The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following rule on April 29, 2016 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 EPAR09-OAR-2015-0472.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0472; FRL-_________]

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements of Sections 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). CAA section 110(a)(1) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for 

the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, and 

that EPA act on such SIPs. We refer to such SIPs 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 to our 

proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of Arizona’s infrastructure SIP, we are 

proposing to reclassify one region of the state for SO2 emergency episode planning. EPA is also 

proposing to approve Arizona Revised Statutes related to conducting air quality modeling and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

2

providing modeling data to EPA 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 [Federal Register Office: Insert 

date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-

0472] at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 

and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the 

web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public 

comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3856, kelly.thomasp@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 Submissions 

II. Background 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

3

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory Background

C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements with GHGs

III. State Submittals

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

B. Proposed Disapprovals and Partial Disapprovals

C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes into the State SIP

D. Proposed Reclassification of an Air Quality Control Region

E. Request for Public Comments

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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

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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

4

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 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. 

 

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 SIPapproved 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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

5

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 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. 

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 

 

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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

6

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

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 

 

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

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

7

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 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. 

 

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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

8

Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submittals 

against the list of 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 

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. 

 

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 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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

9

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 multimember board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

10

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 sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-approved 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

11

without scrutinizing the totality 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 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. 

 

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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

12

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 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 

 

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

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

13

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

II. Background

A. Statutory Framework

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission within 3 years 

after the promulgation of a new or revised primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission 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 and SIP submittals that address these requirements 

are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs.” 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.

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

oversight of local and regional government agencies.

 

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 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

14

• 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: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D 

(nonattainment NSR), and 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 portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. Regulatory Background 

In 2010 EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, triggering a requirement for 

states to submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure SIP proposal 

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.14

 

14 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 2 standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison 

with the new 1-hour standard.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

15

• 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 primary 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.15

C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements with GHGs 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to require each 

state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for 

all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by 

demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all 

regulated NSR pollutants.

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the 

application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.16 The Supreme Court said that 

EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a 

major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to 

require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, 

contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court 

found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state’s SIPapproved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

 

15 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the 

new 1-hour standard.

16 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

16

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, 

or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase 

from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal 

PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states 

will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

III. State Submittals

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has submitted several 

infrastructure SIP submittals pursuant to EPA's promulgation of specific NAAQS, including:

• January 18, 2013 – “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under the Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2010 NO2 NAAQS.” (2013 NO2 I-SIP 

Submittal)

• July 23, 2013 – “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under the Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); Implementation of the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality.” (2013 SO2 I-SIP Submittal)

• December 3, 2015 – “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 Ozone 

and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

17

and Revision for All Previous and Future NAAQS under CAA Section 

11(a)(2)(K).” (2015 Submittal)

We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for public 

participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We are proposing to act on all of 

these submittals, except the part of the 2015 Submittal addressing the 2008 ozone standard which 

will be acted on separately. The submittals collectively address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS as described by this proposed rule. We refer to them 

collectively herein as “Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals.”

VI. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

We have evaluated Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the existing provisions of 

the Arizona SIP for compliance with the infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (“Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans”). The Technical Support Document 

(TSD), which is available in the docket to this action, includes our evaluation for these 

infrastructure SIP elements, as well as our evaluation of various statutory and regulatory 

provisions identified and submitted by Arizona. For some elements, our analysis refers to older 

TSDs for prior NAAQS, which have also been included in the docket. 

Based upon this analysis, we propose to approve the 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 Arizona

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the following Clean Air Act requirements: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures (all jurisdictions, both 

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

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

18

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (all jurisdictions, both

pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of 

new stationary sources (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution Transport.

 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(in part) - significant contribution to nonattainment, or 

prongs 1 and 2 (all jurisdictions for the NO2 NAAQS).

 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part) - interference with maintenance, or prong 3

(ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants).

 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part) - interstate pollution abatement §126 (ADEQ and 

Pinal County for both pollutants) and international air pollution §115 (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants).

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of 

local governments and regional agencies (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary solderurce monitoring and reporting (all jurisdictions, both 

pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions (all jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, §121 (all jurisdictions, 

both pollutants); public notification of exceedances, §127 (all jurisdictions, both 

pollutants); and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection 

(ADEQ and Pinal County, both pollutants).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

19

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees (all jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities (all jurisdictions, 

both pollutants).

EPA is taking no action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

EPA proposes to disapprove Arizona's NO2 and SO2 Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of 

new and modified stationary sources (Maricopa County and Pima County, both 

pollutants).

• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate pollution transport, 

 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part) - interference with maintenance, or prong 3 

(Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).

 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) – visibility transport or prong 4 (all jurisdictions, both 

pollutants).

 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part) - interstate pollution abatement §126 (Maricopa 

County and Pima County, both pollutants).

