The Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld signed the following final rule on June 29, 2015,

and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes 

of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on 

the Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on 

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187. 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187; FRL-_________] 

Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of, and other actions on, revisions to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the 

State of Arizona (State or Arizona) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). These revisions 

submitted by Arizona are primarily intended to serve as a replacement of ADEQ’s existing SIPapproved rules for the issuance of New Source Review (NSR) permits for stationary sources, 

including review and permitting of major and minor sources under the Act. After a lengthy 

stakeholder process, the State submitted a NSR program for SIP approval that satisfies most of 

the applicable CAA and NSR regulatory requirements, and which will significantly update 

ADEQ’s existing SIP-approved NSR program. It also represents an overall strengthening of 

ADEQ’s SIP-approved NSR program by clarifying and enhancing the NSR requirements for 

major and minor stationary sources. This final action updates the applicable plan while allowing 

ADEQ to remedy certain deficiencies in ADEQ’s rules. 

DATES: This rule is effective [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187 for this action. 

Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically 

at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. Some docket materials, however, may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., voluminous records, maps, copyrighted material), and some may not be 

publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-

3811, beckham.lisa@epa.gov. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision 

A. What action is the EPA finalizing?

B. What changes is the EPA making from its proposed action? 

C. Public Comments and Responses 

III. Final Action

IV. Incorporation by Reference

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 

(ii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

(iii) The initials A.R.S. mean or refer to the Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(iv) The initials AQIA mean or refer to air quality impact analysis.

(v) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control Technology. 

(vi) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations. 

(vii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide. 

(viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(ix) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan. 

(x) The initials GHG mean or refer to greenhouse gas.

(xi) The initials IBR mean or refer to incorporation by reference. 

(xii) The initials LAER mean or refer to Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate. 

(xiii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

(xiv) The initials NA-NSR mean or refer to Nonattainment New Source Review. 

(xv) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides. 

(xvi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review. 

(xvii) The initials PAL mean or refer to Plantwide Applicability Limits

(xviii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

(xix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

(xx) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 

(xxi) The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit. 

(xxii) The initials RACT mean or refer to reasonably available control technology. 

(xxiii) The initials SER mean or refer to significant emission rate.

(xxiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. 

(xxv) The initials SMC mean or refer to significant monitoring concentration. 

(xxvi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide. 

(xxvii) The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement 

and Power District.

(xxviii)The words State or Arizona mean the State of Arizona, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(xxix) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support document for this action. 

(xxx) The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compound. 

I. Background 

On March 18, 2015, the EPA provided notice of, and requested public comment on, our 

proposed CAA rulemaking to revise certain portions of the Arizona SIP for ADEQ. See 80 FR 

14044 (Mar. 18, 2015). We proposed action on SIP submittals that comprise ADEQ’s updated

program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary sources under 

ADEQ’s jurisdiction in Arizona.1 The SIP submittals that are the subject of this action, referred 

to herein as the “NSR SIP submittal,” provide a comprehensive revision to ADEQ’s

preconstruction review and permitting program for stationary sources and are intended to satisfy 

requirements under both part C (prevention of significant deterioration) (PSD) and part D 

 

1 These submittals and our current action also address two rules and one statutory provision that are not directly 

related to NSR.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 

(nonattainment new source review) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction 

review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

As a component of its NSR SIP submittal, ADEQ also requested the removal from the 

Arizona SIP of numerous older rules, as well as one Arizona statutory provision, which are 

mostly superseded by the newer provisions that are the subject of this action or by newer 

provisions that have already been approved into the Arizona SIP. Accordingly, our action also 

will remove certain provisions from the Arizona SIP. 

The EPA’s rulemaking action on the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal is intended to update the 

applicable SIP consistent with ADEQ’s requests, while allowing ADEQ to remedy certain 

deficiencies in the submittal where ADEQ’s rules do not fully meet CAA requirements. In our 

proposed rulemaking action, we primarily proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval, 

with certain exceptions and additions with respect to specific statutory and rule provisions, as 

follows. We proposed partial disapproval of two specific components of ADEQ’s NSR submittal 

that we believed were analogous to provisions in the federal NSR regulations that had been 

vacated by federal Courts and that we determined were separable from the remainder of the NSR

SIP submittal. In addition, we proposed a limited approval for a portion of ADEQ’s 

nonattainment NSR (NA-NSR) program based on requirements of section 189(e) of the Act 

related to the permitting of major sources of PM10 and PM2.5 precursors, but did not propose a 

limited disapproval on this basis. For two non-NSR rules for which ADEQ requested SIP 

approval, we also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval. For a non-NSR statutory 

provision for which ADEQ requested SIP approval, A.R.S. § 49-107, we proposed full approval 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 

into the SIP. Last, we proposed to remove numerous NSR and non-NSR rules from the SIP as 

requested by ADEQ.2 

The ADEQ NSR SIP submittal was extensive in scope. We prepared a comprehensive 

Evaluation of the submittal in light of the requirements of the CAA and its implementing 

regulations, and provided a detailed discussion of our findings in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for our proposed action. Both the Evaluation and the TSD were available in the 

docket for our rulemaking during the public comment period. Our proposed rule discussed our 

analysis and findings, but focused primarily on the issues that formed the basis for our limited 

approval/limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal, and referenced the TSD for 

additional information concerning our analysis. The Evaluation was an attachment to the TSD. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision 

A. What action is the EPA finalizing? 

The EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP for the 

rules and statutory provision listed in Table 1. The SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 

52.120 by incorporating by reference the rules and statutory provision in ADEQ’s NSR SIP 

submittal as listed in Table 13. Certain non-regulatory submittals and clarifications provided by 

ADEQ will also be included as part of the Arizona SIP in 40 CFR 52.120. In this final action, the 

EPA is relying, in part, on the clarifications and interpretations provided by ADEQ, as described 

in the discussion of our responses to comments in Section II.C below.

 

2 See Table 2, which identifies those rules and statutory provisions that are being removed from the Arizona SIP. 

This updated table corrects certain typographical errors in the preamble of our proposed action. See our discussion 

of those errors in our responses to comments 14-15 in our Response to Comments document. 3

 We listed an incorrect submittal date for certain rules in the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal in Table 1 of our proposed 

action; this date is corrected in Table 1 here. See response to comment 13 in our Response to Comments document.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 

Table 1 – Submitted Statutes and Rules Approved in this Action 

Rule or Statute Title

State Effective 

Date Submitted

A.R.S. § 49-107 Local delegation of state authority 8/18/1987 07/2/2014

R18-2-101 [only 

definitions (2), 

(32), (87), (109), 

and (122)] 

Definitions 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-217 Designation and Classification of 

Attainment Areas 11/15/1993 10/29/2012 

R18-2-218 Limitation of Pollutants in Classified 

Attainment Areas 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-301 Definitions 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-302 Applicability; Registration; Classes 

of Permits 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-302.01 Source Registration Requirements 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-303 

Transition from Installation and 

Operating Permit Program to Unitary 

Permit Program; Registration 

transition; Minor NSR Transition

08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-304 Permit Application Processing 

Procedures 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-306 Permit Contents 12/20/1999 10/29/2012

R18-2-306.01 

Permits Containing Voluntarily 

Accepted Emission Limitations and 

Standards

1/1/2007 10/29/2012 

R18-2-306.02 Establishment of an Emissions Cap 09/22/1999 10/29/2012

R18-2-311 Test Methods and Procedures 11/15/1993 07/28/2011

R18-2-312 Performance Tests 11/15/1993 07/28/2011

R18-2-315 Posting of Permit 11/15/1993 10/29/2012

R18-2-316 Notice by Building Permit Agencies 05/14/1979 10/29/2012

R18-2-319 Minor Permit Revisions 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-320 Significant Permit Revisions 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-321 Permit Reopenings; Revocation and 

Reissuance 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-323 Permit Transfers 02/03/2007 10/29/2012

R18-2-330 Public Participation 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-332 Stack Height Limitation 11/15/1993 10/29/2012

R18-2-334 Minor New Source Review 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-401 Definitions 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-402 General 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-403 Permits for Sources Located in 

Nonattainment Areas 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 

R18-2-404 Offset Standards 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

R18-2-405 

Special Rule for Major Sources of 

VOC or Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Classified as 

Serious or Severe

08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-406 

Permit Requirements for Sources 

Located in Attainment and 

Unclassifiable Areas

08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-407 

[excluding 

subsection 

(H)(1)(c)]

Air Quality Impact Analysis and 

Monitoring Requirements 08/07/2012 10/29/2012 

R18-2-409 Air Quality Models 11/15/1993 10/29/2012

R18-2-412 PALs 08/07/2012 10/29/2012

In addition, this final action removes the rules and appendices listed in Table 2 from the 

ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP. 

Table 2 – SIP Rules and Appendices Removed from Arizona SIP in this Action 

 Rule or 

Appendix Title

EPA Approval 

Date 

Federal Register 

Citation

R9-3-101 

[excluding 

subsection (20)]

Definitions Various Various 

R9-3-217(B) Attainment Areas: Classification and 

Standards 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-301, 

[excluding 

subsections (I), 

(K)]

Installation Permits: General

05/03/1983 48 FR 19878

R9-3-302 Installation Permits in Nonattainment 

Areas 08/10/1988 53 FR 30220

R9-3-303 Offset Standards 08/10/1988 53 FR 30220

R9-3-304, 

[excluding 

subsection (H)]

Installation Permits in Attainment 

Areas 05/03/1983 48 FR 19878

R9-3-305 Air Quality Analysis and Monitoring 

Requirements 05/03/1983 48 FR 19878

R9-3-306 Source Registration Requirements 05/03/1983 48 FR 19878

R9-3-307 Replacement 05/05/1982 47 FR 19326
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 

R9-3-308 Permit Conditions 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-310 Test Methods and Procedures 10/19/1984 49 FR 41026

R9-3-311 Air Quality Models 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-312 Performance Tests 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-314 Excess Emissions Reporting 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-315 Posting of Permits 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-316 Notice by Building Permit Agencies 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-317 Permit Non-transferrable; Exception 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-318 Denial or Revocation of Installation or 

Operating Permit 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R8-3-319 Permit Fees 04/23/1982 47 FR 17483

R9-3-322 Temporary Conditional Permits 10/19/1984 49 FR 41026

R9-3-1101 Jurisdiction 05/03/1983 48 FR 19878

Appendix 4 Fee Schedule for Installation and 

Operating Permits 09/19/1977 42 FR 46926

Appendix 5 Fee Schedule for Conditional Permits 09/19/1977 42 FR 44926

In summary, this action is primarily a limited approval and limited disapproval of a SIP 

submittal from Arizona for the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP that governs preconstruction 

review and the issuance of preconstruction permits for stationary sources, including the review 

and permitting of new major sources and major modifications under parts C and D of title I of 

the CAA as well as review of new and modified minor sources. The intended effect of our final 

limited approval and limited disapproval action is to update the applicable SIP with current 

ADEQ regulations, while allowing ADEQ to remedy the identified deficiencies in these 

regulations. We are also removing at ADEQ’s request certain rules and appendices from the 

Arizona SIP, which are outdated and which are mostly being superseded by this action. In 

addition, we are finalizing a partial disapproval of one provision in ADEQ’s NSR program that 

has been vacated by the courts. We are finalizing a limited approval of ADEQ’s NA-NSR 

program for certain nonattainment areas based on requirements under section 189 of the Act 

related to PM10 and PM2.5 precursors (without a limited disapproval on this basis). Last, we are 

finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of two ADEQ non-NSR rules relating to 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 

test methods and procedures and performance tests, and finalizing the approval of an Arizona 

statutory provision relating to local delegation of state authority.

