1

Technical Support Document

Evaluation of the Arizona Infrastructure SIP for

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

Evaluation of the Arizona Infrastructure State Implementation Plan the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2) and the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS

U.S. EPA, Region 9

April 29, 2016
Introduction.....................................................................................................1

Evaluation Summary .................................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................................... 3

Element A – Emission Limits and Other Control Measures [CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)]..................... 4

Element B – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System [CAA § 110(a)(2)(B)] .................... 9

Element C– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and Regulation of New and 

Modified Stationary Sources [CAA § 110(a)(2)(C)].................................................................... 10

Element D – Interstate Transport [CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)] ............................................................ 17

Element E – Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local 

Governments and Regional Agencies [CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)]....................................................... 22

Element F – Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting [CAA § 110(a)(2)(F)] ..................... 30

Element G – Emergency Episodes, [CAA § 110(a)(2)(G)]......................................................... 34

Element H – SIP Revisions [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H)]..................................................................... 36

Element I – Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas [CAA § 110(a)(2)(I)].............................. 37

Element J – Consultation with Government Officials; Public Notification; and PSD and 

Visibility Protection [CAA § 110(a)(2)(J)]................................................................................... 38

Element K – Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data [CAA § 110(a)(2)(K)]..41

Element L –Permitting Fees [CAA § 110(a)(2)(L)].................................................................... 44

Element M – Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities [CAA § 110(a)(2)(M)]..... 46
1

Introduction

This document summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions and local provisions to meet the 

requirements of §110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Specifically, this Technical Support Document (TSD) examines information submitted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on behalf of ADEQ, Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department (MCAQD or Maricopa County), Pima County Department of 

Environmental Quality (PDEQ or Pima County), and Pinal County Air Quality Control District

(PCAQCD or Pinal County) to EPA in 2013.

On January 18, 2013, ADEQ submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2010 NO2 NAAQS” (NO2 I-SIP Submittal) to address 

all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, which EPA commonly refers to as an 

“infrastructure” SIP (I-SIP). Additionally, on July 23, 2013, ADEQ submitted the “Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2010 SO2 

NAAQS” (SO2 I-SIP Submittal) to address the SO2 NAAQS. Both submittals became complete 

by operation of law 6 months after submittal, on July 18, 2013 and January 23, 2014 

respectively. On December 3, 2015 ADEQ submitted Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions 

for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for 

All Previous and Future NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K), which replaced portions of 

previous submittals for CAA § 110(a)(2)(D), interstate transport for 2010 NO2 and CAA § 

110(a)(2)(K), Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Data, for both the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS (hereafter referred to as the “2015 submittal”).

1 We found the 2015 submittal to 

meet completeness requirements found at 40 CFR 51 Part V.

Based on our evaluation, we propose to find that Arizona’s 2010 NO2 and SO2 infrastructure 

submittals are approvable for most I-SIP elements. Where we have found that elements are not 

approvable, proposed disapprovals, if finalized, will not trigger a deadline for EPA to promulgate 

federal implementation plans (FIP) because each deficiency is already adequately addressed by a 

pre-existing FIP.

 

1

“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for All Previous and Future NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K).” 

December 3, 2015.
2

Evaluation Summary

Element Identification 

Meets Requirement?

(clarification or cause of 

disapproval) 

Element

SubElement

Description 

ADEQ

Maricopa County

Pima

County 

Pinal 

County

A Emission limits and other control measures Yes Yes Yes Yes

B 

i Ambient air quality monitoring/data system 

(monitor, compile, analyze data) Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii Ambient air quality monitoring/data system 

(make data available to EPA) Yes Yes Yes Yes

C 

Program for enforcement of control measures 

and regulation of new stationary sources Yes

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Yes

D

i

Interstate transport - significant contribution to 

nonattainment (prongs 1-2) 

Yes (NO2)

No Action (SO2)

Interstate transport - interference with 

maintenance (prong 3) Yes

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Yes

Interstate transport - visibility transport (prong 

4) No (Regional Haze FIP)

ii 

Interstate pollution abatement (§126, including 

requirement to notify states of potential impacts 

from new sources) 

Yes

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Partial 

(PSD 

FIP)

Yes

International air pollution (§115) Yes Yes Yes Yes

E 

i Necessary assurances of adequate resources 

(personnel, funding, authority) Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii Conflict of interest provisions (per § 128) Yes Yes Yes Yes

iii 

Necessary assurances of adequate 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies 

