42214 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). The annual NO2

standard of 0.053 parts per million (ppm) is listed 

in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour 

standard. 

2 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The annual SO2

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 16, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18027 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472; FRL–9982– 

23—Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving several state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Arizona pursuant to 

the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’). We refer to such SIP 

submissions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

submissions because they are intended 

to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

standards including, but not limited to, 

legal authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring, 

and modeling necessary to assure 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, 

the EPA is reclassifying Pima County 

from Priority II to Priority III for SO2

emergency episode planning purposes. 

The EPA is also approving into the 

Arizona SIP sections of an Arizona 

Revised Statute related to air quality 

modeling and the submission of 

modeling data to the EPA. Finally, the 

EPA is clarifying several inconsistencies 

between its technical support document 

and notice of proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to make a SIP submission within 

three years after the promulgation of a 

new or revised primary NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that the SIP must 

include. Many of the section 110(a)(2) 

SIP elements relate to the general 

information and authorities that 

constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program. 

SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP submissions’’ or ‘‘I– 

SIP submissions.’’ The I–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 (excluding the 

requirements applicable only in 

nonattainment areas); 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport; 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement; 

• section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies; 

• section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting; 

• section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes; 

• section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions; 

• section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), and visibility 

protection; 

• section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal of modeling 

data; 

• section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees; 

and 

• section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent it refers to nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) permit programs 

required under part D, and section 

110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address SIP requirements for the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or of section 110(a)(2)(I). 

In 2010, the EPA promulgated revised 

NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, triggering a 

requirement for states to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure 

SIP rulemaking include the following: 

• 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised 

the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard 

of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 

supplementing it with a new 1-hour 

average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and 

retained the secondary annual standard 

of 53 ppb; 1 and 

• 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which 

established a new 1-hour average SO2

standard of 75 ppb, retained the 

secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard 

of 500 ppb, and established a 

mechanism for revoking the existing 

annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.2


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42215 

3Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide 

and Sulfur Dioxide. 81 FR 31571 (May 19, 2016). 

4Technical Support Document, Evaluation of the 

Arizona Infrastructure SIP for 2010 SO2 and NO2

NAAQS, April 29, 2016 at 14. 

5 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. See also Partial Approval and Disapproval of 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter. 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 

2012). 

6CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) consists of three subelements: Program for enforcement of control 

measures, major source PSD program, and 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications. Only the PSD requirement as 

applicable to ADEQ and Pinal County is included 

in the administrative clarifications described in this 

final action. For additional information on section 

110(a)(2)(C) requirements, please see the TSD for 

this action. 7 In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we 

partially mislabeled prong 3 as ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in 

part)—interference with maintenance, or prong 3’’. 

See 81 FR 31571, 31575, section IV.A (May 16, 

2016). 8See 81 FR 31571, 31575. 9Technical Support Document, Evaluation of the 

Arizona Infrastructure SIP for 2010 SO2 and NO2

NAAQS, April 29, 2016 at 14. 10 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. 

On May 16, 2016, the EPA proposed 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove the Arizona infrastructure 

SIP submissions as meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) of the Act for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 standards. In addition, we proposed 

to reclassify the Pima Intrastate Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR) for SO2

emergency episode planning. We also 

proposed to approve into the Arizona 

SIP Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 

related to air quality modeling and the 

submission of modeling data to the 

EPA.3 The rationale supporting the 

EPA’s actions is explained in our 

proposal notice and the associated 

technical support document (TSD) and 

will not be restated here. The proposed 

rule and TSD are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472. 

II. Public Comments 

During the public comment period, 

the EPA received one brief and 

anonymous comment on the proposed 

action. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

the ‘‘EPA cannot approve the PSD 

portions of the I–SIPs for both 

pollutants for [Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality] and Pinal 

County until both programs have fully 

approved PM2.5 increment provisions 

that do not contain illegal exemptions.’’ 

Response: On May 4, 2018, we 

finalized approval of Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) rule revisions to correct 

deficiencies in ADEQ’s SIP-approved 

NSR program related to the 

requirements under part C (PSD) and 

part D (nonattainment NSR) of title I of 

the Act that apply to major stationary 

sources and major modifications of such 

sources. 83 FR 19631. Section A of 

ADEQ rule R18–2–218, approved into 

the SIP as part of our May 4, 2018 

action, includes PSD increments for 

criteria pollutants, including NO2, SO2, 

and PM2.5. Our approval of the PSD 

increments for PM2.5 into the Arizona 

SIP applied to both ADEQ and Pinal 

County. The May 4, 2018 final action 

thus resolved the issue identified by the 

commenter. 