We are finalizing the above-described action because, although we find that the new and 

amended rules submitted by ADEQ meet most of the applicable CAA requirements for 

preconstruction review programs and other CAA requirements, and that overall the SIP revisions 

improve and strengthen the existing SIP, we have found certain deficiencies that prevent full 

approval, as explained in our proposed action and in the TSD for this rulemaking, and in this 

final action and our Response to Comments document. 

We reviewed the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal in accordance with applicable CAA 

requirements, primarily including those that apply to: (1) general preconstruction review 

programs, including for minor sources, under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act; (2) PSD permit 

programs under part C of title I of the Act; and (3) NA-NSR permit programs under part D of 

title I of the Act. For the most part, ADEQ’s submittal satisfies the applicable CAA 

requirements, including those for these preconstruction review programs, and our approval will

strengthen the applicable SIP by updating the regulations and adding provisions to address new 

or revised federal NSR permitting and other requirements. However, the submitted rules also 

contain specific deficiencies and inconsistencies with CAA requirements that prevent us from 

granting full SIP approval. These deficiencies form the basis for our limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, and for our partial disapproval of one rule provision. 

B. What changes is the EPA making from its proposed action? 

We are largely finalizing our action as proposed. However, in response to public 

comments we received, our final action differs in some respects from our proposed action. For 

certain deficiencies identified in our proposal as bases for limited disapproval, we have changed 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 

our determination and no longer find that these are bases for our limited disapproval. In addition, 

we have changed our determination concerning one of the ADEQ rule provisions for which we 

had proposed partial disapproval; we are not finalizing our partial disapproval of this provision. 

Specifically, the following issues that had been identified in our proposed action as bases 

for limited disapproval are not a basis for our final limited disapproval: (1) ADEQ’s use of the 

term “proposed final permit” in its rules for the minor NSR, PSD and NA-NSR programs; (2) a 

question concerning whether ADEQ rule R18-2-334(E) requires ADEQ to review potential 

impacts on the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for all minor sources subject to new source review under ADEQ rule R18-2-3344

; (3) 

the lack of a definition in ADEQ’s PSD regulations for the term “subject to regulation;” (4) the 

lack of a reference in ADEQ’s PSD rules to pollutants subject to regulation in the definition of 

“regulated NSR pollutant,” per 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(iv); (5) the lack of certain language in 

ADEQ’s PSD rules concerning condensable particulate matter, per 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i); (6) 

potential ambiguity as to whether references to the undefined term “Arizona Ambient Air 

Quality Standards” in ADEQ’s NSR regulations refer to ADEQ’s Article 2 air quality standards; 

(7) language concerning the calculation of baseline actual emissions under ADEQ’s plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) provisions for the PSD and NA-NSR programs; and (8) public notice 

requirements for alternative or modified air modeling under ADEQ’s rules for the PSD program. 

In addition, we are not finalizing a partial disapproval of ADEQ’s definition for “basic design 

parameter.” We now find the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal approvable with respect to these 

particular issues. Our rationale for changing our determination on these issues is included in our 

 

4 Due to a typographical error, in discussing this issue, the notice for our proposed action inadvertently referenced 

subsection (G) of R18-2-334 instead of subsection (E).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 

Response to Comments document for this action, and some of these issues are also discussed in 

the Public Comments and Responses section below. 

In addition, we are making three technical corrections to address typographical errors, as

noted by commenters: (1) correction of SIP submittal dates listed in Table 1 (listing the rules and 

statutory provisions that we are approving into the SIP) so that “10/29/2012” is listed instead of 

“10/29/2014,” (2) correction of Table 2 (the list of rules and appendices that we are removing 

from the SIP) to exclude subsection (20) from the provisions of ADEQ rule R9-3-101 that we are 

removing from the SIP, and (3) the addition of ADEQ rules R9-3-310 and R9-3-312 to the list of 

rules in Table 2. Additional detail regarding these technical corrections is provided in response to 

comments 13 through 15 in our Response to Comments document. 

C. Public Comments and Responses 

Our March 18, 2015 proposed rule included a 30-day public comment period that ended 

on April 17, 2015. We received 3 written comments, one each from the Office of Robert 

Ukeiley, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), and ADEQ. 

Copies of each comment have been added to the docket for this action and are accessible 

at www.regulations.gov. Our Response to Comments document in the docket for this action 

contains a summary of all comments received and the EPA’s responses to the comments. Below 

we provide the major issues raised by commenters and our responses to those comments. 

Comment 1: 

The Federal Register notice does not make it clear if the Arizona rules proposed to be 

approved into the SIP include the PM2.5 increments. The EPA must disapprove this rule if it does 

not include the PM2.5 increments.

Response 1: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 

In the EPA’s March 18, 2015 Federal Register notice, we proposed to approve ADEQ 

rule R18-2-218 into the Arizona SIP, and stated “ADEQ adopted the increments, or maximum 

allowable increases, in R18-2-218 – Limitation of Pollutants in Classified Attainment Areas.” 80 

FR 14044, 14045, 14051. The PM2.5 increments are included in Section A of ADEQ rule R18-2-

218. As such, ADEQ submitted, and we are approving into the Arizona SIP, ADEQ rule R18-2-

218 containing the PM2.5 increments.5 

Comment 2: 

ADEQ states that its methodology for establishing minor NSR thresholds was valid for 

all areas under ADEQ’s jurisdiction. The CAA does not impose strict, specific requirements on 

NSR programs for minor sources, as it does for major NSR. Rather, section 110(a)(2)(C) 

generally requires that each state include a program regulating the modification and construction 

of any stationary source as necessary to assure achievement of the NAAQS. The sizes of minor 

source facilities, buildings, structures, or installations are assessed and compared to threshold 

levels to determine whether their potential to emit is so high as to affect the NAAQS. Each state 

establishes its own threshold levels to define the limits of its minor NSR regulations to create an 

effective pollution control strategy without also creating unnecessary regulatory burden. 

Citing the EPA’s proposed Tribal NSR Rule, ADEQ states that in the past, the EPA has 

asserted that threshold levels are appropriate where “sources and modifications with emissions 

below the thresholds are inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.”6 In 

 

5

 Our proposed action also points out that certain terminology used in ADEQ’s PSD rules with respect to the 

increments is not clear, and that ADEQ’s rules contain provisions that allow for exclusions from increment 

consumption for certain temporary emissions that do not conform to the analogous federal regulatory requirements. 

These issues provided a basis for our proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD program. See Section II.C.1 of 

the preamble at 80 FR 14051. Neither this commenter nor any other commenter addressed these specific issues, thus 

we continue to believe that these issues are deficiencies that ADEQ must correct for full approval of the PSD portion 

of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal, and these issues provide a basis for our final limited disapproval. 

6 71 FR 48696, 48701 (Aug. 21, 2006).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14 

creating a federal minor NSR program for Indian Country, the EPA emphasized the importance 

of a cost-effective plan, as well as one that reduces the burden on sources and reviewing 

authorities. 

ADEQ set an adequate, yet cost-effective threshold level of one half the significant 

emission rate (SER) for nonattainment areas. Just as the EPA did in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule, 

ADEQ identified the level at which a lower threshold merely creates a larger pool of regulated 

minor sources without substantially reducing emissions. Research data provided by a consultant 

was used to make an informed determination which threshold levels would in fact be most costeffective, while still achieving the goals of the minor source program. ADEQ included a table of 

the results provided by its contractor for two potential NSR threshold scenarios.7

 Scenario 1 

illustrates the impact of a minor threshold of one half the SER and Scenario 2 illustrates the 

impact of a threshold set at one quarter the SER. Lowering the threshold beyond one half the 

SER essentially doubles the percentage of sources regulated, which certainly increases the state’s 

ability to reach more minor sources. However, regulating more sources does not necessarily 

translate to effective emissions reductions. Rather there is a diminishing return on emission 

reductions as the threshold level is pushed further down to include sources with fewer emissions. 

ADEQ illustrated this statement through a figure provided in its comments showing a 

comparison of potential threshold levels and relative impact, by pollutant.8 The figure compares 

the percent of emissions regulated with the percent of sources regulated at the two NSR 

exemption scenarios considered by ADEQ. ADEQ states that the slopes between the significance 

level points in the graph for each pollutant illustrate the incremental percentage of emissions that 

 

7 The EPA provided the same table in its TSD for this action. See Table 5 of the TSD - Results of ADEQ’s 

Stationary Source Distribution Analysis.

8 See ADEQ’s April 17, 2015 comment letter at 14.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15 

would be covered when the threshold level is moved from one half to one quarter. Both possible 

threshold options would result in a relatively large percentage of emissions from minor sources 

becoming subject to regulation. However, the average emissions covered per source decreases 

significantly for all additional sources that fall below one half of the significant level. The 

disproportionate effect between the changes in the amount of sources relative to the change in 

the amount of emissions covered provides a firm basis for ADEQ’s decision. The thresholds in 

ADEQ’s minor NSR program meet federal requirements without creating a system in which the 

burdens of regulation would outweigh the benefits to air quality. 

Response 2: 

As noted by ADEQ, CAA section 110(a)(2) generally requires that each state include a 

program regulating the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to 

assure achievement of the NAAQS. While we appreciate ADEQ’s comments on this issue, to 

date, ADEQ has not provided sufficient information about the nature, scope and emissions that 

are contributing to nonattainment in the areas subject to ADEQ’s jurisdiction to change our 

proposed determination that ADEQ has not provided an adequate basis for its NSR exemption 

thresholds as applied in such nonattainment areas. 