Yes n/a n/a n/a
3

F 

i Stationary source monitoring system 

(installation, maintenance, replacement) Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii Stationary source monitoring system (periodic 

reports) Yes Yes Yes Yes

iii 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(correlation of reports with emissions 

limitations or standards) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes

G Emergency episodes Yes Yes Yes Yes

H 

i SIP revisions (plan revisions for NAAQS or 

improved methods of attaining) Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii SIP revisions (remedy inadequacies identified by 

EPA) Yes Yes Yes Yes

I Plan revisions for nonattainment areas n/a n/a n/a n/a

J 

§ 121 Consultation with government officials Yes Yes Yes Yes

§ 127 Public notification of exceedances Yes Yes Yes Yes

PSD/ 

visibil

ity 

PSD and visibility protection Yes PSD 

FIP

PSD 

FIP Yes

K 

i Air quality modeling Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii Submission of modeling data Yes Yes Yes Yes

L 

i Permitting fees (reviewing and acting on 

application) Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii Permitting fees (implementing and enforcing 

permit) Yes Yes Yes Yes

M 

Consultation with/ participation by affected local 

political subdivisions Yes Yes Yes Yes

Background

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires states to submit a plan that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. CAA § 

110(a)(2) specifies the contents of the required plan, which generally relate to the information 

and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that 

constitute the infrastructure of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submittal 

addressing these requirements is commonly described as an “infrastructure” SIP (I-SIP).
4

EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 1-hour NO2 on February 9, 2010, and 1-hour SO2 on June 22, 

2010.2 These actions correspondingly triggered requirements for states to submit an I-SIP 

revision addressing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of 

promulgation of each NAAQS.

We have compared the infrastructure SIP submittals identified in the Summary section of this 

document to the requirements or elements of CAA § 110(a)(2) for each NAAQS.3In the 

following pages, we describe the requirements, summarize the State’s submittal, and present our 

conclusions for the infrastructure SIP elements.

Element A – Emission Limits and Other Control Measures [CAA § 

110(a)(2)(A)]

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires I-SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as 

may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.”

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

The 2013 NO2 I-SIP submittal states that: “. . . the demonstration of compliance with CAA 

110(a)(2)(A) includes the necessary authority for the State and local air quality management 

programs to adopt and implement control measures and plans to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NO2 air quality standards in all of Arizona.”

In support of this element, the state of Arizona pointed to the following SIP approved statutes for 

ADEQ programs: ARS §§ 49-106, “Statewide application of rules”; 49-107 “Local delegation of 

state authority”; 49-402 “State and county control”; 49-404 “State implementation plan”; 49-406 

“Nonattainment area plan”; 49-421. For County Programs they list “Definitions”; 49-424 “Duties 

of department”; 49-425 “Rules; hearing”; 49-471 “Definitions”; 49-473 “Board of Supervisors”; 

and 49-479 “Rules; hearing.” 

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS

The 2013 SO2 I-SIP submittal states that: “. . . the demonstration of compliance with CAA 

110(a)(2)(A) includes the necessary authority for the State and local air quality management 

programs to adopt and implement control measures and plans to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 air quality standards in all of Arizona.”

In support of this element, the state of Arizona pointed to the following SIP approved statutes for 

ADEQ programs: ARS §§ 49-106, “Statewide application of rules”; 49-107 “Local delegation of 

state authority”; 49-402 “State and county control”; 49-404 “State implementation plan”; 49-406 

“Nonattainment area plan”; 49-421. For County Programs they list “Definitions”; 49-424 “Duties 

 

2 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010) respectively.

3 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions 

because they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs under part D (nonattainment NSR); and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. This TSD does not 

address these requirements.
5

of department”; 49-425 “Rules; hearing”; 49-471 “Definitions”; 49-473 “Board of Supervisors”; 

and 49-479 “Rules; hearing.” 

EPA Evaluation

ADEQ’s I-SIP submittal contains relevant state statutes providing a range of authorities for the 

adoption and implementation of state and local programs necessary to address section 

110(a)(2)(A) for both NO2 and SO2. The authorities include: statewide application of rules; 

delegation of authorities to county and regional planning authorities; jurisdiction over source 

categories; maintaining a state implementation plan; adoption of rules, emission standards, and 

performance standards; adoption of permits containing enforceable emission limitations, 

standards, and compliance schedules. These statutes demonstrate the State’s overall program 

authorities to adopt emission limits and standards for regulated pollutants. 