Nonetheless and as explained further 

below, we are finalizing a partial 

disapproval of a narrow portion of the 

PSD program elements of the I–SIP 

submissions for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS for ADEQ and Pinal 

County. As explained in the TSD for the 

proposal notice, while ADEQ and Pinal 

County have SIP-approved PSD 

programs that cover most of the 

requirements of part C, title I of the Act, 

they do not have programs that provide 

for regulating the construction and 

modification of stationary sources of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). Instead, all of 

Arizona is subject to the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21 for regulation 

of stationary sources of GHGs.4 As 

explained in our TSD, the EPA’s 2013 

I–SIP guidance, and previous EPA 

rulemakings on Arizona I–SIP 

submissions, if a state does not have a 

fully approved PSD program that covers 

the requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs, then the 

EPA cannot fully approve an I–SIP 

submission with respect to the PSDrelated requirements of 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 

110(a)(2)(J).5

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and 

based on the evaluation and rationale 

presented in the proposed rule, the 

related TSD, and this final rule, the EPA 

is approving in part and disapproving in 

part Arizona infrastructure SIP 

submissions addressing requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), as 

applicable, with respect to the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In this final action we are also making 

several administrative changes to clarify 

inconsistencies between our notice of 

proposed rulemaking and TSD. In the 

May 16, 2016 action we inadvertently 

listed several elements under the 

Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals section of the notice. The 

portions of the infrastructure SIP 

submissions that the EPA listed under 

the Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals section of the notice, but 

instead should have been listed under 

the Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

section of the notice, include: Section 

110(a)(2)(C) prevention of significant 

deterioration (ADEQ and Pinal 

County); 6 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

interference with prevention of 

significant deterioration, or prong 3 

(ADEQ and Pinal County); 7 section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) interstate pollution 

abatement (ADEQ and Pinal County); 

and section 110(a)(2)(J) prevention of 

significant deterioration (ADEQ and 

Pinal County).8 As explained in the 

TSD, while ADEQ and Pinal County 

have SIP-approved PSD programs that 

cover most of the requirements of part 

C, title I of the Act, they do not have 

programs that provide for regulating the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources of GHGs. Instead, all 

of Arizona is subject to the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21 for regulation 

of stationary sources of GHGs.9 As 

explained in the EPA’s 2013 I–SIP 

guidance, if a state does not have a fully 

approved PSD program that covers the 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs, then the 

EPA cannot fully approve the I–SIP 

submission for the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J).10 Thus, 

consistent with the TSD for this action, 

past actions on Arizona I–SIP 

submissions, and our 2013 I–SIP 

guidance, this final action serves to 

clarify that the SIP submissions are 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved for the PSD-related 

infrastructure requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to ADEQ and Pinal County. The 

partial disapproval for ADEQ and Pinal 

County applies only with respect to the 

fact that these air programs do not have 

SIP approved rules to regulate sources 

of GHG emissions, and instead 

implement a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) for regulation of sources of 

GHGs pursuant to a delegation 

agreement with the EPA. 

A. Approvals 

We are approving the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 Arizona infrastructure SIP 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42216 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

submission with respect to the 

following CAA requirements for the 

jurisdiction and pollutants listed in 

parentheses, as applicable: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A)—emission 

limits and other control measures (for 

all jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(B)—ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system (for all 

jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(C)—program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications (for all jurisdictions and 

both pollutants) 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)—interstate 

pollution transport; 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance (for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS in all jurisdictions; 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—international 

air pollution in section 115 (for all 

jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(E)—adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional agencies (for 

all jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(F)—stationary 

source monitoring and reporting (for all 

jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(G)—emergency 

episodes (for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(H)—SIP revisions 

(for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(J)—consultation 

with government officials in section 121 

(for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants) and public notification of 

exceedances in section 127 (for all 

jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(K)—air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data (for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(L)—permitting 

fees (for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants); and 

• section 110(a)(2)(M)—consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities 

(for all jurisdictions and both 

pollutants). 