The implementing regulations for the minor NSR program make clear that SIPs must 

include legally enforceable procedures that enable the decisionmaking authority to determine 

whether the construction or modification of stationary sources will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, and that such procedures include means by which the decisionmaking authority can 

prevent such construction or modification if it will result in such violation or interference. 40 

CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Further, 40 CFR 51.160(e) provides: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16 

The procedures must identify types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures or 

installations which will be subject to review under this section. The plan must discuss the 

basis for determining which facilities will be subject to review.

Under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160(e), we agree with ADEQ that States 

are not necessarily required to regulate all stationary sources under the minor NSR program. 

States can exempt from review those stationary sources with emissions that they can demonstrate 

would not pose a threat to the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, thereby satisfying the 

requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) that their minor NSR program regulate the 

modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are achieved. The EPA’s interpretation was discussed in the 

proposal for our Tribal Minor NSR Rule: 

A review of several State minor NSR programs indicated that a number of State programs 

have established cutoff levels or minor NSR thresholds, below which sources are exempt 

from their minor NSR rules. We believe that such an approach is also appropriate in 

Indian country. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires minor NSR programs to assure 

that the NAAQS are attained and maintained. Applicability thresholds are proper in this 

context provided that the sources and modifications with emissions below the thresholds 

are inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For each pollutant, 

only around 1 percent (or less) of total emissions would be exempt under the minor NSR 

program. 

Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, Proposed Rule, 71 FR 48696, 

48703 (Aug. 21, 2006); see also Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17 

Final Rule, 76 FR 38758 (finding that sources with emissions below the NSR exemption 

thresholds selected by the EPA in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule would be inconsequential to 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS). We note that in our Tribal NSR Rule, “the selected 

minor source thresholds distinguish between minor stationary sources of regulated NSR 

pollutants located in nonattainment areas and attainment areas,” with lower thresholds in 

nonattainment areas. 71 FR at 48702; see 76 FR at 38758 (finalizing thresholds as proposed). 

In our proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, we found deficiencies in the basis 

ADEQ provided for determining which sources would be subject to review under its minor NSR 

program under 40 CFR 51.160(e), applying the statutory and regulatory standard discussed 

above. 80 FR at 14049. These deficiencies provided a basis (among other bases) for our 

proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s minor NSR program. As stated in our proposal, we 

found ADEQ’s general approach to meeting 40 CFR 51.160(e) acceptable. However, we 

proposed a limited disapproval for three aspects of ADEQ’s minor NSR program under 40 CFR 

51.160(e): the adequacy of ADEQ’s NSR exemption thresholds for nonattainment areas; certain 

exemptions for agricultural and fuel burning equipment; and the lack of any basis for the PM2.5

NSR exemption threshold in any areas under ADEQ’s jurisdiction. None of the comments on our 

proposal addressed our proposed limited disapprovals related to agricultural and fuel burning 

equipment exemptions or the missing explanation in the submittal for the PM2.5 NSR exemption 

threshold. As such, we continue to determine that these two issues warrant a limited disapproval, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18 

and further consider ADEQ’s comments as they apply to the basis provided for ADEQ’s NSR 

exemption thresholds for pollutants in nonattainment areas.9 

ADEQ’s comments focus largely on the argument that expanding its minor NSR program 

to cover even smaller sources (i.e., sources with emissions of approximately 1⁄4 of the PSD 

significant emission rates) would result in diminishing returns on emission reductions. ADEQ 

argues that while more emissions would be regulated under such an approach, in some instances, 

this would result in significantly more stationary sources becoming subject to the program. In the 

case of VOC, for example, the percentage of all stationary sources regulated would 

approximately double from 8% to 16%. ADEQ appears to reason that while ADEQ would be 

able to regulate more emissions with such a lower threshold, the types of projects brought into 

the program would be smaller and less likely to be regulated in a way to achieve useful emission 

reductions. However, as discussed above, our determination of whether a minor NSR program is 

sufficient to meet CAA SIP requirements is based on whether the State has provided an adequate 

basis that the exempt emissions do not need to be reviewed to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the particular geographic areas covered by the program because 

they are inconsequential to attainment or maintenance, considering the particular air quality 

concerns in such areas. The information provided by ADEQ to date, including the amount of 

sources regulated as compared with the volume of emissions per such source, does not 

demonstrate that the adopted thresholds are those necessary to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. For example, if an area happens to have a large volume of sources 

 

9 We note that the reasoning the EPA provides in these responses to comments concerning NSR exemption 

thresholds in nonattainment areas would apply equally to our review of the basis for NSR exemption thresholds for 

PM2.5 in nonattainment areas.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19 

in a particular source category that are typically minor sources but emit the pollutants that 

contribute to nonattainment, then regulation of those sources may be necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in that area. The thresholds established in the Tribal 

NSR Rule exempted around 1 percent of total emissions, while exempting from 42 percent to 76 

percent of sources, depending on the pollutant. 76 FR at 68758. 

We recognize that the reference that the EPA made in its proposed action to ADEQ’s 

submittal not providing a clear basis for concluding that its NSR exemption thresholds would 

ensure that a “sufficient percentage of minor sources” would be subject to review in 

nonattainment areas, rather than referring to a “sufficient percentage of minor source emissions,” 

was imprecise and may have led to confusion about the nature of the EPA’s concern. As such, 

we are clarifying that our disapproval is related to ensuring that ADEQ’s NSR program exempts 

from review only those sources with emissions that do not pose a threat to attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS because they are inconsequential to attainment or maintenance. The 

particular percentage of stationary sources that are being regulated would generally not be an 

adequate basis under 40 CFR 51.160(e) for determining the sizes and types of stationary sources 

that will be subject to NSR review as necessary to ensure compliance with CAA section 

110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). As noted, the Tribal NSR Rule exempted as many as 76 

percent of the sources of a pollutant, but required review of about 99% of total emissions. 76 FR 

at 38758. In this case, ADEQ has not shown that the emissions exempt from its NSR program 

will not threaten attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in its nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, after consideration of ADEQ’s comments, we continue to find that a limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s program under 40 CFR 51.160(e), as it pertains to the NSR exemption 

threshold for nonattainment areas, is necessary. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20 

As stated in our proposal, in addressing this deficiency, ADEQ does not necessarily have 

to consider overall lower NSR exemption thresholds in nonattainment areas, see 80 FR 14049 n. 

13, although, as noted, the Tribal NSR Rule established lower thresholds for nonattainment 

areas. 76 FR at 38758. For example, ADEQ could provide further analysis to demonstrate that 

the adopted thresholds are protective of the NAAQS in nonattainment areas, or ADEQ could 

consider a different approach, such as requiring minor sources in nonattainment areas subject to 

a pre-existing SIP requirement for the nonattainment pollutant, or its precursors, to be subject to 

review under ADEQ’s registration program. In addressing this limited disapproval issue, we 

recommend that ADEQ focus its consideration on the contribution that emissions from minor 

stationary sources with emissions below its currently adopted NSR exemption thresholds are 

expected to make with respect to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in nonattainment 

areas. 

In addition, we wish to clarify that while the EPA’s proposed rulemaking for the Tribal 

NSR program discussed cost-effectiveness and attempted to strike a “balance between 

environmental protection and economic growth,” it also recognized the need for exemption 

thresholds to ensure “that sources with emissions below the proposed minor NSR thresholds will 

be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.” 71 FR at 48703. See also 76 

FR at 38758. The EPA recognized the overarching need for standards stringent enough to ensure 

NAAQS protection, and agreed to “consider changing the minor NSR thresholds as appropriate” 

to ensure that they are sufficiently protective. 76 FR at 38759. Thus, cost-effectiveness is not a 

relevant criterion for determining whether a minor NSR program’s exemption thresholds will 

assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and the test is not whether the benefits of the 

program outweigh the burdens of regulation, but whether the state’s program meets the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21 

requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to “assure that national ambient air quality standards 

are achieved.”

Comment 3: 

SRP and ADEQ state that the EPA may not substitute its policy preferences for ADEQ’s 

in proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s minor NSR program with respect to nonattainment areas. 

There are no regulatory provisions or CAA statutory provisions that specify that a State must 

regulate a "sufficient percentage" of minor sources in nonattainment areas. The EPA's objection 

appears to be based on its own policy preferences, and the EPA simply lacks authority to 

substitute its preferences for those of the State. The EPA points to no flaws in the reasoning 

behind the analysis, nor does the EPA provide an alternative analysis demonstrating that 

modifications or construction of minor sources of a certain size or type have caused air quality 

concerns within ADEQ's jurisdiction. 

Further, each state, region, and control area encounters unique circumstances that 

contribute to air quality issues, as well as the strategies necessary to comply with the 

requirements of the CAA. At page 14049 n. 12 of the proposal, which accompanied a 

generalized comparison to other states, the EPA referenced threshold levels for Sacramento, 

California. It is erroneous for the EPA to compare Arizona’s minor NSR program with that of 

California, due to the extraordinary severity of the nonattainment problems in California. The 

EPA’s implication that ADEQ should create a minor source NSR program that looks and 

functions like other states, and particularly California, is an improper basis for disapproval. 

ADEQ also asserts that the EPA has advanced no reason for concluding that ADEQ’s 

analysis is any less valid for nonattainment areas than it is for attainment areas.

Response 3: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22 

Contrary to the commenters’ assertions, our proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s 

program concerning the NSR exemption threshold for nonattainment areas was not based on a 

policy preference by the EPA to regulate “more” sources in nonattainment areas. As explained in 

detail in our response to comment 2, the EPA’s proposed disapproval based on 40 CFR 

51.160(e) stemmed in part from the lack of sufficient justification in ADEQ’s NSR submittal to 

support its chosen thresholds for coverage of the minor NSR program in nonattainment areas as 

required by 40 CFR 51.160(e) and CAA section 110(a)(2). It is the State’s obligation to 

demonstrate that emissions from sources exempt under its chosen NSR exemption threshold will 

not pose a threat to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We found at the time of our 

proposal that ADEQ had not done so with respect to the NSR exemption thresholds in 

nonattainment areas, and we continue to find that this is the case.10

Our March 18, 2015 proposed action made clear that ADEQ could consider various 

options for addressing this deficiency and we did not mandate that ADEQ adhere to a particular 

policy choice of the EPA in this regard. 80 FR at 14049 and n. 13. See also response to comment 

2. The EPA agrees with the commenters that ADEQ has the discretion to determine the types and 

sizes of sources that need to be regulated under its NSR program to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. But ADEQ, like other States, must provide a reasoned basis for the scope of emissions 

(and stationary sources of such emissions) regulated under its program that demonstrates that 

exemption of such emissions from NSR review will not threaten the attainment and maintenance 

of the NAAQS in nonattainment areas. 