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD and visibility protection (Maricopa County and Pima 

County, both pollutants)

As explained more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to disapprove the Maricopa 

County and Pima County portions of Arizona’s Infrastructure Submittals with respect to the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

20

PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the 

PSD requirements of 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 currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA.

Accordingly, although the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in 

both the Maricopa County and Pima County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are 

adequately addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program and do not create new FIP 

obligations. 

We are also proposing to disapprove all jurisdictions in Arizona for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) –

protecting visibility from interstate transport or prong 4. Because Arizona relies on a FIP to 

control sources under the Regional Haze Rule, they do not meet the requirements of this portion 

of 110(a)(2)(D) for NO2 and SO2. However, because a FIP is already in place to meet the 

requirements, no additional FIP obligation is triggered by our disapproval of this portion of 

Arizona’s infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to incorporate FIP 

emission limits and control technologies into the state SIP.

C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes into the State SIP

Included in ADEQ’s 2015 Submittal was a request to approve Arizona Revised Statutes

(ARS) § 49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the state SIP. Arizona has requested that these statutes be 

included 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, and past and future NAAQS, including 

previous Infrastructure SIP disapprovals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

ozone, and 2008 lead NAAQS.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

21

110(a)(2)(K) requires states to provide for the performance of air quality modeling and 

the submission of air quality modeling to EPA upon request. On November 5, 2012, EPA 

disapproved 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to ADEQ’s submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 66398). EPA again disapproved this I-SIP element for the 

2008 Pb and 2008 O3 NAAQS on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 40906). 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. 

EPA has reviewed the SIP approved provisions, narrative information, and ARS §§ 49-

104(A)(3) and (B)(1) contained within the 2015 Submittal. EPA is proposing to approve 

110(a)(2)(K) as described in part A of this section, and detailed further in the docket for this 

action, based upon that review. EPA is also proposing to approve ARS §§ 49-104(A)(3) and 

(B)(1) into the state SIP. If approval of these statutes into the Arizona SIP is finalized, previous 

disapprovals for this element, found at 77 FR 66398 and 80 FR 40906, will be corrected.

D. Proposed Reclassification for Emergency Episode Planning 

The priority thresholds for classification of air quality control regions are listed in 40 

CFR 51.150 while the specific classifications of air quality control regions in Arizona are listed 

at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an air 

quality control region must rely on the most recent three years of air quality data. Regions 

classified Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency 

plans, while those classified Priority III are not required to have plans.17 We interpret 40 CFR 

51.153 as establishing the means for states to review air quality data and request a higher or 

lower classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory basis for EPA to 

 

17 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

22

reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 

301(a)(1).

For SO2, the Pima Intrastate region is classified as Priority II while the Central Arizona 

and Southeast Arizona Intrastate regions are classified as Priority IA. All other areas of the state 

are Priority III. After reviewing Arizona’s 2013-2015 air quality data for the Pima air quality 

control region (AQCR), we are proposing to reclassify this region from Priority II to priority III, 

thus relieving the AQCR of the emergency episode plan requirement for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The classification thresholds for SO2 are unique in that thresholds are prescribed for three 

different averaging periods. The thresholds and ranges for Priority II classification are as 

follows:

• 3-hour: greater than 0.5 ppm,

• 24-hour: 0.10 – 0.17 ppm, and

• Annual arithmetic mean: 0.02 – 0.04 ppm.

Areas with ambient air concentrations that are below the Priority II threshold are 

classified as Priority III. There is one SO2 monitor within the Pima Intrastate region, located in 

Tucson and operated and maintained by Pima County. The highest SO2 levels at the Tucson 

monitor were 1.1 ppb (.0011 ppm) for the 24-hour average and .24 ppb (.00024 ppm) for the 

annual arithmetic mean. Both occurred in 2013. In addition, the highest 1-hour SO2

concentration at the Tucson monitor during this period was 9.6 ppb (.0096 ppm), which occurred 

in 2014. Monitored levels in 2015 were even lower than the previous two years. The highest 1 

hour level was 5.1 ppb (.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic mean was .16 ppb (.00016 ppm) 

While there are no 1-hour SO2 classification thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by definition these 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

23

concentrations reinforce the fact that 3-hour and 24-hour levels have not exceeded the respective 

Priority II classification thresholds because they are lower than such thresholds.

Thus, we propose to reclassify the Pima Intrastate AQCR to Priority III for SO2. Should 

we finalize this reclassification, the Pima Intrastate region would no longer be required to have 

an emergency episode contingency plan in place for SO2.

E. Request for Public Comments

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other 

relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. 

We will consider these comments before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

24

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 document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

April 29, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version.

25

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur dioxide.

 

April 29, 2016.______ //signed//______________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.