UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for

EPA’s Rulemaking for the

Arizona State Implementation Plan

as submitted by

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Regarding

Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

To address federal regional haze regulations at

40 CFR 51.309

Prepared by: Lily Wong

January 8, 2013
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SIP Submittal 

2. Background 

a. What is Regional Haze?

b. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, and Regional Haze

c. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Regional Haze Regulations 

(40 CFR §51.309)

d. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 Regulations

e. State Submittals and Previous EPA Actions

f. EPA Approval of Burning and Smoke Management Rules

3. SIP Submittal Summary

4. EPA Review Criteria

5. EPA Evaluation

6. EPA Proposed Action

7. Sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan 
3

1. SIP SUBMITTAL

Agency: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ)

Submittal Subject to this TSD: December 24, 20081

Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309

2. BACKGROUND

a. What is Regional Haze?

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and in some cases, ammonia 

(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form particulate matter (PM), which impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks (NPs) 

and wilderness areas (WAs). The average visual range2in many Class I areas (i.e., NPs and

memorial parks, WAs, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 

United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the 

United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999).

b. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, and Regional Haze

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress 

created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, 

 

1 ADEQ originally submitted SIP revisions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 on December 23, 2003 and an amendment 

on December 30, 2004. Following legal challenges to EPA’s regional haze regulations (see section 2.d of this 

TSD). EPA substantively revised the regional haze regulations. ADEQ resubmitted its regional haze SIP on 

December 24, 2008 to address the revised requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 and stated that its submittal consisted of 

SIPs that were previously submitted to EPA on December 23, 2003 and December 30, 2004. 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
4

and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas3 which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” EPA promulgated 

regulations on December 2, 1980, to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is 

“reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment.” 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations at 

40 CFR 51.300 – 307 represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA 

deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to focus 

attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule provides two paths to address regional haze. One is through 40 CFR 

51.308, which requires states to submit a SIP that establishes reasonable progress goals and 

a long-term strategy for achieving those goals. During the first implementation period for 

the Regional Haze Program (through 2018), states must also impose best available retrofit 

technology (“BART”) on “BART-eligible sources,”4or adopt alternative measures that can 

be shown to achieve greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART controls. The 

other path for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for 

certain western states described below. For the purpose of this Technical Support Document 

(TSD), the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 will be referred to as “the 309 

regulations.” 

c. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Regional Haze Regulations (40 

CFR §51.309)

Pursuant to Section 169B(c)(1) and Section 169B(e) of the CAA, EPA established 

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) on November 12, 1991.5 

The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse impacts on 

visibility in and around the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau6region and to provide 

 

3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the 

Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 

such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory Class I Federal area is 

the responsibility of a “Federal Land Manager.” 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term “Class I area” in this 

action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

4

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.301, “BART-eligible source” means a source in one of 26 categories, which was not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons 

per year or more of any air pollutant.

5

See 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991.

6 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, 

and western Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy 

Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche 
5

policy recommendations to EPA to address such impacts. The nine states that are part of the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. 

The CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate visibility research as well as other 

available information “pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected 

growth in emissions from sources located in the region.” The GCVTC was required to issue 

a report to EPA recommending what measures, if any, should be taken to protect visibility. 

In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its policy recommendations to EPA.7 The GCVTC 

determined that all transport region states could potentially impact the 16 Class I areas on 

the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC recommendations included: strategies for addressing 

smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to prevent 

pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and provisions to manage clean 

air corridors, mobile sources, and wind-blown dust, among other recommendations. 

The GCVTC’s recommendations were incorporated into EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

at 40 CFR 51.309. The 309 regulations provided states in the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Region an alternative method of achieving reasonable progress for Class I areas 

that were covered by the GCVTC's analysis.8 States electing to submit regional haze SIPs 

under the 309 regulations may have other Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau. 

Such states must either address these additional Class I areas through the 309 RH SIP 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g), or submit a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308.

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.309(f) required the submittal of an 

Annex whose purpose was to provide the specific details needed to translate the GCVTC's 

general recommendations for stationary source sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions into an 

enforceable regulatory program. The GCVTC’s recommendations for stationary sources 

included a declining SO2 emissions cap and an enforceable market trading program that 

would serve as a “backstop” if voluntary measures did not result in meeting the SO2

emissions cap. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), a regional planning body 

formed to implement the GCVTC recommendations, submitted the Annex and EPA

approved the Annex on June 5, 2003 as 40 CFR 51.309(h) (“the Annex Rule”). 

d. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 Regulations

In 2005, the D.C. Circuit granted a petition for review challenging EPA’s revision to

section 309 of the regional haze rule incorporating the recommendations set out in the 

Annex. The court concluded that EPA had established too high a bar in establishing the 

parameters for the SO2 stationary source program. Center for Energy & Economic 

 

Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National 

Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.

7

See Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, “Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,” Report 

of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 

10, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “GCVTC Report”).

8 A SIP that is approved by EPA as meeting all of the requirements of section 309 is “deemed to comply with the 

requirements for reasonable progress with respect to the 16 Class I areas [on the Colorado Plateau] for the period 

from approval of the plan through 2018.” 40 CFR 51.309(a).
6

Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In response to this ruling, EPA revised 

40 CFR 51.309 on October 13, 2006, making a number of substantive changes. The 

regulations required, for those states electing to submit 309 SIPs, that 309 SIPs be submitted 

by December 17, 2007. See 71 FR 60612. 

e. State Submittals and Previous EPA Actions

Since four of its twelve mandatory Class I Federal areas are on the Colorado Plateau, 

Arizona had the option of submitting a regional haze SIP under section 309 of the Regional 

Haze Rule (“309 SIP”). When these regulations were first promulgated in 1999, 309 SIP 

submissions were due no later than December 31, 2003. Accordingly, ADEQ submitted to 

EPA on December 23, 2003, a 309 SIP for Arizona’s four Class I Areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. On December 31, 2004, ADEQ submitted a revision to its 309 SIP, consisting of 

rules on emissions trading and smoke management, and a correction to the state’s regional 

haze statutes 

Following the court’s ruling in CEED v. EPA and EPA’s subsequent October 2006

promulgation of revised 309 regulations, ADEQ sent a letter to EPA dated December 24, 

2008, resubmitting the 309 SIPs that were previously submitted on December 31, 2003 and 

December 31, 2004. ADEQ acknowledged, however, that it had not submitted a SIP 

revision to address the requirements of 309(d)(4) related to stationary sources and 309(g), 

which governs reasonable progress requirements for Arizona’s eight Class I areas outside of 

the Colorado Plateau.9For the purposes of this TSD, the Arizona regional haze SIP 

submitted by ADEQ on December 24, 2008 (which included the regional haze SIPs that 

were previously submitted on December 23, 2003 and December 30, 2004) will be referred 

to as “Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP.” 

EPA made a finding on January 15, 2009, that 37 states, including Arizona, had 

failed to make all or part of the required SIP submissions to address regional haze. See 74 

FR 2392. Specifically, EPA found that Arizona failed to submit the plan elements required 

by 40 CFR 309(d)(4) and (g). EPA sent a letter to ADEQ on January 14, 2009, notifying the 

state of this failure to submit a complete SIP. ADEQ later decided to submit a SIP under 

section 308 to address the regional haze requirements. Arizona’s 308 SIP is not the subject 

of this TSD.

10

 

f. Burning and Smoke Management Rules and EPA Action 

ADEQ is the state agency in Arizona responsible for air quality planning for regional 

haze. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (formerly Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department (MCESD)), the Pima County Department of 

Environmental Quality (PCDEQ), and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District 

 

9 Letter from Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, EPA (December 24, 2008). 

10 EPA recently took final action to approve in part and disapprove in part a portion of Arizona’s 308 SIP. 77 FR 

72512 (December 5, 2012). EPA has also proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part the remainder of 

Arizona’s 308 SIP. 77 FR 75704 (December 21, 2012).
7

(PCAQCD), regulate many sources of air pollution within their county boundaries, and in 

addition to ADEQ, develop and implement regulations that apply within their jurisdictions. 

Revisions to Arizona's SIP from the county air quality agencies must be submitted to the 

EPA by the director of ADEQ on behalf of the governor. 

As part of ADEQ’s December 30, 2004 309 SIP, ADEQ submitted rules pertaining

to fire, open and prescribed burning, and smoke management from ADEQ, MCESD, 

PCDEQ, and PCAQCD.11 ADEQ indicated that these rules were being submitted to meet 

the requirements of Arizona’s Enhanced Smoke Management Plan. These rules controlled 

PM emissions which may contribute to visibility impairment. 

Although the burning rules were submitted as part of the 309 SIP, EPA determined 

that these rules were separable from the remainder of that SIP.

12 Accordingly, EPA 

reviewed these burning rules to determine if the rules met the general criteria for approval 

into the SIP, under CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51. EPA did not review the rules for 

purposes of meeting any of the requirements of section 309. On May 16, 2006 (71 FR 

28270), EPA approved the rules from ADEQ, PCDEQ, and PCAQCD, and on May 8, 2007 

(72 FR 25973), EPA approved the rules from MCESD. The effect of these final actions is 

that EPA has approved part of Arizona’s 309 SIP submittal.