 

10 We addressed the comment concerning the reference in the EPA’s proposal to regulation of a “sufficient 

percentage of minor sources” in our response to comment 2.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23 

Air quality concerns in nonattainment areas differ from those in attainment areas and thus 

the measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS may be more stringent in 

nonattainment areas than in attainment areas. When an area is already in nonattainment with a 

NAAQS for a particular pollutant, it is logical to conclude that relatively low levels of emissions 

increases of that nonattainment pollutant may well contribute to nonattainment and interfere with 

achievement of the NAAQS, while a source with the same level of emissions in an attainment 

area may pose little threat to maintaining the NAAQS. Thus, SIPs may need to provide greater or 

more detailed justification for exempting smaller sources of emissions from NSR review in 

nonattainment areas, depending on the particular air quality concerns in the area at issue. Indeed, 

as noted, the EPA’s Tribal NSR Rule established more stringent thresholds for minor NSR in 

nonattainment areas, in most cases at 50% of the thresholds for attainment areas. 76 FR 38758 

(Table). 

ADEQ’s jurisdiction covers both attainment and nonattainment areas, and ADEQ’s 

analysis supporting its NSR exemption thresholds made no distinction between these types of 

areas nor did it provide additional information to support the thresholds in nonattainment areas 

under ADEQ’s jurisdiction. For example, ADEQ’s analysis indicated that it would exempt 

approximately 65% of CO emissions, 78% of SO2 emissions, and 40% of VOC emissions from 

review under its NSR program. By comparison, the EPA’s analysis for the Tribal Minor NSR 

program, cited by ADEQ in its analysis, demonstrated that the EPA anticipated exempting 

around 1% of stationary source emissions from review under NSR, based on National Emissions 

Inventory data for all stationary point source emissions in both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. As such, ADEQ did not provide enough detail to demonstrate that NSR review of 

emissions from the exempted sources would not be necessary for attainment and maintenance of 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24 

the NAAQS in nonattainment areas because sources below the thresholds would be 

“inconsequential to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.” 76 FR at 38758. Accordingly, 

we found that ADEQ had not provided an adequate basis under 40 CFR 51.160(e) for its NSR 

program exemption thresholds as they pertain to nonattainment areas. 

In the case of attainment areas, the EPA is approving the basis provided by ADEQ for its 

selected NSR exemption thresholds. We find it reasonable to conclude, based on the information 

and analysis provided by ADEQ, that expanding the NSR program to cover more emissions in 

areas that are already attaining the NAAQS will ensure that those areas will continue to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. We cannot reach the same conclusion for nonattainment areas where 

the minor sources in a particular nonattainment area may, in fact, significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in that area.11 

The reference in our proposal to the approaches taken by other permitting programs, 

including a California agency, with respect to NSR exemption thresholds in nonattainment areas 

is not an indication that the EPA believes that such approaches or thresholds are required for 

ADEQ, but simply information showing that it is common for agencies in nonattainment areas to 

find it necessary to regulate more emissions. In providing this information, the EPA was not 

suggesting that there was a particular percentage of emissions that should be regulated, but that 

other nonattainment areas have found it necessary to exempt fewer emissions from their 

programs (including Maricopa County, Arizona, Colorado, and the EPA’s Tribal Minor NSR 

 

11 We acknowledge that ADEQ’s analysis explained that sources that contribute to noncompliance with the SO2

NAAQS are well-defined, large industrial sources already subject to the permitting program. However, ADEQ’s 

analysis did not provide information or details to support these statements or otherwise provide information 

sufficient to allow the EPA to reach the conclusion that the NSR exemption thresholds selected by ADEQ exempt 

only those stationary sources with emissions that do not pose a threat to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS 

in nonattainment areas.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25 

rule, which were also referenced in our proposed action12). It was ADEQ’s lack of demonstration 

that its selected thresholds are adequate to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in 

light of the specific air quality issues in the nonattainment areas under its jurisdiction that led to 

our proposed disapproval. 

In sum, the EPA did not conclude that ADEQ’s NSR exemption thresholds are 

necessarily deficient, or suggest that some other agency’s threshold must be applied. The EPA’s 

proposed limited disapproval for ADEQ’s NSR exemption thresholds for nonattainment areas 

under 40 CFR 51.160(e) relates only to the fact that ADEQ had not provided an adequate basis 

for the thresholds that were set for these areas. As discussed in response to comment 2, our final 

limited disapproval is also based on this finding. 

Comment 4: 

ADEQ submitted comments related to the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval of 

ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal for its use of the term “proposed final permit.” ADEQ explains that 

the purpose of allowing sources to construct after issuance of a proposed final permit – the 

version of the permit that ADEQ forwards to the EPA for review under the title V program for 

title V sources – is to ensure that Arizona's unitary permit program does not place restrictions on 

Arizona industries that they would not face in jurisdictions with binary permitting programs. 

Under a binary program, separate permits are issued to construct and operate, and only permits to 

operate are subject to the EPA’s review under title V. Thus a source in a jurisdiction with a 

binary program ordinarily would have the authority to proceed with construction under a 

construction permit before the EPA’s review of the title V permit or permit revision occurred.

 

12 There was a typographical error in our FR notice that referenced a “Table 3,” when there was not a Table 3 in the 

Federal Register notice. The notice should have referenced Table 3 of our TSD.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26 

ADEQ specifically takes issue with the EPA’s proposed determination that the program 

does not provide ADEQ with clear authority to prevent construction or modification before it 

issues a final decision on the request for authority to construct as is required per 40 CFR 

51.160(a) and (b). 80 Fed. Reg. at 14048. ADEQ states that this objection is invalid for two 

reasons. First, 40 CFR 51.160(b) does not require a minor NSR program to include authority to 

prevent construction “before [an agency] issues a final decision.” It requires only that the 

program include procedures by which the agency “will prevent ... construction or modification.” 

The Arizona program manifestly includes such procedures: ADEQ can prevent construction of a 

source that threatens the NAAQS or control strategy by denying the permit application before a 

proposed final permit is issued. No more is required. Second, by “final” the EPA appears to 

mean subject to administrative and judicial review. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 14053. The EPA 

maintains that although ADEQ has issued guidance stating that it “will treat [a] proposed final 

permit as a final, appealable agency action," the rule itself is not sufficiently clear to be fully 

approved. 80 Fed. Reg. at 14048. 

The EPA, however, has mischaracterized ADEQ’s guidance. ADEQ did not state that it 

“will treat” proposed final permits” as appealable agency actions. Rather, the Department stated 

that it “must” do so. Under Arizona administrative law, an "appealable agency action" is defined 

as "an action that determines the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party." A.RS. § 41-

1092(3). Because a proposed final permit or permit revision under the revised rules determines 

the applicant's right to construct, it must be treated as an appealable agency action separate from 

the issuance of the final permit or permit revision. ADEQ must therefore issue a notice of 

appealable agency action under A.R.S § 41-1092.03 for both the proposed final permit or permit 

revision, as well as the final permit or permit revision.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27 

ADEQ states that there is no ambiguity under Arizona law (which mirrors the 

administrative law of most states). Under the clear terms of ADEQ’s regulations, a proposed 

final permit confers a right to construct and is therefore appealable. 

Response 4: 

The EPA appreciates ADEQ’s comments concerning the question of whether ADEQ’s 

NSR program provides for the issuance of a final NSR decision prior to sources being allowed to 

begin construction. Our proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal stated that certain 

sources were allowed to begin construction upon issuance of a proposed final permit, and that we 

believed that ADEQ’s regulations were ambiguous as to whether issuance of a “proposed final 

permit” was a final NSR decision. As a result, we proposed to find that ADEQ’s NSR SIP 

submittal did not satisfy several related CAA requirements, and those deficiencies provided 

some of the bases for our proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD program, NA-NSR 

program, and minor NSR program. 

The EPA continues to believe that the CAA and its implementing regulations require that 

PSD and NA-NSR programs must provide for the issuance of final NSR permit decisions 

imposing permit conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable NSR program 

requirements before sources subject to those programs may begin construction. We also interpret 

the CAA to require that PSD programs provide an opportunity for judicial review of PSD permit 

decisions. See generally CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2), 

51.166(a)(7)(iii), 166(q)(2)(vii).13

 

13 The notice for our proposed action noted discussed the fact that we interpret the CAA to require an opportunity 

for judicial review of a decision to grant or deny a PSD permit, whether issued by the EPA or by a State under a 

SIP-approved or delegated PSD program. See 80 FR 14053.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28 

The CAA and its implementing regulations also require that minor NSR programs 

provide for legally enforceable procedures including means by which the Agency responsible for 

final decisionmaking on an application for approval to construct or modify has authority to 

prevent such construction or modification if such construction or modification will result in a 

violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or will interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 40 CFR 51.160(a)-(b). We continue to 

believe that decisionmaking authorities must make final NSR decisions for minor sources, as 

well as major sources, subject to their NSR program prior to allowing sources to begin 

construction in order to satisfy this requirement that the plan provide for such “legally 

enforceable procedures.”14 

The EPA acknowledges the interpretation that ADEQ recently provided to clarify that 

ADEQ must treat “proposed final permits” as “appealable agency actions,” which are defined 

under Arizona law as actions that “determine[] the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party” 

pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1092(3). ADEQ Memorandum – Proposed Final Permits to Be 

Treated as Appealable Agency Actions, dated February 10, 2015. ADEQ also provided 

additional clarifications after the end of the public comment period, specifically stating that 

“[p]roposed final permits are enforceable at the time that the permits are issued.”15 After further 

review of this issue and consideration of ADEQ’s comments and interpretation of its regulations, 

 

14 We agree that ADEQ has authority to decline to issue a proposed final permit for a particular source if it finds that 

the emissions from such source would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or would 

interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. However, in cases where a permit requirement would 

be needed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS for a particular source, if such a permit decision were not final, 

binding and enforceable at the time construction of the source was authorized, there would not be a legally 

enforceable procedure in place to prevent construction of that source in a manner that could violate the NAAQS as 

required by 40 CFR 51.160. 

15 See June 8, 2015 email “Clarification of ADEQ’s Comments on the EPA’s Proposed Action” from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Division Director at ADEQ to Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29 

and in reliance on ADEQ’s stated interpretation of its regulations, we have determined that 

“proposed final permits” constitute final, binding, and enforceable NSR decisions by ADEQ that 

are issued before sources may begin construction and which are immediately subject to review. 

We therefore conclude that ADEQ’s NSR program provides, in all instances, for the 

issuance of a final NSR decision prior to sources being allowed to begin construction, thus this 

issue no longer provides a basis for our limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal. 

Specifically, we agree that: (1) ADEQ’s NSR program provides ADEQ with clear authority to 

prevent construction or modification before it issues a final decision on the request for authority 

to construct as required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b); (2) ADEQ’s PSD and NA-NSR programs 

do not allow a source to begin construction prior to issuance of a final PSD or NA-NSR permit; 

and (3) ADEQ’s PSD program satisfies the CAA requirement for an opportunity for judicial 

review of PSD permit decisions. We are also including the clarifying memorandum from ADEQ 

dated February 10, 2015 as additional material in our final rule. 

However, we continue to recommend that ADEQ revise its regulations to clarify that a 

proposed final permit is a final, enforceable, and appealable NSR permit decision in order to 

minimize confusion among the public and the regulated community. We reiterate that such a 

revision is not a requirement for approval of ADEQ’s NSR program into the SIP. 

Comment 5: 

ADEQ disagrees with the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s program 

under 40 CFR 51.160(a)(2) and (b)(2) because rule R18-2-334 does not require ADEQ to 

evaluate whether the project under review will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all cases, and instead allows sources to apply reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) in lieu of such an evaluation. ADEQ also takes issue with the EPA’s determination that 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 

R18-2-334(E) allows for too great of Director’s discretion when determining when to require a 

NAAQS analysis. ADEQ believes this objection is fundamentally at odds with the EPA’s own 

approach to air quality impact analysis (AQIA) in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule. The tribal rule 

initially imposes a case-by-case control technology requirement, but gives the “reviewing 

authority” (which may be the EPA or a tribe with delegated authority) discretion to conduct an 

AQIA. 40 CFR 51.154(c) and (d). ADEQ also cites to the EPA’s response to comments for the 

Tribal Minor NSR Rule where the EPA indicated that reviewing authorities implementing the 

Tribal Minor NSR Rule should be allowed the discretion to determine when an AQIA might be 

needed from the applicant. See 76 FR 38761. Further, ADEQ argues that ADEQ’s rule is 

actually stricter and confers less discretion than the EPA’s Tribal Minor NSR Rule. ADEQ must 

consider the source’s emission rates, location of emission units within the facility and their 

proximity to ambient air, the terrain in which the source is or will be located, the source type, the 

location and emissions of nearby sources, and background concentration of regulated minor NSR 

pollutants. By comparison, the criteria in the EPA’s Tribal Minor NSR Rule states that if the 

reviewing authority has reason to be concerned that the construction of your minor source or 

modification would cause or contribute to a NAAQS or PSD violation, it may require the source 

to conduct and submit an AQIA. (emphasis added). ADEQ believes that this comparison 

demonstrates that ADEQ’s discretion is far from being “too great;” ADEQ’s discretion under 

R18-2-334(E) is minimal.

Finally, ADEQ disagrees with the EPA’s determination that R18-2-334(C)(1)(a)-(b) 

“appears to allow sources with lower levels of emissions to avoid both substantive NAAQS 

review and RACT requirements” and that the state’s minor NSR Program therefore fails to 

ensure “that all sources subject to review under its NSR program will not interfere with 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.” This objection is incorrect for two reasons. First, 

R18-2-334(C)(1)(a)-(c) represents ADEQ’s reasonable judgment that the imposition of RACT on 

units with low emissions (20 percent of the source threshold) within a source otherwise subject 

to RACT is not a cost-effective means of protecting the NAAQS. Second, this provision does 

not, as the EPA contends, allow sources to avoid substantive NAAQS review. This provision 

clearly applies solely to sources that elect to comply with minor NSR through installation of 

RACT. These sources remain subject to the obligation to conduct an AQIA on the Director’s 

request under R18-2-334(E), and there is nothing in the rule to suggest that emissions from units 

below the R18-2-334(C)(1)(a)-(b) thresholds would be excluded from the AQIA. 

SRP also disagrees with the EPA’s proposed disapproval based on the EPA’s finding that 

the Director's discretion under R-18-2-334(E) was too great, and asserts that the EPA’s proposed 

action conflicts with the EPA's policy on approving director discretion provisions. SRP argues 

that the Director’s discretion in this regard is sufficiently specific in identifying when it applies 

and what criteria are to be applied and that therefore the relevant provisions are fully approvable 

into the Arizona SIP. 

Response 5: 

Upon review of ADEQ’s comments, including clarifications regarding how the 

provisions of R18-2-334(E) apply, and in reliance on ADEQ’s stated interpretation of its 

regulations, we no longer find that ADEQ’s minor NSR program does not satisfy 40 CFR 

51.160(a)(2) and (b)(2) based on the view that rule R18-2-334 does not require ADEQ to 

evaluate whether all sources subject to review under that rule may interfere with attainment or 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32 

maintenance of the NAAQS.16 After the close of the public comment period, ADEQ provided 

additional clarifications, stating that it interprets R18-2-334 to “require[] ADEQ to consider the 

air quality impacts of a project, using the criteria established in R18-2-334(E)(1) through (6), in 

each instance where the applicant has not submitted an AQIA under R18-2-334(C)(2).”17 ADEQ 

has explained that it interprets R18-2-334 to require ADEQ to consider, for all sources subject to 

R18-2-334, whether there is reason to believe that the source could interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Some sources will comply with this requirement by submitting an 

AQIA under R18-2-334(C)(2). All other sources will be reviewed by ADEQ using the criteria in 

R18-2-334(E), and those criteria will be used to determine whether a more formal AQIA is 

necessary. That is, ADEQ does not have discretion to determine in which instances it will or 

won’t apply the criteria in R18-2-334(E)(1) through (6); instead, ADEQ interprets its regulations 

to require that ADEQ apply such criteria for all sources subject to R18-2-334 where the applicant 

has not submitted an AQIA. Accordingly, this issue does not provide a basis for our final limited 

disapproval. 

We would also like to clarify that our proposed limited disapproval was not specifically 

related to ADEQ’s choice to apply RACT for some sources subject to R18-2-334 while allowing 

certain smaller sources subject to the rule to avoid RACT. Rather, our proposed disapproval 

action related only to what we understood to be the potential for sources subject to R18-2-334 to 

apply RACT (or to proceed without applying RACT for certain sources with lower emissions) in 

lieu of any review by ADEQ of the source’s potential impacts on the NAAQS under the ADEQ 

NSR program. As discussed immediately above, this is no longer a concern as ADEQ has 

 

16 The EPA’s proposal inadvertently referred to R18-2-334(G) instead of R18-2-334(E) when describing this issue. 17 See June 8, 2015 email “Clarification of ADEQ’s Comments on EPA’s Proposed Action” from Eric C. Massey, 

Air Quality Division Director at ADEQ to Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33 

explained that it must review all sources subject to R18-2-334 to consider whether the source 

could interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

Given our revised determination on this issue, it is not necessary to address all the 

arguments made by SRP concerning this issue, but we note that we agree with SRP (and ADEQ) 

that the criteria ADEQ will be applying when making its determination under R18-2-334(E) do 

not afford undue discretion to the Director. 

Comment 6: 

One commenter takes issue with the EPA’s statements that finalizing its proposed limited 

disapproval would trigger an obligation for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) and impose CAA sanctions if ADEQ does not correct the alleged deficiencies within 

18 to 24 months. The commenter asserts that this contradicts the statutory limitations on the 

EPA's SIP-action authority under the CAA. 

Section 110(c)(1) provides the EPA the authority to promulgate a FIP in only two 

circumstances: 1) the State failed to make a required SIP submission, or 2) the Administrator 

disapproves a SIP submission in whole or part. Section 179(a) contains similar conditions for 

imposing sanctions in nonattainment areas. The commenter claims that the EPA interprets its 

authority to impose a FIP or sanctions only when the disapproval relates to a mandatory SIP 

submission. In support of this assertion, the commenter cites to one action from Region 6 of the 

EPA that disapproved elements of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's) 

major NSR rule to address the 2002 NSR changes ("[t]he provisions in these submittals ...were 

not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act. Therefore, this final action to 

disapprove ...the State submittals does not trigger a sanction or Federal Implementation Plan 

clock."). The commenter concludes that such an interpretations of Section 110(c)(1) and Section 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34 

179(a) are reasonable because the EPA would otherwise, for example, be required to promulgate 

a FIP for disapproving a State's request to include odor provisions in its SIP that are unrelated to 

NAAQS compliance. 

The commenter further states that ADEQ's current SIP contains fully-approved, minor 

NSR and major NSR permitting programs. As such, the State's requested SIP revisions addressed 

in the EPA’s proposed action are not mandatory. The commenter further argues that the EPA 

referenced no information suggesting that it made a formal call for plan revision as required by 

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA related to its proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP 

submittal. As such, in general, Arizona is not under a mandatory duty to revise its existing SIP 

with regards to its NSR programs. The commenter argues that it is inappropriate for the EPA to 

replace a fully approved-SIP with a program that it alleges does not fully satisfy CAA 

requirements by using an approach that triggers the FIP clock and potentially imposes sanctions. 

ADEQ could withdraw the requested SIP submission and face no threat of a FIP or sanctions. 

Response 6: 

The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that the EPA's limited disapproval in 

this action does not trigger a FIP clock or potential sanctions, and disagrees that the EPA’s action 

is inappropriate in light of this result. 

The EPA continues to believe that limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal 

triggers an obligation to promulgate a FIP unless ADEQ corrects the identified deficiencies and 

the EPA approves the related SIP revisions within 2 years, and that sanctions would be triggered 

by the EPA’s limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NA-NSR program revisions based on deficiencies 

related to CAA title I, Part D requirements for nonattainment areas if ADEQ fails to remedy the 

identified deficiencies so that the EPA can approve the revisions into the SIP before the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35 

sanctions apply. As stated in the notice for our proposal, we intend to work with ADEQ to 

remedy these deficiencies in a timely manner. Importantly, we note that the EPA’s other option 

would have been a full disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, which would have required 

ADEQ to continue to implement the outdated rules in its SIP while also implementing its newer 

rules under State law. This would require ADEQ and permit applicants to continue to implement 

and comply with two redundant and sometimes inconsistent sets of NSR rules, contrary to 

ADEQ’s request to update its SIP to incorporate its newer rules and remove its older, outdated 

rules.

Pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, the EPA must promulgate a FIP within two 

years after our final limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, unless ADEQ 

adequately corrects the identified deficiencies and the EPA approves the corrected program into 

the Arizona SIP before that time. The commenter argues that the FIP clock applies only when a 

disapproval relates to a mandatory SIP submission, and asserts that the submitted revisions are 

not mandatory because ADEQ's existing SIP contains fully-approved minor and major NSR 

programs, and the revisions were not developed in response to a SIP call under CAA section 

110(k)(5). The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s argument. 

Even if the EPA has not issued a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5),18 a FIP is 

generally required under CAA section 110(c)(1) when the EPA disapproves a plan submission, 

unless the State adequately corrects the basis for the disapproval and the EPA approves a 

corrected SIP submittal in a timely manner, or the EPA determines that an existing plan is in 

place that meets the relevant CAA requirements. See AIR v. EPA, 686 F.3d 668, 675-76 (9th Cir. 

 

18 There is no existing SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) that specifically pertains to the deficiencies with 

ADEQ’s NSR program.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36 

2012). We note that NSR programs consistent with CAA requirements are required elements of a 

SIP. CAA §§ 110(a)(2)(C), 161, 165, 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR 51.160-51.166. 

In this case, the EPA cannot rely on provisions in the existing Arizona SIP to adequately 

address the deficiencies with the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal that we identified in our proposed 

rule and which form the basis for our final limited disapproval. ADEQ must address these 

deficiencies in a timely manner in order to avoid the requirement for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP. As we made clear in the notice for our proposed action,19 ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal 

included the removal of most of ADEQ’s existing NSR program elements from the Arizona 

SIP.20 Upon our final action21, there will not be an “existing plan” that could potentially satisfy 

the specific CAA NSR requirements that the EPA has determined are not satisfied in ADEQ’s 

NSR SIP submittal.22 In general, the EPA’s role in reviewing SIP submittals, including the 

 

19 See 80 FR at 14046-14047. 20 See October 29, 2012 ADEQ submittal at 4 and Table 2-1; see also ADEQ’s February 23, 2015 supplemental 

submittal at 3-7. 21 We note that the EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submission allows ADEQ to 

use its updated NSR rules, to the extent the EPA is granting limited approval in this action, to carry out the NSR 

program. Continuing to leave old and outdated Arizona NSR SIP elements in place would not be consistent with 

ADEQ’s SIP submission and request to the EPA, and would require ADEQ and permit applicants to implement and 

comply with two redundant and sometimes inconsistent sets of NSR rules. Whether ADEQ could withdraw its 

ADEQ NSR SIP submittal and what consequences would ensue is not relevant; ADEQ has not done so.

22 The commenter asserts that when the EPA disapproved elements of the Texas Commission of Environmental 

Quality's (TCEQ's) major NSR rule, the EPA found that the provisions in the submittals were not submitted to meet 

a mandatory requirement of the Act and thus noted that its final action to disapprove the State submittals did not 

trigger a sanction or FIP clock. The TCEQ example is inapposite, however, because our action on the ADEQ NSR 

SIP submittal approves rules with identified deficiencies into the SIP where the action in Region 6 did not. The EPA

found the deficiencies in the TCEQ submission to be separable and issued partial disapprovals for them, resulting in 

a SIP that did not contain the deficiencies. In that situation, whether the deficiencies that were disapproved were 

contained in “mandatory” SIP submissions was relevant because if they were “mandatory” then disapproval likely 

would have resulted in TCEQ needing to submit another plan revision to replace the disapproved plan elements. But 

because the deficiencies were found to be separable and contained in plan elements that were not mandatory, the 

EPA issued a partial disapproval of those elements, keeping the deficiencies out of the approved SIP and with TCEQ 

under no obligation to submit another SIP revision because the disapproved plan elements were not “mandatory.” In 

contrast, the provisions including the identified deficiencies in the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal are integrated parts of 

the submittal and are being approved into the SIP as part of our limited approval/limited disapproval action, so 

whether the ADEQ plan revisions containing the deficiencies are “mandatory” is not relevant and is not a basis to 

avoid a FIP duty or sanctions.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37 

ADEQ NSR SIP submittal, is to defer to the State’s choices as to how to implement CAA 

requirements provided those choices are consistent with the pertinent CAA requirements, 

whether or not a program submittal is considered “mandatory.” The EPA’s limited 

approval/limited disapproval action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, including ADEQ’s request 

to remove old and largely outdated NSR provisions from the Arizona SIP, allows us to approve 

into the SIP the State’s choice to adopt and implement its updated and strengthened NSR 

program while giving ADEQ time to remedy certain deficiencies that cause us not to grant full 

approval of the submittal. Furthermore, even if one assumed arguendo that these older Arizona 

NSR provisions were not being removed from the Arizona SIP, the commenter has not explained 

how the old NSR provisions would, in fact, meet the NSR requirements for which the EPA has 

found specific deficiencies in ADEQ’s updated NSR program.23 

Similarly, for deficiencies related to CAA title I, Part D requirements for nonattainment 

areas, final limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submission will result in the application of 

sanctions under CAA section 179 unless the deficiencies have been adequately corrected before 

the sanctions apply. 

As with its arguments concerning the FIP clock, the commenter argues that CAA 

sanctions apply only when a disapproval relates to a mandatory SIP submission, and asserts that 

the submitted revisions are not mandatory because ADEQ's existing SIP contains fully-approved 

 

23 ADEQ noted in its submittal that its existing SIP-approved program did not include the PM10 increments, the NO2

increments, or updates related to the “WEPCO” rule for determining when a project is a modification at an electric 

generating unit. In addition, ADEQ stated that a basis for its revisions to its minor NSR program was to correct the 

deficiency that its program lacked explicit procedures designed “to assure that national ambient air quality standards 

are achieved,” as required by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. See Appendix A of ADEQ’s October 29, 2012 SIP 

submittal at 1546 and 1547.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38 

NSR permitting programs, and the revisions were not developed in response to a SIP call under 

CAA section 110(k)(5). The EPA again disagrees with the commenter’s argument.

Even if the EPA has not issued a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), sanctions 

generally will apply under CAA section 179 when the EPA disapproves a plan submission based 

on plan deficiencies that relate to title I, Part D requirements, unless ADEQ adequately corrects 

those deficiencies and the EPA takes action to approve a corrected plan submittal before the 

sanctions apply, or the EPA determines that the existing plan meets the applicable Part D 

requirements. See 40 CFR 52.31. A NA-NSR program that meets CAA requirements is a 

required element of a SIP. CAA §§ 110(a)(2)(C), 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR 51.165. 

As discussed above, ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal included the removal of most of 

ADEQ’s existing NSR program elements from the Arizona SIP, so upon the EPA’s final action 

there will not be older NA-NSR SIP provisions that could potentially meet the CAA NA-NSR 

requirements that the EPA has determined are not satisfied in the NA-NSR program in ADEQ’s 

NSR SIP submittal. The EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP 

submittal, including ADEQ’s request to remove old and largely outdated NSR provisions from 

the Arizona SIP, allows us to approve into the SIP the State’s choice to adopt and implement its 

updated and strengthened NA-NSR program while giving ADEQ time to remedy certain 

deficiencies that cause us not to grant full approval of the submittal. Furthermore, even if one 

assumed arguendo that these older Arizona NA-NSR provisions were not being removed from 

the Arizona SIP per ADEQ’s request, the commenter has not explained how the old NA-NSR 

provisions would, in fact, meet the specific NA-NSR requirements for which the EPA has found 

deficiencies with ADEQ’s updated NA-NSR program. For example, ADEQ’s old SIP-approved 

program did not include NOX as a precursor to ozone.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39 

We note that the EPA is also finalizing a partial disapproval – rather than limited 

approval/limited disapproval -- for a separable ADEQ NSR program provision that is analogous 

to a previous federal NSR provision that a federal Court determined is not a permissible 

component of PSD programs– the PM2.5 significant monitoring concentration (SMC). As there is 

no deficiency related to this issue in the approved plan following our partial disapproval, neither 

a FIP requirement nor sanctions will result from this partial disapproval action. 

The EPA’s limited disapproval action is based on program elements in ADEQ’s NSR SIP 

submittal that do not meet CAA requirements and are not satisfied by the existing Arizona SIP 

provisions that remain in place following our final action.24 We wish to clarify that all of the 

bases for our final limited disapproval action on the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal must be 

adequately addressed in a timely manner in order to avoid a requirement for a FIP or, for Part D 

deficiencies, the application of sanctions. 

Finally, our final limited disapproval also addresses some SIP elements or provisions that 

are not required (e.g., deficiencies concerning optional PAL provisions), but were not separable 

from ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal as they were an integrated part of that submittal. Because we 

are approving these provisions into the SIP, the EPA will be obligated to implement a FIP and/or 

sanctions will apply (as applicable) for such optional program elements that remain in the SIP if 

the deficiencies in those elements are not corrected to ensure consistency with CAA 

requirements. 

Comment 7: 

 

24 In addition, ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal did not address the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the 

PSD program. As discussed in the notice for our proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, a FIP is currently 

in place in Arizona to address PSD requirements for GHGs. See 80 FR at 14054 n.17.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40 

SRP states that to proceed using the limited approval, limited disapproval mechanism, 

The EPA must make an on-the-record determination that the disapproved elements are not 

severable from the approved elements. The EPA has not made this finding or provided this 

explanation in its proposed notice. 

Response 7: 

The EPA disagrees with this comment. The commenter cites no authority for this 

unsupported proposition. Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) and the EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, limited approval and partial approval are alternatives to full approval or full 

disapproval of a complete plan submission. Limited approval may be appropriate where a plan 

submittal contains some provisions that meet applicable CAA requirements and other provisions 

that do not, and the provisions are not separable. Partial approval may be used where a separable 

portion of a plan submittal meets all applicable CAA requirements. The EPA has discretion 

under the CAA to choose an appropriate approval or disapproval mechanism for a plan 

submission, and there is no required “finding” that the provisions are not separable for a 

proposed or final limited approval or limited disapproval SIP action. See Processing of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I–X,

September 7, 1992 (www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf).

Nevertheless, in general, we believe that, with the exception of the partial disapproval of 

the PM2.5 SMC that we are finalizing, the components of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal are 

interrelated and not separable from the submittal as a whole and therefore not appropriate for 

partial disapproval. ADEQ has not provided us with any basis to conclude that particular aspects 

of its NSR SIP submittal for which we proposed limited disapproval are not integral or 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41 

interrelated parts of the submittal or are otherwise separable and appropriate for partial 

disapproval. Further, the commenter has not demonstrated that any portion of the ADEQ NSR 

SIP submittal for which we proposed limited disapproval is, in fact, separable and appropriate for 

partial disapproval rather than limited disapproval. 

Comment 8: 

One commenter states that the EPA’s assertion that ADEQ may not exclude certain 

pollutant-emitting activities from PSD misinterprets the EPA's regulations. The commenter 

points to 40 CFR 51.160(e) and states that a State may exclude activities that it anticipates will 

have negligible or insignificant environmental impacts from either the major or minor NSR 

permit programs. This regulatory approach makes sense because it allows for a practical 

integration of the multiple preconstruction requirements. There is no basis for requiring a State to 

regulate activities with the more stringent requirements contained in the PSD or NA NSR 

program when those activities fall below the levels of concern established for the minor NSR 

program. 

Response 8: 

The regulations governing PSD and NA-NSR SIP programs contain the fundamental 

requirement that such programs adopt a specified definition for “stationary source.” 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(i), 51.166(b)(5). The regulations require the use of the prescribed definition, and 

state that deviations from the specified wording will be approved only if “the State specifically 

demonstrates that the submitted definition is “more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all 

respects” as the prescribed definition. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b). As explained in reference 

to the NA-NSR program in our March 18, 2015 proposal: 

ADEQ must demonstrate that its definition of stationary source is at least as stringent as 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42 

the federal definition at 51.165(a)(1)(i) in all respects. 

See 80 FR at 14056; see also 80 FR at 14054 for the PSD program. The commenter has not 

addressed how ADEQ’s definition would be at least as stringent as the definitions in 

51.165(a)(1)(i) and 51.166(b)(5) in light of the exemption language referenced in our proposal, 

see 80 FR at 14054, nor has ADEQ provided the necessary demonstration that its definition of 

stationary source is at least as stringent as the definition of “stationary source” under the federal 

PSD and NA-NSR programs. Indeed, ADEQ’s comments did not address this basis of our 

proposed limited disapproval. We continue to find that this issue provides a basis for limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal. 

We do not interpret 40 CFR 51.160(e) as allowing states to develop less stringent 

definitions for these programs without the necessary demonstration that the submitted definition 

is “more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all respects” as the prescribed definition as required 

by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b). Section 51.160(e) does not contain any language giving 

states the discretion to exclude any type of source from the more specific major source 

permitting requirements in section 51.165 and 51.166. Section 51.160(e) does not say anything 

about sources that have “negligible or insignificant environmental impacts.” This section simply 

requires that a state plan identify the types and sizes of stationary sources that are covered by the 

“legally enforceable procedures” required under section 51.160(a) to review construction or 

modification of stationary sources. Sections 51.165 and 51.166 provide more detailed procedures 

that must apply to major stationary sources. These more specific provisions in sections 51.165 

and 51.166 make clear that those procedures must cover the type and size of source covered by 

the definitions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i) and 51.166(b)(5).

Comment 9: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43 

One commenter takes issue with our proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ's definition 

of projected actual emissions on the basis that it does not specifically require malfunction 

emissions to be included in the post-change projection. The EPA has not shown how ADEQ's 

exclusion of this term from ADEQ's definition makes the definition less stringent than the 

Federal rules. Malfunctions, by definition, are emissions associated with an unpredictable and 

not reasonably preventable event. In this respect, it is axiomatic that a source cannot reasonably 

project emissions that it cannot predict. By excluding malfunctions from its projected actual 

emissions procedure, ADEQ recognizes the EPA's own interpretation of "malfunctions" and is 

no less stringent than the federal definition. The EPA's proposed action also is inconsistent with 

other Regional Office SIP approvals that have approved definitions of "projected actual 

emissions" that do not require inclusion of malfunction emissions.25 Moreover, the comparable 

paragraph in the Federal definition of "projected actual emissions" merely clarifies that projected 

actual emissions includes all post-change emissions. The EPA could approve ADEQ's "projected 

actual emissions" definition by severing and not acting on paragraph R18-2- 401(20)(b)(iii) and 

the definition would not lose its intended meaning. 

Response 9: 

The commenter asserts that the EPA has not shown that ADEQ’s exclusion of 

malfunction emissions from the definition of “projected actual emissions” makes the definition 

less stringent. However, ADEQ has the burden of demonstrating that its alternative definitions 

are not less stringent than the ones in the EPA’s regulation. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b). 

ADEQ’s definitions under the PSD and NA-NSR programs warrant a limited disapproval 

 

25 See, e.g., The EPA's approval of Georgia's PSD program, Georgia's PSD program at 391-3-1; and the EPA's 

approval of South Carolina's regulation at Chapter 7 Regulation 62.5.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44 

because the EPA cannot reasonably conclude that ADEQ’s definition is at least as stringent as 

the definitions in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and/or 51.166(b). We note that ADEQ’s definition for 

“baseline actual emissions” specifically includes startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions, 

while ADEQ’s definition for “projected actual emissions” includes startup and shutdown 

emissions but does not include malfunction emissions. Further, ADEQ’s definition of “projected 

actual emissions” specifically excludes malfunction emissions associated with a shutdown. 

Based on the exclusion of malfunction emissions from the definition of “projected actual 

emissions”, and in the absence of a response from ADEQ on this issue, we conclude that ADEQ 

has not shown that its definition is as stringent as the federal definition. In addition, without a 

clearer statement from ADEQ, we cannot determine that R18-2-401(20)(b)(iii) is separable from 

the rest of the ADEQ definition of projected actual emissions without losing the apparently 

intended meaning by ADEQ to specifically include startup and shutdown but exclude 

malfunction emissions. We note that ADEQ’s comments did not address this basis for our 

proposed limited disapproval. 

With respect to the claim that the EPA has previously approved PSD or NA-NSR 

programs that do not include malfunctions emissions under the definition for projected actual 

emissions, we note that the examples provided by the commenter are not completely analogous. 

In those programs, the definition of baseline actual emissions also excluded malfunction 

emissions, whereas ADEQ has included those emissions in its definition of baseline actual 

emissions. Without further justification from ADEQ, this inconsistency across definitions makes 

it difficult for the EPA to determine the relative stringency of ADEQ’s definitions as compared 

with those in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. The commenter has not provided any information 

about the nature of the demonstrations that was supplied by the states that obtained the EPA 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45 

approval for excluding malfunction emissions from both the definition of baseline actual 

emissions and projected actual emissions. 

Notwithstanding prior action by the EPA in the context of SIPs in the distinct 

circumstances noted above, the EPA believes the proper interpretation of these definitions is that 

they require that all emissions, pre- and post-change, including malfunctions, be included in the 

definitions included in SIPs, consistent with the regulatory text, absent a demonstration that the 

State’s regulation is at least as stringent as the federal definition as required by 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b). 

We note that in reviewing this comment, we also reviewed our proposed limited 

disapproval related to the calculation of baseline actual emissions under ADEQ’s PALs program 

at R18-2-412(B)(2). See 80 FR 14053. Upon review, we determined that our proposed limited 

disapproval related to the calculation of baseline actual emissions under ADEQ’s PALs program 

at R18-2-412(B)(2) was in error because ADEQ’s definition for baseline actual emissions at 

R18-2-401(2)(i) specifically includes startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions. Therefore, 

this issue no longer provides a basis for our limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal. 

Comment 10: 

One commenter asserts that ADEQ’s definition of regulated NSR pollutant is not 

deficient for not including the final two sentences in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a). This language 

addresses issuance of permits before January 1, 2011. Since this SIP revision applies to changes 

after this date, it is not necessary for the definition to address circumstances that existed before 

SIP approval. Moreover, absence of the language, in any case, does not affect the stringency of 

the definition. 

Response 10: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46 

We agree with the commenter that while ADEQ may want to add to its definition these 

two sentences that provide additional clarification, this clarifying language is not necessary for 

SIP approval. As such, we no longer find this difference to be a deficiency with ADEQ’s NSR 

program, and this issue is not a basis for our final limited disapproval. 

Comment 11: 

The EPA proposes to disapprove ADEQ's major NSR programs because the SIP 

submittal does not include a definition for "subject to regulation." Although the Federal 

regulations contain a definition for "subject to regulation," the EPA made clear, at the time it 

adopted this definition, that states may adopt (or already have) alternative pathways for defining 

applicability of the major NSR program – the EPA did not intend for codification of "subject to 

regulation" to be a necessary element for SIP approval. See 75 FR 31514 at 31525. The EPA 

chose the "subject to regulation" pathway because it determined that this would allow other 

states to adopt the EPA's definition through interpretation without the need for a SIP revision. 

ADEQ's major source definition refers to NSR regulated pollutants. ADEQ's definition of 

NSR regulated pollutant covers all pollutants ADEQ is currently required to regulate under its 

major NSR programs. ADEQ's program is not currently deficient for failing to include some 

unknown air pollutant that the EPA may regulate in the future. Should the EPA regulate such an 

air pollutant in the future, the EPA may follow the pathway it used for GHGs and issue a SIP call 

at that time. Similarly, ADEQ's definition of regulated NSR pollutant is not currently deficient 

for failing to include some unidentified air pollutant that the EPA might name in the future.

Response 11: 

After further review and consideration of the comment, we are not including the absence 

of a definition of the term “subject to regulation” as a basis for our limited disapproval of the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47 

ADEQ NSR SIP submittal. Similarly, we are also not including the omission in ADEQ’s PSD 

rules of language analogous to that in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(iv) as a basis for our final limited 

disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal. We note, however, that contrary to commenters’ 

assertion, the ADEQ SIP is deficient because ADEQ’s definition of regulated NSR pollutant 

does not cover all pollutants ADEQ is currently required to regulate under its major NSR 

programs, in that ADEQ’s program does not regulate GHGs. However, the EPA has separately 

taken action to address this deficiency. The EPA previously established a FIP for GHGs for 

Arizona because ADEQ could not apply its PSD program to GHGs due to a State law 

prohibition. 

Comment 12: 

One commenter states that we must approve ADEQ’s definition of basic design 

parameter because the D.C. Circuit made no finding in State of New York v. EPA that the use of 

the "basic design parameter" definition was "impermissible." This issue was not before the court 

in State of New York v. EPA. At the time the EPA codified the replacement unit provisions, the 

EPA relied on a previously codified definition of "basic design parameter" to explain how it will 

interpret the phrase "basic design parameters" in implementing the replacement unit provisions. 

The vacatur of the "basic design parameters" definition for purposes of a separate, unrelated 

rulemaking has no effect on the EPA's stated interpretation of that phrase for purposes of the 

replacement unit provisions. Accordingly, the EPA's statements in the preamble remain its 

interpretation for purposes of implementing those provisions. ADEQ's definition is fully 

consistent with the EPA's interpretation.

Response 12: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48 

The EPA agrees with the commenter that our proposed partial disapproval of the 

definition for “basic design parameter” was erroneous. We note that ADEQ did not adopt any of 

the other provisions of the Equipment Replacement Provisions, which were the subject of the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in State of New York v. EPA. We agree with the commenter that 

ADEQ’s adoption of a definition for basic design parameter is acceptable in this case, and 

consistent with the EPA’s past statements related to this term. Therefore, we are not finalizing a 

partial disapproval of ADEQ’s definition for basic design parameter. Our final action includes 

this definition as part of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal for which the EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval/limited disapproval, but it is not a basis for our limited disapproval. 

III. Final Action

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the ADEQ rules listed in Table 1 above. We are also approving into the 

Arizona SIP the Arizona statutory provision relating to local delegation of state authority 

identified in Table 1 above. In addition, we are removing from the Arizona SIP certain rules and 

appendices, which are outdated and mostly being superseded by this action. See Table 2 above. 

We are also finalizing a partial disapproval of one provision of ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal 

concerning the PM2.5 SMC, as the analogous federal regulatory provision has been vacated by a 

federal Court.26 Last, we are finalizing a limited approval (but not a limited disapproval) based 

on requirements under section 189 of the Act related to PM10 and PM2.5 precursors for ADEQ’s 

nonattainment NSR program for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

and the West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area. 

 

26 The EPA’s partial disapproval concerning the PM2.5 SMC does not require follow-up action by ADEQ. However, 

for clarity, ADEQ may wish to remove this disapproved provision from its regulations.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49 

Our limited approval and limited disapproval action will approve the updated rules 

included in the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal into the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP.27

However, ADEQ must correct certain deficiencies in the approved rules in order to obtain full 

approval for its NSR SIP submittal. Our TSD and proposal for this action described in detail the 

deficiencies we identified with ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal which we determined were bases for 

limited approval and limited disapproval. With the exception of the changes we are making from 

our proposal as described in section II.B of this preamble, we are finalizing our action as 

proposed. For some of these disapproval issues, no adverse comment was received during the 

public comment period on our proposed action; where comments were received on these issues, 

we addressed the comments in our Response to Comments document. See section C of this 

preamble. A list summarizing the bases for our limited disapproval is included in a memorandum 

to the file for this action.28 

Our limited disapproval action will trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a FIP

unless Arizona corrects the deficiencies that are the bases for the limited disapproval, and the 

EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, for 

those deficiencies that are bases for our limited disapproval that relate to NA-NSR requirements 

under part D of title I of the Act, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the 

nonattainment areas under ADEQ’s jurisdiction 18 months after the effective date of a final 

limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in 

these areas six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed 

 

27 This excludes the PM2.5 SMC provision for which we issuing a partial disapproval, as discussed elsewhere in this 

action.

28 “List of Bases for Final Limited Disapproval of ADEQ NSR SIP Submittal,” Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, 

EPA Region 9, June 22, 2015.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50 

under the CAA if Arizona submits, and we approve, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, 

SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies that we identify in our final action29. We intend to 

work with ADEQ to correct the deficiencies identified in this action in a timely manner.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. 

In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by 

reference of the ADEQ rules and the statutory provision described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA 

office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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” under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

 This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

 

29 In addition, ADEQ must also address our limited approval under section 189 of the Act related to PM10 and PM2.5

precursors for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the West Pinal PM10 

nonattainment area. However, because this issue is not a basis for our limited disapproval action, it does not trigger a 

FIP clock or the potential for sanctions.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 

because SIP approvals or disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean 

Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that 

the State is imposing. Therefore, because this action does not create any new requirements, I 

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

 Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, 

preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning 

SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves or disapproves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52 

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 in the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

 Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 

tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. 

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. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on 

tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks

 The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

53 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves or disapproves State rules 

intended to implement a Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use 

 This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because 

it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

 Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus 

standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless 

doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes application of VCS to this action would be inconsistent with the Clean 

Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

54 

The EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does 

not change the level of environmental protection for any affected populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as 

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

 Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action 

must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 

days from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action 

may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see CAA section 

307(b)(2)). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

55 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

June 29, 2015.______________ _____/signed by/_____________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

 Regional Administrator,

Region IX.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52 – [Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 52.120 is amended:

a. By revising paragraphs (c)(27)(i)(C), (c)(43)(i)(C), (c)(45)(i)(D).

b. By adding paragraph (c)(47)(i)(A)(1).

c. By revising paragraph (c)(50)(i)(C).

d. By revising and adding paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(E) and (H).

e. By revising paragraph (c)(56)(i)(C).

f. By adding paragraphs (c)(59)(i)(A)(2) and (c)(161)(i)(A)(6). 

g. By revising and adding paragraphs (c)(162), (c)(162)(i)(A)(3) and (4), and (c)(162)(ii). 

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(27) * * * 

(i) * * *

(C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(27)(i)(A) and (c)(27)(i)(B) of this section and now 

deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs and nos. listed), paragraph B of R9-3-

217, R9-3-301 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-306 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-307 (all paragraphs 

listed), R9-3-308, R9-3-310 (Paragraph C), R9-3-311 (Paragraph A), R9-3-312, R9-3-314, R9-3-
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

57 

315, R9-3-316, R9-3-317, R9-3-318, R9-3-518 (Paragraphs B and C), R9-3-319, R9-3-1101, and 

Appendix 10 (Sections A10.1.3.3, A10.1.4 and A10.2.2 to A10.3.4). 

* * * * * 

(43) * * * 

(i) * * *

(C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(43)(i)(A) and (c)(43)(i)(B) of this section and now 

deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs and nos. listed), R9-3-301 (all paragraphs 

listed), R9-3-302 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-303, R9-3-306 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-307 

(all paragraphs listed), and R9-3-518 (Paragraph A.1 to A.5). 

* * * * * 

(45) * * * 

(i) * * *

(D) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(45)(i)(A) and (c)(45)(i)(B) of this section and now 

deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs and nos. listed), R9-3-301 (all paragraphs 

listed), R9-3-306 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-311 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-509, and 

Appendix 10 (Sections A10.2 and A10.2.1). 

* * * * * 

(47) * * * 

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(1) Previously approved in paragraph (c)(47)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without 

replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs and nos. listed).

* * * * * 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

58 

(50) * * * 

(i) * * *

(C) Previously approved in paragraph (c)(50)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without 

replacement: R9-3-310 (Paragraphs A and B) and Appendix 10 (Sections A10.1-A10.1.3.2). 

* * * * * 

(54) * * * 

(i) * * *

(E) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(B) and (c)(54)(i)(C) of this section and now 

deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all nos. listed except no. 20). 

(H) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(B), (c)(54)(i)(C), and (c)(54)(i)(D) of this 

section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-301 (all paragraphs except paragraphs I and 

K), R9-3-302 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-303 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-304 (all paragraphs 

except paragraph H), R9-3-305, R9-3-306 (paragraph A only), and R9-3-1101 (all paragraphs 

listed).

* * * * * 

(56) * * * 

(i) * * *

(C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(A) and (c)(56)(i)(B) of this section and now 

deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (Nos. 135 and 157), R9-3-218, R9-3-310, R9-3-322, R9-

3-1101 and Appendix 11. 

* * * * * 

(59) * * * 

(i) * * *
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

59 

(A) * * *

 (2) Previously approved in paragraph (c)(59)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted without 

replacement: R9-3-303. 

* * * * * 

(161) * * * 

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(6) Arizona Administrative Code, title 18 (“Environmental Quality”), chapter 2 (“Department of 

Environmental Quality—Air Pollution Control”), supp. 12-2, June 30, 2012: R18-2-311 (“Test 

Methods and Procedures”); and R18-2-312 (“Performance Tests”). 

* * * * * 

(162) The following plan revision was submitted on October 29, 2012, and supplemented on 

September 6, 2013 and July 2, 2014, by the Governor's designee. 

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

 (3) Arizona Administrative Code, title 18 (“Environmental Quality”), chapter 2 (“Department 

of Environmental Quality—Air Pollution Control”), supp. 12-2, June 30, 2012: R18-2-101 

(“Definitions”), only definition nos. (2), (32), (87), (109), and (122); R18-2-217 (“Designation 

and Classification of Attainment Areas”); R18-2-218 (“Limitation of Pollutants in Classified

Attainment Areas”); R18-2-301 (“Definitions”); R18-2-302 (“Applicability; Registration; 

Classes of Permits”); R18-2-302.01 (“Source Registration Requirements”); R18-2-303 

(“Transition from Installation and Operating Permit Program to Unitary Permit Program; 

Registration Transition; Minor NSR Transition”); R18-2-304 (“Permit Application Processing 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

60 

Procedures”); R18-2-306 (“Permit Contents”); R18-2-306.01 (“Permits Containing Voluntarily 

Accepted Emission Limitations and Standards”); R18-2-306.02 (Establishment of an Emissions 

Cap”); R18-2-315 (“Posting of Permit”); R18-2-316 (“Notice by Building Permit Agencies”); 

R18-2-319 (“Minor Permit Revisions”); R18-2-320 (“Significant Permit Revisions”); R18-2-321 

(“Permit Reopenings; Revocation and Reissuance; Termination”); R18-2-323 (“Permit 

Transfers”); R18-2-330 (“Public Participation”); R18-2-332 (“Stack Height Limitation”); R18-2-

334 (“Minor New Source Review”); R18-2-401 (“Definitions”); R18-2-402 (“General”); R18-2-

403 (“Permits for Sources Located in Nonattainment Areas”); R18-2-404 (“Offset Standards”); 

R18-2-405 (“Special Rule for Major Sources of VOC or Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Classified as Serious or Severe”); R18-2-406 (“Permit Requirements for 

Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassifiable Areas”); R18-2-407 (“Air Quality Impact 

Analysis and Monitoring Requirements”), excluding subsection (H)(1)(c); R18-2-409 (“Air 

Quality Models”); and R18-2-412 (“PALs”). 

(4) West's Arizona Revised Statutes, 2012-2013 Compact Edition; title 49 (“Environment”), 

chapter 1 (“Air Quality”), section 49-107 (“Local delegation of state authority”).

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

(1) Setting Applicability Thresholds, pages 1547-1549 in Appendix A to “State Implementation 

Plan Revision: New Source Review” adopted on October 29, 2012. 

(2) Memorandum, “Proposed Final Permits to be Treated as Appealable Agency Actions,” dated 

February 10, 2015, from Eric Massey, Air Quality Division Director to Balaji Vaidyanathan, 

Permit Section Manager, submitted on February 23, 2015. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Region 9 Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld 

June 29, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

61 

(3) “State Implementation Plan Revision: New Source Review - Supplement,” relating to the 

division of jurisdiction for New Source Review in Arizona, adopted on July 2, 2014.