Beyond the Arizona statues that ADEQ specifically cites in their NO2 and SO2 infrastructure 

SIPs, there are additional ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County provisions 

in the SIP supporting 110(a)(2)(A) by establishing emission limits, control measures, means, or 

techniques for NO2 and SO2. These provisions confirm that Arizona has enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures in the SIP for numerous stationary and fugitive emission 

sources. Arizona also has fuel standards that limit the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from 

mobile sources.

Arizona Rules in the SIP Supporting 110(a)(2)(A) – 2010 NO2 NAAQS

ADEQ Rules

The following Title 18 rules apply statewide except where a county has adopted a rule at least as 

stringent as the relevant state rule:

Article 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Area Designations; Classifications

R18-2-202 Nitrogen Oxides (Nitrogen Dioxide)

Article 3. Permits and Permit Revisions

R18-2-302.01 Source Registration Requirements

Article 4. Permit Requirements for New Major Sources and Major Modifications to 

Existing Major Sources

R18-2-401 Definitions

R18-2-402 General

R18-2-404 Offset Standards

R18-2-406 Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassifiable 

Areas

R18-2-407 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements

Article 7. Existing Stationary Source Performance Standards

R18-2-701 Definitions

R18-2-702 General Provisions 

R18-2-703 Standards of Performance for Existing Fossil-fuel Fired Steam Generators and 

General Fuel-burning Equipment
6

R18-2-704 Standards of Performance for Existing Portland Cement Plants

R18-2-706 Standards of Performance for Existing Nitric Acid Plants

R18-2-724 Standards of Performance for Fossil-fuel Fired Industrial and Commercial Equipment

R18-2-730 Standards of Performance for Unclassified Sources

R18-2-732 Standards of Performance for Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators

Article 9. New Source Performance Standards

R18-2-901 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

R18-2-903 Standards of Performance for Fossil-fuel Fired Steam Generators

R18-2-904 Standards of Performance for Incinerators

Article 10. Motor Vehicles; Inspections and Maintenance

The following Article 10 rule only applies in Maricopa and Pima counties:

R18-2-1001 thru R18-2-1031

Maricopa County Rules

Rule 322 Power Plant Operations

Rule 323 Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources

Rule 324 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Rule 510 Air Quality Standards

Pima County Rules

Chapter III

Regulation 31 Rule 313 Incinerators Rule

Regulation 31 Rule 314 Petroleum Liquids

Regulation 34 Rule 343 Visibility Limiting Standards

Regulation II Fuel Burning Equipment Rule 7B NOx Emissions

Chapter IV

Regulation 40 General Applicability

Regulation 42 Existing Sources in Compliance

Regulation VII Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

Pinal County Rules

Chapter 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards

2-1-060 Nitrogen Dioxide Air Quality Standard

Chapter 3. Permits and Permit Revisions

3-1-082 Emissions Standards and Limitations

3-3-260 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements

Chapter 5. Stationary Source Performance Standards

5-2-950 Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Standard Applicability

7-3-1.4(C) Incineration

7-3-1.4(F) Fuel Burning Equipment
7

7-3-5.1 NO2 Emissions – Fuel Burning Equipment

7-3-5.2 NO2 Emissions – Nitric Acid Plants

Arizona Rules in the SIP Supporting 110(a)(2)(A) – 2010 SO2 NAAQS

ADEQ Rules

The following Title 18 rules apply statewide except where a county has adopted a rule at least as 

stringent as the relevant state rule:

Article 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Area Designations; Classifications

R18-2-202 Sulfur Oxide (Sulfur Dioxide)

Article 3. Permits and Permit Revisions

R18-2-313 Existing Source Emission Monitoring

Article 4. Permit Requirements for New Major Sources and Major Modifications to 

Existing Major Sources

R18-2-401 Definitions

R18-2-402 General

R18-2-404 Offset Standards

R18-2-406 Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and Unclassifiable

Areas

R18-2-407 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements

Article 7. Existing Stationary Source Performance Standards

R18-2-701 Definitions

R18-2-702 General Provisions 

R18-2-703 Standards of Performance for Existing Fossil-fuel Fired Steam Generators and 

General Fuel-burning Equipment

R18-2-704 Standards of Performance for Existing Portland Cement Plants

R18-2-705 Standards of Performance for Existing Incinerators

R18-2-707 Standards of Performance for Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants

R18-2-715 Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Site Specific 

Requirements

R18-2-715.01 Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Compliance and 

Monitoring

R18-2-715.02 Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper Smelters; Fugitive 

Emissions 

R18-2-724 Standards of Performance for Fossil-fuel Fired Industrial and Commercial 

Equipment

R18-2-730 Standards of Performance for Unclassified Sources

R18-2-732 Standards of Performance for Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators

Article 9. New Source Performance Standards

R18-2-901 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

R18-2-903 Standards of Performance for Fossil-fuel Fired Steam Generators
8

R18-2-904 Standards of Performance for Incinerators

Maricopa County Rules

Rule 322 Power Plant Operations

Rule 323 Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources

Rule 324 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Rule 510 Air Quality Standards

Pima County Rules

Chapter III

Regulation 31 Rule 313 Incinerators Rule

Regulation 31 Rule 314 Petroleum Liquids

Regulation 34 Rule 343 Visibility Limiting Standards

Regulation II Emissions Prohibited Emissions of Certain Sulfur Compounds

Regulation II Fuel Burning Equipment Rule 7A SOx Emissions

Chapter IV

Regulation 40 General Applicability

Regulation 42 Existing Sources in Compliance

Regulation VII Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

Pinal County Rules

Chapter 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards

2-1-030 Sulfur Oxide Air Quality Standard

Chapter 3. Permits and Permit Revisions

3-1-082 Emissions Standards and Limitations

3-3-260 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements

Chapter 5. Stationary Source Performance Standards

5-2-950 Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Standard Applicability

5-22-960 Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitation

5-24-1045 Sulfite Pulp Mills – Sulfur Compound Emissions

7-3-1.4(C) Incineration

7-3-1.4(F) Fuel Burning Equipment

7-3-2.4 SO2 Emissions – Sulfuric Acid Plants

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(A)

Based on our review of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP Submittals, the applicable Arizona SIP, and 

for the reasons given above, we propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 standards.
9

Element B – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System [CAA § 

110(a)(2)(B)]

CAA § 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate 

devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to—(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data 

on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.” 

ADEQ’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

Arizona maintains an extensive monitoring network operated by ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima 

County, and Pinal County. It is designed to collect, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data 

in attainment and nonattainment areas throughout the state. Operating agencies track data 

recovery, quality control and quality assurance parameters for all instruments operated at various

network sites. Criteria pollutant concentrations, such as NO2 are measured with instruments 

meeting EPA certification as Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods. All data collected by 

NO2 monitors are compared to the NAAQS, statistically analyzed for trends, and recorded 

quarterly in EPA’s Air Quality System.

On February 9, 2010, EPA established “requirements for an NO2 monitoring network that will 

include monitors at locations where maximum NO2 concentrations are expected to occur, 

including within 50 meters of major roadways, as well as monitors sited to measure the areawide NO2 concentrations that occur more broadly across communities.” 75 FR 6474. Arizona is 

working, in consultation with EPA, to install the necessary monitoring systems. 

ADEQ’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS

Arizona maintains an extensive monitoring network operated by ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima 

County, and Pinal County. It is designed to collect, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data 

in attainment and nonattainment areas throughout the state. Operating agencies track data 

recovery, quality control and quality assurance parameters for all instruments operated at various

network sites. Criteria pollutant concentrations, such as SO2 are measured with instruments 

meeting EPA certification as Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods. All data collected by 

SO2 monitors are compared to the NAAQS, statistically analyzed for trends, and recorded 

quarterly in EPA’s Air Quality System.

On June 22, 2010 EPA established minimum requirements for SO2 monitoring networks (75 FR 

35519). In addition to the information included under Element B in the 2013 SO2 I-SIP 

submittal, Arizona believes that the information contained in their SO2 boundary 

recommendations, included as an attachment to the I-SIP, demonstrate that the state’s network 

meets or exceeds the requirements.

EPA Evaluation

Authority and Responsibility

For both the NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs, Arizona refers to statutes and regulations that allow ADEQ and 

County agencies to perform actions required in Element B. For ADEQ, these are: §49-404 State 

Implementation Plan, §49-406 Nonattainment Area Plan section (F)(11), §49-422 Powers and 

Duties sections (A)-(C) and (E)-(F), §49-424 Duties of Department. For County programs it is 

§49-476.01 Monitoring.
10

Air Monitoring Network Plans

Arizona and its counties maintain an extensive monitoring network for both 2010 NO2 and SO2, 

which records collected data in EPA’s Air Quality System. Additionally, the state and relevant 

counties annually submit air monitoring network plans to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 58. In 

2013 and 2014, EPA approved the most recent annual ambient air monitoring network plans for 

each of the agencies, including the following: ADEQ State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network 

Plan for the Year 20144, Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) 2013 Air Quality 

Network Plan5, Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 2014 Ambient Monitoring 

Network Plan and 2013 Data Summary6, and Pima County Department of Environmental 

Quality (PDEQ) 2013 Ambient Air Quality Network Plan7. There are some limited exceptions 

explained in our approval letters to ADEQ, MCAQD, PCAQCD and PDEQ where EPA took no 

action. These exceptions, however, do not alter our conclusion that the agencies operate an 

appropriate monitoring network to monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data for 

NO2 and SO2.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(B)

ADEQ and Arizona county air pollution control agencies establish and operate applicable 

monitoring networks required under the Clean Air Act for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; 

submit monitoring plans and data to EPA; obtain EPA approval for modifications to the 

monitoring network; and operate under statutes and regulations that authorize and require 

continuation of these practices. For these reasons, we propose to find that Arizona’s air 

monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the entire state

Element C– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and Regulation of 

New and Modified Stationary Sources [CAA § 110(a)(2)(C)] 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for enforcement of the 

measures set forth in Section 110(a)(2)(A), and regulation of the modification and construction 

of stationary sources, within the areas covered by the plan, as necessary to assure that NAAQS 

are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of CAA title I.

EPA evaluated the State’s general enforcement authorities to determine if they provided an 

adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide of the States’ control measures.

EPA also evaluated where the State had a program to provide for regulation of the modification 

and construction of stationary sources. EPA evaluated only the State’s minor NSR programs and 

certain “structural” elements of the State’s PSD programs under part C of CAA title I to 

 

4 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

Eric Massey, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, October 30, 2014.

5 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

William Wiley, Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, March 31, 2015. 

6 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

Michael Sundbloom, Director, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, October 29, 2014.

7 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Air Quality Analysis Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

Ursula Kramer, Director, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, October 29, 2014.
11

determine whether these programs are adequate for infrastructure SIP purposes. EPA evaluated 

the Arizona SIP with respect to the following specific elements of the PSD program:

1. Provisions identifying NOx as an ozone precursor consistent with the requirements of 

EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 70 FR 71612 

(codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i));

2. Provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions 

(sulfur dioxide (SO2) in all areas, and NOx and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent with 

the requirements of EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

73 FR 28321 (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i));

3. Provisions to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) consistent with EPA’s regulations 

and a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, as discussed below.

Regarding GHGs, EPA established that beginning on January 2, 2011, new or modified sources 

of GHG emissions at or above certain thresholds are required to seek PSD permits. Four of these 

actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or 

Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action,8the “Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,”9the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,”10 and the “Tailoring Rule.”11 Taken together 

and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs 

emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such 

regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources 

on a phased-in basis.

However, on June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application 

of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.12 The Supreme Court said that EPA may not 

treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source 

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

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

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

(BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court’s decision, EPA is not 

currently applying EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements 

that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not requiring that a state’s 

 

8 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

9

Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs. 75 FR 

17004 (April 2, 2010).

10 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final 

Rule. 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).

11 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR 31514 

(June 3, 2010).

12 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427.
12

SIP-approved PSD program require sources to obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

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

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

from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that an infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS contain SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to implement these standards. As explained above, however, EPA 

is not evaluating part D nonattainment area requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR 

program) in this proposed action because these SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA 

section 172(b). Additionally, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with 

regard to the NSR Reform requirements. Past and future action on SIP submittals made for 

purposes of adopting NSR Reform go through a separate rulemaking process.