The EPA is taking no action at this 

time on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)— 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance—for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

B. Partial Approvals and Partial 

Disapprovals 

The EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving Arizona’s 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the jurisdiction and 

pollutants listed in parentheses: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)—PSD permit 

program (for ADEQ and Pinal County 

and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)—interstate 

pollution transport (see below); and 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)— 

interference with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration 

(for ADEQ and Pinal County and both 

pollutants); 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—interstate 

pollution abatement in section 126 

(for ADEQ and Pinal County and both 

pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(J)—PSD permit 

program (for ADEQ and Pinal County 

and both pollutants); 

C. Disapprovals 

The EPA is disapproving Arizona’s 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure 

SIP submissions with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)—PSD permit 

program (for Maricopa County and Pima 

County and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)—interstate 

pollution transport (see below); and 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)— 

interference with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration 

(for Maricopa County and Pima 

County and both pollutants); 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)— 

interference with measures required 

to protect visibility (for all 

jurisdictions and both pollutants); 

—section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—interstate 

pollution abatement in section 126 

(for Maricopa County and Pima 

County and both pollutants); 

• section 110(a)(2)(J)—PSD permit 

program (for Maricopa County and Pima 

County and both pollutants). 

D. Consequences of Disapprovals and 

Partial Disapprovals 

CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that 

the EPA must promulgate a FIP within 

two years after finding that a state has 

failed to make a required submission or 

disapproving a state’s SIP submission in 

whole or in part, unless the EPA 

approves a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. As explained below and in the 

TSD for this action, today’s final 

disapproval and final partial approval 

and partial disapproval actions do not 

result in any new FIP obligations 

because FIPs are already in place for the 

deficient portions of Arizona’s I–SIP 

submissions for the 2010 SO2 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. 

We are disapproving the Pima County 

and Maricopa County portions of 

Arizona’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions, and partially approving 

and partially disapproving the ADEQ 

and Pinal County portions of Arizona’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions, with 

respect to the PSD-related requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 

110(a)(2)(J). The Arizona SIP does not 

fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for PSD permit programs 

under part C, title I of the Act, because 

Maricopa County and Pima County do 

not have SIP-approved PSD programs, 

while ADEQ and Pinal County do not 

have SIP-approved PSD programs that 

cover GHGs. Maricopa County and Pima 

County currently implement the federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all 

regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to 

delegation agreements with the EPA, 

while ADEQ and Pinal County 

implement 40 CFR 52.21 for GHGs 

pursuant to delegation agreements with 

the EPA. Accordingly, although the 

Arizona SIP remains deficient with 

respect to certain PSD requirements in 

the ADEQ, Pinal County, Maricopa 

County, and Pima County portions of 

the SIP, these deficiencies are 

adequately addressed in all areas by the 

federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

and do not create new FIP obligations. 

We are also disapproving all 

jurisdictions in Arizona for the 

visibility-related requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Because ADEQ, Pinal 

County, Maricopa County, and Pima 

County rely on an existing FIP to control 

sources under the Regional Haze Rule, 

and they have not demonstrated that 

emissions within their respective 

jurisdictions do not interfere with other 

states’ programs to protect visibility, 

they do not meet the infrastructure SIP 

obligations for the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. Because a Regional 

Haze FIP is already in place, however, 

this disapproval creates no new FIP 

obligations. 

E. Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes 

Into the Arizona SIP 

The EPA is approving ARS sections 

49–104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the Arizona 

SIP in order to meet the air quality 

modeling and data submission 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) for the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as 

well as for past and future NAAQS. 

Approval of ARS 49–104(A)(3) and 

(B)(1) into the SIP also corrects 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42217 

11On November 5, 2012, the EPA disapproved the 

CAA 110(a)(2)(K) I–SIP element with respect to 

ADEQ’s submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 66398). On 

July 14, 2015, the EPA again disapproved this I–SIP 

element for the 2008 lead and 2008 ozone NAAQS 

(80 FR 40906). The EPA disapproved those 

submissions because ADEQ, Pima, Pinal, and 

Maricopa Counties did not submit adequate 

provisions or narrative information related to the 

110(a)(2)(K) requirements. The EPA’s approval of 

ARS sections 49–104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the 

Arizona SIP corrects previous disapprovals found at 

77 FR 66398 and 80 FR 40906. 

12The EPA’s May 2016 proposal to reclassify the 

Pima Intrastate AQCR to Priority III for SO2 was 

based on 2013–2015 data in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS). The 2015–2017 data in AQS and 

preliminary 2018 data show Pima AQCR continues 

to meet the requirements for reclassification to 

Priority III for emergency episode planning. The 

boundaries of the Pima Intrastate AQCR are 

described in 40 CFR 81.269. The AQS data for 

2013–2017 are available in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking. 

13Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.153, reclassification of an AQCR must rely on 

the most recent three years of air quality data. The 

classification system for emergency episode plans is 

described in 40 CFR 51.150. See 81 FR 18766 at 

18770, further describing the EPA’s authority for a 

reclassification of an AQCR. Regions classified 

Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIPapproved emergency episode contingency plans, 

while those classified Priority III are not required 

to have emergency episode contingency plans. 

deficiencies identified in previous 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings.11

F. Reclassification for Emergency 

Episode Planning 

Based on Arizona’s 2013–2017 air 

quality data for Pima County, we are 

reclassifying this region from Priority II 

to Priority III for SO2.12 The 

reclassification to Priority III relieves 

Pima County from having to address the 

emergency episode contingency plan 

requirement to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.13

Accordingly, and as noted above, the 

EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP 

submission for Pima County with 

respect to this requirement. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 22, 2018. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: July 31, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42218 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 paragraph (e) is 

amended by: 

■ a. In Table 1, adding three entries after 

the entry ‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, excluding 

the appendices’’; and 

■ b. In Table 3 by adding an entry for 

‘‘49–104, subsections (A)(3) and (B)(1) 

only’’ after the entry for ‘‘49–104, 

subsections (A)(2), (A)(4), (B)(3), and 

(B)(5) only’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area or title/ 

subject 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans 

*******

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2); Implementation of the 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, excluding the appendices.

State-wide .... January 18, 2013 ....... August 21, 2018, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

Adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on January 18, 2013. 

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2); Implementation of the 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, excluding the appendices.

State-wide .... July 23, 2013 ............. August 21, 2018, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

Adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on July 

23, 2013. 

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2); Implementation of the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, excluding: 

State-wide .... December 3, 2015 ..... August 21, 2018, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

Adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on December 3, 2015. 

(i) The submission in Enclosure 1 titled 

‘‘SIP Revision: Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D) 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Air Quality 

Division’’ dated December 3, 2015; 

(ii) All appendices in Enclosure 1; and 

Enclosure 2. 

* * * * * * * 

1Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and 

Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 3—EPA-APPROVED ARIZONA STATUTES—NON-REGULATORY

State citation Title/subject State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 

*******

Title 49 (The Environment) 

Chapter 1 (General Provisions) 

Article 1 (Department of Environmental Quality) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42219 

TABLE 3—EPA-APPROVED ARIZONA STATUTES—NON-REGULATORY—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

49–104 subsections (A)(3) 

and (B)(1) only.

Powers and duties of the 

department and director.

December 3, 2015 ............ August 21, 2018, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

Arizona Revised Statutes 

(Thomson Reuters, 

2015–16 Cumulative 

Pocket Part). Adopted 

by the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality on December 3, 

2015. 

*******

■ 3. Section 52.121 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.121 Classification of regions. 

The Arizona plan is evaluated on the 

basis of the following classifications: 

AQCR (constituent counties) 

Classifications 

PM SOX NO2 CO O3

Maricopa Intrastate (Maricopa) ................................................................ I III III I I 

Pima Intrastate (Pima) ............................................................................. I III III III I 

Northern Arizona Intrastate (Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai) ........ I III III III III 

Mohave-Yuma Intrastate (Mohave, Yuma) .............................................. I III III III III 

Central Arizona Intrastate (Gila, Pinal) .................................................... I IA III III III 

Southeast Arizona Intrastate (Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa 

Cruz) ..................................................................................................... I IA III III III 

■ 4. Section 52.123 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (l) through (p), and 

adding paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.123 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(l) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(m) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(n) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J) for all portions of the Arizona 

SIP. 

(o) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2011, 

December 27, 2012, and December 3, 

2015 are fully or partially disapproved 

for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(p) 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2011 and 

December 27, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(q) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: 

The SIPs submitted on January 18, 2013 

and December 3, 2015 are fully or 

partially disapproved for CAA elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(r) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on July 23, 2013 and 

December 3, 2015 are fully or partially 

disapproved for CAA elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17931 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0601; FRL–9982– 

32—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Regional 

Haze Plan and Visibility for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide and 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (the Commonwealth or 

Virginia) on July 16, 2015. This SIP 

submittal changes Virginia’s reliance on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) for certain elements of 

Virginia’s regional haze program. EPA is 

approving the visibility portion of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and approving element (J) for 

visibility of Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA is also converting the Agency’s 

prior limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze 

program to a full approval and 

withdrawing the federal implementation 

plan (FIP) provisions addressing our 

prior limited disapproval. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES