The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld si gned the following rule on September 30, 2014 and E PA is

submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accu racy of this version of this rule, it is not the official versio n. Please refer to the official version in a forthc oming 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 P lans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 L ead (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 prop osing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisi on submitted by the State of Arizona to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for th e 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality st andards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that ea ch State adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, main tenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. We re fer to such SIP revisions as "infrastructure" SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for ne w or revised NAAQS including, but not limited to, legal authorit y, regulatory structure, resources, permit programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of t he standards. In addition, we are proposing to approve several st ate provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest and monitoringThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

2 requirements into the Arizona SIP. We are taking co mments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final actio n. 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. EP AR09-OAR-2014-0258, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comm ents. 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 Hawt horne, San Francisco, California 94105.
5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planni ng Section (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Region al Office’s normal hours of operation. Special arrange ments 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 re ceived 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 i nformationThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

3 claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CB I) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted b y 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 i dentity or contact information unless you provide it in the bo dy 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 o n the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact inform ation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM yo u submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical diffi culties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not b e able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoi d 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 statu te. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available doc ket materialsThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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 a t 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, Reg ion 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 S IP 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 S IP Submittals EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Ariz ona that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sect ions 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

5 The requirement for states to make a SIP submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to se ction 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescr ibe) 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 im poses on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and t he requirement to make the submittals is not condition ed upon EPA’s taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specifi c elements that “[e]ach such plan” submittal must address. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submitta ls made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of C AA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” sub mittals. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not app ear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particul ar type of SIP submittal from submittals that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainm ent SIP” or “attainment SIP” submittals to address the nonattai nment planning requirements of part D of title I of the C AA, “regional haze SIP” submittals required by EPA rule to addres s the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 1 69A, andThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

6 nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit progra m 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 requ ired contents of these submittals. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of dispar ate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive progr am provisions, and some of which pertain to requiremen ts for both authority and substantive program provisions. 1 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in secti on 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisi ons are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the lis t of required elements for infrastructure SIP submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is r equired for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submittal. The following examples of ambiguities illustrate th e need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and sec tion 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructu re SIP submittals for a given new or revised NAAQS. One ex ample 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) provid es that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as c ontingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

7 ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “ each” SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements therei n, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the sta tute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of th e Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements
. 2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirem ents and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For exampl e, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for sub mittal of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administ rator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattain ment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgate d. 3 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all th e stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict liter al sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2 ) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP subm ittal.

2 See , e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fin e Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO x SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163–25165 , May 12, 2005 (explaining relationship between timing re quirement 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 d ates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated nonat tainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) prov ides specific dates for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone NA AQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three yea rs after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

8 Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a) (1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs perta ins 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. Althoug h section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow state s to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing infra structure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to mak e such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submitta ls either individually or in a larger combined action. 4 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on th e individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure S IP submittal for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example, EPA has sometimes elected t o act at different times on various elements and sub-element s of the same infrastructure SIP submittal. 5

4 See , e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementatio n Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Impl ementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and N onattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Me xico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implement ation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirement s for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS,” 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS). 5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, thro ugh 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 ele ments (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FRThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

9 Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submi ttal requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes t hat not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revise d NAAQS. The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the moni toring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of sectio n 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a stat e’s infrastructure SIP submittal to meet this element m ight be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a mino r 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 submi ttals required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastr ucture 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 requir ed 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 oth er section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 submittal. 6 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient leve ls of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

10 have to meet the “applicable requirements” of secti on 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals m ust meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enfo rceable emission limits and control measures and section 11 0(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By co ntrast, 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 significa nt deterioration (PSD) program required in part C of t itle I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to par t D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each typ e of SIP submittal may implicate some elements of section 11 0(a)(2) but not others. Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the st atutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) , EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the am biguous 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 t hat each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in que stion or the history of SIP development for the relevant polluta nt, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under w hich it reviews infrastructure SIP submittals against the l ist ofThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

11 elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the exte nt each element applies for that particular NAAQS. Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance docum ents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure S IPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly ari sing issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that ha ve already been developed and applied to individual SIP submit tals for particular elements. 7 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Inf rastructure SIP Guidance). 8 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs fo r any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to mee t basic structural SIP requirements within three years of p romulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommenda tions 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 requir es EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submitt al of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or not EPA provid es 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 P lan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Me morandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. 9 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make re commendations 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 elec ted 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 requir ed by statute, whether EPAThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