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Arizona State and local agencies implement control and enforcement programs for permitted 

sources of air contaminants and for sources that are not regulated through permit programs (such 

as open uncontrolled burns, construction, and vacant land). Each agency that commits to 

implement an emission limitation or other control measure contained in the SIP is required to 

specify, in a resolution adopted by the governing body of the agency, its authority for 

implementing the measure and a program for enforcement of the limitation or measure. 

ADEQ and local agencies are authorized to implement preconstruction review and permitting 

programs under ARS title 49, chapter 3, articles 1, 2, and 3. ADEQ and county regulations 

implementing these permit program requirements are contained in AAC title 18, Chapter 2, 

Articles 2 and 4 or relevant county rules. 

Authority to enforce permit programs and SIPs is contained in ARS 49-460 through 463 and 49-

510 through 513, under which the State or county may issue orders of abatement, and, through 

the Attorney General or County Attorney, seek injunctive relief for any violations of the air 

quality programs. 

In ADEQ’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP submittals Arizona outlined their commitment to adopt and 

submit a SIP revision to update Arizona’s New Source Review/Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration program to fully meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for both 

NAAQS.

On October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Review State Implementation Plan 

Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Supplemental Information to 2012 New Source 

Review State Implementation Plan Submission” (“Arizona NSR Submittals”) to address and 

update the state’s NSR program. Accordingly, our review of element C is based in part on EPA’s 

final rule for the Arizona NSR Submittals “Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; 

New Source Review” 80 FR 67319, November 2, 2015 (“Arizona NSR Final Rule”). In the 

Arizona NSR Final Rule, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s 
13

NSR Submittals, which addressed ADEQ’s minor NSR program and PSD program, as well as 

ADEQ’s major nonattainment NSR program.13

EPA Evaluation

1. Program for enforcement of control measures

Several Arizona statutes in title 49 establish ADEQ’s and the three counties’ authorities to 

provide for enforcement of air pollution control measures. For example, ARS 49-402 (“State 

and county control”) contains general provisions regarding the respective jurisdictions of ADEQ 

and the counties to issue and enforce permits, among other authorities. ARS 49-404(A) (“State 

implementation plan”) requires the director of ADEQ to maintain a SIP that “provides for 

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and 

protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area 

plan”) establishes a process for the designation of responsibilities among State, regional, and 

local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance 

areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires each agency that commits to implement a SIP 

provision to describe its commitment in a resolution, which must specify, among other things, 

the agency’s legal authority for implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the 

enforcement of the limitation or measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 49-

404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353, 36358. ARS 49-479 

authorizes the board of supervisors for each county to adopt rules as it determines are necessary 

to control air pollution, which rules shall contain standards at “least equal to or more restrictive 

than those adopted by the director.” EPA approved this provision into the Arizona SIP on 

November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398.

In addition, ARS 49-422(A) (“Powers and Duties”) authorizes ADEQ to require sources of air 

contaminants to “monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air 

contaminants or levels of air pollution that may reasonably be attributable to that source” for 

purposes of determining whether the source is in violation of a control requirement or permit 

condition, among other things. ARS 49-476.01 contains similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, 

and Pinal counties. These provisions were approved into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 

77 FR 66398. 14

Finally, ARS 49-460 through 49-463 broadly authorize ADEQ to request compliance-related 

information from sources, to issue orders of abatement upon reasonable cause to believe a source 

 

13 Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review. 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015).

14 We note that both ARS 49-422 and ARS 49-476.01 contain, in subsection C, certain restrictions on State/county 

authorities to require emissions-related data which are not permissible under the CAA. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.212(c) 

("the plan must not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant 

to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements. . . "). The restrictions in these

provisions, however, apply only with respect to "those sources of air contaminants for which rules are not required 

to be adopted pursuant to subsection B" -- that is, sources for which rules are not required under ARS 49-424 or 49-

425, subsection A, to protect the public health and to control air pollution within the State. We interpret this limiting 

language to mean that the restrictions on ADEQ's and the counties’ authorities in subsection C of ARS 49-422 and 

ARS 49-476.01 apply only with respect to stationary sources that are not subject to any requirement in the 

applicable SIP (but that the State/counties choose to regulate for other purposes). For all sources subject to SIP

requirements, ADEQ's and the counties’ authorities to require monitoring, sampling, or other quantification of 

emissions may not be limited by the criteria established in subsection C of ARS 49-422 and ARS 49-476.01.
14

has violated or is violating an air pollution control requirement, to establish injunctive relief, to 

establish civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation, and to conduct criminal 

enforcement, as appropriate through the Attorney General. ARS 49-510 through 49-513 contain 

similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties. EPA approved these provisions into 

the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398. We note that these State and local 

enforcement authorities in the Arizona SIP have no effect on EPA’s independent authorities 

under sections 113 and 114 of the Act.

