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, 20132 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SIP Submittal

2. Background

a. What is Regional Haze ?

b. Clean Air Act , Visibilit y Impairment, and Regional Haze

c. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Regional Haze Regulations (40 CFR § 51.309 )

d. L egal Challenge and Revision of 309 Regulations

e. State Submittals and Previous EPA Actions

f. EPA Approval of Burning and Smoke Mana gement Rules

3. SIP Submittal Summary

4. EPA Review Criteria

5. EPA Evaluation

6. EPA Proposed Action

7. Sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan3

1. SIP SUBMITTAL

Agency: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Submittal Subject to this TSD: Decembe r 24, 2008 1
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 acros s 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 (SO 2 ) , nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) , and in some cases, ammonia (NH 3 ) and volati le 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 V isual 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 range 2 in 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 easte rn 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 “preven tion 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. Fo llowing 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

areas 3 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 ad dressing 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 par t 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

R egional H aze R ule 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 implementa tion period for the Regional Haze Program (through 2018), states must also impose best available retrofit technology (“BART”) on “BART

- eligible sources,” 4 or adopt alternative measures that can be shown to achieve greater reasonable progress than source

- sp ecific 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 Visibil ity 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 Plateau 6 region 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

. 74 72(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 Cla ss 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 vi sibility program set forth in

section 169A of the CAA apply only to “ mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory Class I Federal ar ea 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 potentia l 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, Weminuche5

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

G rand C anyon V isibility T ransport Region are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

T he CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate visibility rese arch 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 an y, 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 recommend ations include d : strategies for addressing smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and provision s to manage clean

air corridors , mobile sources, and wind

- bl own dust, among other recommendations

.

The GCVTC’s recommendations were incorporated into EPA ’s R egional H aze Rule

at 40 CFR 51.309

. The 309 regulations p rovided 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 th ese 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 R egional H aze Rule at 40 CFR 51.309(f) required the submittal of an

Annex whose purpose was to provide the specif ic details needed to translate the GCVTC's general recommendations for stationary source sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) reductions into an enforceable regulatory program. The GCVTC’s recommendations for stationary sources

include d a declining SO 2 emissions cap and a n enforceable market trading program that would serve as a “backstop” if voluntary measures did not result in meeting the SO 2 emissions cap. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)

, a regional planning body formed to implement the GCVTC recommendatio ns, 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

secti on 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 SO 2 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 Commissio n, “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 E PA 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

Develo pment v. EPA , 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005). I n response to this ruling, EPA revised

40 CFR 5 1.309 on October 13, 2006, making a number of substantive changes

. T he regulations requir ed , for those states electing to submit 309 SIPs, that 309 SIPs be submi tted by Dec ember 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 r egional h aze SIP under section 309 o f 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 2 4, 2008, re submitting the 309 SIPs that were previously submitted o n December 31, 200 3 and December 31, 2004. ADEQ acknowledg ed

, 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. 9 For the purposes of this T SD, the Arizona r egional h aze SIP

s ubmitted by ADEQ on December 2 4, 2008 (which included the re gional haze SIPs that were previously submitted on December 23, 2003 and December 30, 2004) wi ll be referred

to as “A rizona ’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 element s 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

sec tion 308 to address the regional haze requirements

. Arizona’ s 308 SIP is not the subject

of this TSD

. 10

f

. Burning and S moke Management R ules 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 (Dec ember 2 4, 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

addit ion 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 D ecember 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. The se 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 the se 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 secti on 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 s ubmitta l

. 13 This TSD describe s 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 addit ional 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 : s ubsections 309(d)(1)

– t ime period covered

, 309(d)(2)

– p rojection 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

att ributable 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 Se e 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 an ticipated.”)

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 a n 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 l ong 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 imp lementation 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)), im plementation 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 additi onal recommendations ( 309(d)(9)), periodic implementation revision (309(d)(10)), and state planning and interstate coordination (309(d)(11))

.

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

on the Colorado Plateau m ust address these other Class I areas either by submitting regional haze SIPs under 40 CFR 51.308, or by includ ing 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 i ncludes seven subsections and the following highlights several of the requirements.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i)

, 309 SIPs must establish quantitative SO 2 emission “milestones” that provide for continuing emissions reductions for each year of the

pr ogram 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 4 0 CFR 51.308(e)(1). This “ better

- than

- BART ” demonstration requires an extensive analysis

compar ing the 309 program against a “ BART benchmark

. ” There fore , Arizona’s 309

R egional H aze SIP must also address the regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)

- (iv), 309 SIP s must contain provisions that

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

documentation of the base year emission s calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reportin g (MRR) of SO 2 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

e vent 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 NO

x and PM

e missions at stationary sources and require the implementation of any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for stationary source NO

x and PM emissions.

Lastly, r egional h aze SIP submittals must also meet general criteria for SIP approval

u nder CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51.

5. EPA EVALUATION

As stated earlier, a 3 09 SIP is an optional program and provides an alternative

m ethod for GCVT C 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 R egional H aze SIP did not address 40 CF R 51.309(d)(4)

, provisions for the implementation of stationary source reductions , as follows : 1) E stablish quantitative SO 2 emission “milestones” that provide for continuing emissions reductions for each year of the program through 2018 [ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) (i)] 2) D emonstrate 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) I nclude documentation of emissions calculation met hods for SO 2 emissions [ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)] 4) I nclude provisions for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of SO 2 emissions
[ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii)] 5) I nclude 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) I nclude 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) R equire 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) B eginning in 2018, require stationary source emissions to not exceed the 2018

m ilestone, 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) I nclude a framework, including financial penalties for e xcess 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 t he 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 me et 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) C ontain any necessary long term strate gies and BART requirements for stationary

sources of PM and NO

x emissions [40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii)]

Arizona’s 309 R egional Haze SIP also did not include provisions to address 40 CFR 51.309(g)

– provisions to address additional mandatory Class I areas ot her the 16 Class I areas covered by the GCVTC. Arizona has 8 Class I areas that are not covered by the GCVTC recommendations, and thes e areas must be addressed by a regional haze SIP. Arizona ultimately chose to address these other areas in a SIP submitt al 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 recom mendations and of the 309 regional haze program. Of particular importance, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) requires reductions in stationary source

emissions of SO 2 sufficient to ensure greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART unde r 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 NO X emissions. Based on this deficiency alone, Arizona’s 309

R egional H aze SIP i s not approvable. Therefore

, EPA did not further review the other provisions of A rizona ’s 309 R egional H aze SIP.

6. EPA PROPOSED ACTION

Arizona’s 309 R egional H aze 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 R egional H aze SIP submittal. Consequently,

EPA’s proposed action is a partial disap proval of Arizona’s 309 R egional H aze 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 sanc tions 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 approv es a SIP revision correcting the11

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 resp ect 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, ou r 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 modific ation 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 curr ent FIP duty with respect to regional haze in Arizona, then today’s action, if finalized, could result in a new or altered FIP duty.