12 also discusses the substantively important issues t hat are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2)
. Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) an d 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to add ress certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EP A reviews each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance wi th the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2 ), as appropriate. As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a requir ed element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this element, a state must meet the substanti ve 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 inf rastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP appro priately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)( ii) and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance e xplains 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 indi vidual state’s permitting or enforcement program ( e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-memb er 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

13 the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA’s evaluation of infrast ructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explici tly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 12 8. As another example, EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP submittals with respect to the PSD program requirem ents in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in pa rt C, title I of the Act and EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PS D program requirements include provisions necessary for the P SD program to address all regulated sources and regulated NSR pol lutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, str uctural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA’s regulations at 40 Code of Fede ral Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available a s an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandf athering of complete permit applications with respect to the 20 12 PM 2.5 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 o n assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic structural require ments. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor newThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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 o f 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 subm ittal is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. Th ese issues include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, o r malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provis ions related to “director’s variance” or “director’s discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow r evisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) ex isting provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsisten t with current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR Improvemen t Rule,” 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32 526, June 13, 2007 (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may appr ove an infrastructure SIP submittal without scrutinizing t he totalityThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

15 of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal even if it is aware o f 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 an y existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described. EPA’s approach to review of infrastructure SIP subm ittals is to identify the CAA requirements that are logica lly applicable to that submittal. EPA believes that thi s approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submi ttal is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the l ist of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each a nd every provision of a state’s existing SIP against all req uirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elem ents for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory an d regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may i nclude some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not po se a

10 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to inc lude a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a le gal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM event s, 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 in frastructure SIP.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

16 significant problem for the purposes of “implementa tion, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised N AAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submit tal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and E PA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to th e promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other fac tors. For example, EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon mono xide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requi rements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxid e does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure S IP submittal for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon mono xide need only state this fact in order to address the visibi lity prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respec t to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reaso nable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific su bstantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutor y tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, dependin g upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” when ever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is substantial ly inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate inters tateThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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 infrastru cture SIP submittal is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclu de EPA’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a) (2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficienci es at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropria te to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate dir ector’s discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that sec tion 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 addr ess specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emi ssions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implement ation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011. 12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in p ast 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 C AA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agenc y 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, Arizo na, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (c orrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 (correction s to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal fr om Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s di scretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including secti on 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, 201 1 (final disapproval of such provisions).This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

18 II. Background A. Statutory Framework As discussed in section I of this proposed rule, CA A 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 SI P revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets t he 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 managemen t program. These infrastructure SIP elements required by secti on 110(a)(2) are as follows:

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

measures.

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitorin g/data system.

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of co ntrol measures and regulation of new and modified station ary

sources.

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and internatio nal pollution abatement.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

19 • Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and author ity, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and re gional 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 subm ittal 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 no t governed by the three-year submittal deadline of se ction 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this a ction. These two elements are: (i) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the e xtent it refers to permit programs required under part D (no nattainment 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 nona ttainment NSRThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

20 portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of sec tion 110(a)(2)(I). B. Regulatory History 2008 Pb NAAQS On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) issued a revised NAAQS for Pb. 14 This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an inf rastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of secti on 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the revised NAAQS . On October 14, 2011, EPA issued “Guidance on Section 110 Infra structure 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 Septe mber 13, 2013. 17 2008 Ozone NAAQS

14 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb stand ard (1.5 μg/m 3 as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 mont h average not to be exceeded of 0.15 μg/m 3 . EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m 3 and made it identical to the revised primary standard. Id. 15 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Di rectors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011). 16 “DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sec tions 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 Re gional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Imp lementation 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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 req uirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the revised NAAQS. EPA did not, however, prepare guidance at th is time for states in submitting I-SIP revisions for the 2008 O zone NAAQS. 19 On September 13, 2013, EPA issued “Guidance of Infr astructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clea n Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” which provides a dvice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozo ne 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 (AD EQ) has submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions purs uant to EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS addressed by this propose d rule, including the following:

• October 14, 2011 – “Arizona State Implementation Pl an 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 w as postponed given EPA’s reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 34183 (J une 6, 2013). 20 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Steph en D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Re gional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Imp lementation 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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 P lan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) and (2); 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,” to address all of th e CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2008 8-h our Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal).