13

 This TSD describes EPA’s 

evaluation of Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP submittal as a whole, and whether it 

adequately addresses the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.309. 

3. SIP SUBMITTAL

As described earlier, ADEQ re-submitted Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP on 

December 24, 2008. ADEQ stated that the submittal did not include provisions to address 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) – provisions for the implementation of stationary source reductions, 

and 40 CFR 51.309(g) – provisions to address additional Class I areas other the 16 Class I 

areas covered by the GCVTC. 

ADEQ’s December 24, 2008 letter identified the specific requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309 that were addressed by the submittal: subsections 309(d)(1) – time period covered, 

309(d)(2) – projection of visibility improvement, 309(d)(3) – treatment of clean air 

corridors, 309(d)(5) – mobile sources, 309(d)(6) – programs related to fire, 309(d)(7) – area 

sources of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads, 309(d)(8) – pollution prevention, 

309(d)(9) – implementation of additional recommendations, 309(d)(10) – periodic 

implementation revision, and 309(d)(11) – state planning and interstate coordination.

ADEQ also submitted provisions to address the regulations that pertain to reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment (“RAVI”) at 40 CFR 51.302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307. 

 

11 The submitted rules are: ADEQ Rule R18-2-602, R18-2-1501 through 1513, PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480, PCAQCD 

Rule 3-8-700 and 3-8-710, and MCESD Rule 314. 

12 See Memo from John Calcagni entitled, Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals (July 21, 

1992) at 2 (“By separable, EPA means that the action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved rule(s) 

being more stringent than the State anticipated.”) 

13 See CAA section 110(k)(3) “If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter, 

the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part and disapprove the plan revision in part.” 
8

Although these RAVI provisions were submitted with Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP, 

EPA is only proposing action on Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP at this time. 

4. EPA REVIEW CRITERIA

Arizona elected to submit an optional regional haze 309 SIP. The primary 

requirements applicable to Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP are the regional haze 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.309. The 309 regulations comprise a comprehensive long term 

strategy for addressing sources that contribute to visibility impairment within the 16 Class I 

areas on the Colorado Plateau. The 309 regulations include, definitions (309(b)), 

implementation plan schedule (309(c)), requirements of the first implementation plan for 

states electing to adopt all of the recommendations of the Commission Report (309(d)), time 

period covered (309(d)(1)), requirements for projection of visibility improvement 

(309(d)(2)), treatment of clean-air corridors (309(d)(3)), implementation of stationary source 

reductions (309(d)(4)), mobile sources (309(d)(5)), programs related to fire (309(d)(6)), 

area sources of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads (309(d)(7)), pollution 

prevention (309(d)(8)), implementation of additional recommendations (309(d)(9)), periodic 

implementation revision (309(d)(10)), and state planning and interstate coordination

(309(d)(11)). 

States electing to submit 309 regional haze SIPs that have Class I areas that are not 

on the Colorado Plateau must address these other Class I areas either by submitting regional 

haze SIPs under 40 CFR 51.308, or by including these additional Class I areas in their 309 

SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309(g).14 

The regulations at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) for stationary sources includes seven 

subsections and the following highlights several of the requirements.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), 309 SIPs must establish quantitative SO2 

emission “milestones” that provide for continuing emissions reductions for each year of the 

program through 2018. In addition, states are required to demonstrate, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), that the emissions milestones under the 309 program will provide 

greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1). This “better-than-BART” demonstration requires an extensive analysis 

comparing the 309 program against a “BART benchmark.” Therefore, Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP must also address the regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), 309 SIPs must contain provisions that

allow states to determine whether the milestones have been met. These requirements include 

documentation of the base year emissions calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for conducting an annual evaluation to 

determine whether a milestone has been exceeded. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), 

SIPs must also contain requirements for implementing the backstop trading program in the 

event that a milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

 

14 The regulations at 40 CFR 51.300(b) require states to submit regional haze SIP to address all mandatory Class I 

areas.
9

51.309(d)(4)(vi), 309 SIPs must include specific provisions to address meeting the 2018 

milestone. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 309 SIPs must address NOx and PM 

emissions at stationary sources and require the implementation of any necessary long term 

strategies and BART requirements for stationary source NOx and PM emissions.

Lastly, regional haze SIP submittals must also meet general criteria for SIP approval 

under CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51.

