 Copies of these Arizona county regulations are included in the 2013 Pima 

County and Maricopa County Submittals, and 2014 Pinal County Submittal, which 

are available in the docket for this action and online at 

http://regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0258. 

23 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27 

Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Supplemental 

Information to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan 

Submission”. These submissions address the permitting portions 

of I-SIP elements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) of 

the Act will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. 

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

SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

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

All of the elements of the infrastructure SIP that we are 

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

SIP by replacing obsolete statutes or regulations and by 

updating the state and local agencies’ SIP implementation and 

enforcement authorities. We propose to determine that our 

approval of the elements discussed above would comply with CAA 

section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision would not 

interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that 

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

the SIP revision clarifies and updates the SIP. Our TSD contains 

a more detailed discussion of our evaluation. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 

the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28 

is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed 

by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: 

• is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); 

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29 

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

 In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will 

not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 

Dated: September, 30, 2014 _________/s/_________________ 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, 

Region IX.