• December 6, 2013 - “Submittal of Maricopa County Ru le 100 revising the Maricopa County Portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Directo r of ADEQ (2013 Maricopa County Submittal). Maricopa County Rule 100 was submitted to address a deficien cy 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 Sta te Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2)

21 In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved Arizo na’s SIP to address the requirements regarding air pollution emergency epis odes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 77 F R 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

23 Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ (2013 Pima County Submittal). This submittal includ ed 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 fo r 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 sectio n 110(a)(2)(F) of the SIP concerning stationary sourc e monitoring and reporting.

• September 4, 2014 - “Submittal of Pinal County Rule 1- 3-140 Revising the Pinal County Portion of the Ariz ona State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ (2014 Pinal County Submittal). This submittal inclu ded Pinal County Rule 1-3-140 “Definitions,” adopted Ju ly 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 f or Pinal County concerning conflict of interest requirements for hearing boards.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

24 We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for public participation under CAA sec tion 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 “Supplem ental Information to 2012 New Source Review State Impleme ntation Plan Submission” on July 2, 2014. In addition to address ing 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 tod ay’s rulemaking. The I-SIP elements in sections 110(a)(2 ) (C), (D), (J) and (K) will be addressed in a future rulemakin g. 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 Sub mittal, the 2013 Pima County Submittal, and the 2014 Pinal Coun ty Submittal, as well as the existing provisions of th e Arizona SIP for compliance with the CAA section 110(a) requ irements for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains more detailed evaluations a nd is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, d ocket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0258.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

25 Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to approve t he 2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal, the 2013 Maricopa County Submittal, the 2013 Pima County Sub mittal and the 2013 Pinal County Submittal with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

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

measures.

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitorin g/data system.

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and author ity, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and re gional 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 subm ission 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 S IP certain regulatory provisions included in the 2013 Pima CountyThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

26 and Maricopa County Submittals, and in the 2014 Pin al County Submittal, as discussed in the TSD. 22 On November 5, 2012, EPA approved in part and disap proved in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions s ubmitted by the state of Arizona pursuant to the requirements o f the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and t he 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). 23 In today’s action, we propose to approve certain portions of t he previously disapproved infrastructure SIP action. Specifically , today’s proposed action will correct the previous deficienc ies with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for Maricop a, Pima, and Pinal Counties and section 110(a)(2)(F) for Pima Co unty. If finalized before the end of the two-year FIP deadli ne established by our 2012 action on Arizona’s I-SIP f or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, approval of these infrastructure SIP elements would relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP, as required under C AA 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 Octob er 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Review State Implementat ion Plan

22 Copies of these Arizona county regulations are inc luded in the 2013 Pima County and Maricopa County Submittals, and 2014 Pin al County Submittal, which are available in the docket for this action and onl ine 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

27 Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Suppleme ntal Information to 2012 New Source Review State Impleme ntation Plan Submission”. These submissions address the permitti ng portions of I-SIP elements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J ) and (K) of the Act will be addressed in a subsequent rulemakin g. Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approv ing any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicab le requirement concerning attainment and reasonable fu rther 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, woul d improve the SIP by replacing obsolete statutes or regulations a nd by updating the state and local agencies’ SIP implemen tation and enforcement authorities. We propose to determine th at our approval of the elements discussed above would comp ly with CAA section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision wo uld not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring th at requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS ar e 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 requi red to approve a SIP submission that complies with the pro visions 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 roleThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

28 is to approve state choices, provided that they mee t the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this ac tion merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal re quirements 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 Execut ive 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 Re gulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or signific antly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 10 4-4); • does not have Federalism implications as specifie d in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999 ); • is not an economically significant regulatory act ion based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Orde r 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 Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

29 • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) o f 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 A ir Act;
and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary autho rity to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human hea lth or environmental effects, using practicable and legall y permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (5 9 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule does not have trib al 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 gover nments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relat ions, Ozone, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Sep tember

30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accurac y of this version, but it is not the official versi on.

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

_____ Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.