5. EPA EVALUATION

As stated earlier, a 309 SIP is an optional program and provides an alternative 

method for GCVTC states to meet the regional haze reasonable progress requirements. The 

309 regulations include the GCVTC recommendations and cover a wide range of control 

strategies and approaches. The regulations recognized that the 309 program is one that must 

be taken together and evaluated as a whole.

15

 

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP did not address 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), provisions 

for the implementation of stationary source reductions, as follows:

1) Establish quantitative SO2 emission “milestones” that provide for continuing 

emissions reductions for each year of the program through 2018 [40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(i)]

2) Demonstrate that emissions milestones under the 309 program will provide greater 

reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1) [40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i)]

3) Include documentation of emissions calculation methods for SO2 emissions [40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(ii)]

4) Include provisions for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of SO2 emissions 

[40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii)]

5) Include criteria and procedures for evaluating whether the milestone is achieved and 

activating the market trading program in the event the milestone was not achieved 

[40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv)] 

6) Include requirements that the market trading program is implemented no later than 

15 months after the first year that the milestone is not achieved [40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(v)] 

7) Require sources to comply with the requirement to hold sufficient allowances to 

cover their emissions in the market trading program [40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v)] 

8) Beginning in 2018, require stationary source emissions to not exceed the 2018 

milestone, unless the milestones are replaced by a different program approved by 

EPA as meeting the BART and reasonably progress requirements established in 40 

CFR 51.308 [40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A)]

9) Include a framework, including financial penalties for excess emissions based on the 

 

15 See 40 CFR 51.309(d): (“Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, each Transport Region State 

must submit an implementation plan that meets the following requirements . . .”). See also 64 FR 35754, July 1, 

1999 (explaining that “the requirements of Section 51.309 . . . are not severable. States that wish to take advantage 

of the GCVTC’s efforts and EPA’s acceptance thereof are obligated to meet all of the requirements of section 

51.309.” (emphasis added)). 
10

2018 milestone, sufficient to ensure that the 2018 milestone will be met even if the 

implementation of the market trading program has not yet been triggered [40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B)] 

10) Contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for stationary 

sources of PM and NOx emissions [40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii)]

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP also did not include provisions to address 40 CFR 

51.309(g) – provisions to address additional mandatory Class I areas other the 16 Class I 

areas covered by the GCVTC. Arizona has 8 Class I areas that are not covered by the 

GCVTC recommendations, and these areas must be addressed by a regional haze SIP. 

Arizona ultimately chose to address these other areas in a SIP submittal under 40 CFR 

51.308. Therefore, the absence of these provisions from the 309 SIP does not form part of 

the basis for the proposed action. 

The stationary source provisions in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) are a central and 

fundamental part of the GCVTC’s recommendations and of the 309 regional haze program. 

Of particular importance, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) requires reductions in stationary source 

emissions of SO2 sufficient to ensure greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by 

application of BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). In addition, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) 

requires implementation of any necessary long-term strategies and BART requirements for 

stationary source PM and NOX emissions. Based on this deficiency alone, Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP is not approvable. Therefore, EPA did not further review the other 

provisions of Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP. 

6. EPA PROPOSED ACTION

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 

and therefore is not approvable. We note that because EPA has previously approved certain 

burning and smoke management rules that were submitted as part of Arizona’s 309 RH SIP, 

EPA has already approved part of Arizona’s Regional Haze SIP submittal. Consequently, 

EPA’s proposed action is a partial disapproval of Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP.

7. SANCTIONS AND FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

If EPA’s partial disapproval is finalized as proposed, neither sanctions nor a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) would be imposed. Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA 

sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP was a voluntary submittal not submitted to meet either of these or any 

other CAA requirements. Therefore, any action we take to finalize the described partial 

disapproval will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years after finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a 

SIP submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the 
11

deficiencies within that two-year period. Due to our previous finding that Arizona had 

failed to make part of the required regional haze submission,16 EPA is already subject to a 

“FIP duty” under section 110(c)(1) with respect to the regional haze requirements for 

Arizona. We are also subject to a set of court-ordered deadlines for approval of a SIP and/or 

promulgation of a FIP that collectively meet the regional haze implementation plan 

requirements for Arizona.17 Thus, our proposed partial disapproval of Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP, if finalized, will not create a new FIP obligation.18 

 

16 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009).

17 National Parks Conservation Association v. Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11-cv-01548).

18 We note that Arizona is appealing the district court’s entry and modification of the consent decree that sets the 

deadlines for EPA action on regional haze plans for Arizona. National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA (USCA 

Case #12-5211). If this challenge ultimately results in any limitations on the scope of EPA’s current FIP duty with 

respect to regional haze in Arizona, then today’s action, if finalized, could result in a new or altered FIP duty.