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program

i. Regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

The entire State of Arizona is subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for purposes 

of regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources of GHGs. Thus, although 

the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements for GHG emission sources, 

this deficiency is adequately addressed by the incorporation of the Federal PSD program 

regulations into the SIP for this purpose. 40 CFR 52.144 and 52.37.

ii. Regulation of ozone precursors

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD 

deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorporation of the Federal PSD program 

regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144.

As discussed above, on November 2, 2015, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD Program as part of its proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR 

Submittals.15 ADEQ’s submitted PSD program covers all regulated NSR pollutants except 

GHGs, as noted above. 80 FR 67319. ADEQ’s PSD program also identifies NOx as an ozone 

precursor. Thus, the limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD program in the 

Arizona NSR Proposed Rule corrects a previous deficiency concerning regulation of ozone 

precursors that was identified by EPA in our 2012 infrastructure SIP action. 77 FR 66398. Our 

action approved Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP for areas under ADEQ jurisdiction with respect to 

regulation of ozone precursors on this basis. 

As part of its Arizona NSR Submittals, ADEQ clarified that they also have jurisdiction over 

Pinal County’s PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs.16 ADEQ has 

delegated implementation of the major source program to the Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District. 80 FR 14044, 14045. Accordingly, we are also proposing to approve Arizona’s 

Infrastructure SIP as to Pinal County with respect to regulation of ozone precursors, due to our 

limited approval and limited disapproval. 

In our Arizona NSR Final Rule, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of 

ADEQ’s NSR Submittals, including the PSD portion of those submittals, based on a number of 

specific deficiencies EPA identified with the programs as compared with specific statutory and 

regulatory requirements for NSR SIP submittals. The approval of ADEQ’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-

 

15 Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review. 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015).
15

SIPs with respect to regulation of ozone precursors under ADEQ’s PSD program evaluates basic 

structural components of the Arizona SIP, and is not intended to, nor should it be construed to,

evaluate or address whether ADEQ’s PSD program meets specific statutory and regulatory 

requirements for SIP-approved NSR programs or to modify in any respect EPA’s determinations 

or action in the Arizona NSR Final Rule.

iii. Regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD 

deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorporation of the Federal PSD program 

regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144.

As discussed above, on November 2, 2015, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD Program as part of its proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR 

Submittals. ADEQ’s submitted PSD program covers all regulated NSR pollutants17 except 

GHGs. 80 FR67319 (November 2, 2015) ADEQ’s submitted PSD program identifies PM2.5 and 

its precursors (NOx and SO2) as regulated NSR pollutants. We are proposing to approve 

Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs for areas under ADEQ jurisdiction with respect to 

regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors on this basis. As part of its 

Arizona NSR Submittals, ADEQ clarified that they also have jurisdiction over Pinal County’s 

PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs. ADEQ has delegated 

implementation of the major source program to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District. 80 

CFR 14044, 14045.

18 Accordingly, we are also proposing to approve Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and 

SO2 I-SIPs as to Pinal County with respect to regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) 

and its precursors.

We reiterate that in our Arizona NSR Final Rule, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR Submittals, including the PSD portion of those submittals, based 

on a number of specific deficiencies EPA identified with the programs as compared with specific 

statutory and regulatory requirements for NSR SIP submittals. This proposed approval of 

Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs with respect to the regulation of PM2.5 (including 

condensable PM) and its precursors under ADEQ’s PSD program evaluates basic structural 

components of the Arizona SIP, and is not intended to, nor should it be construed to, evaluate or 

address whether ADEQ’s PSD program meets specific statutory and regulatory requirements for 

SIP-approved NSR programs or to modify in any respect EPA’s determinations or action in the 

Arizona NSR Proposed Rule. 

3. Minor New Source Review 

As discussed above, on November 2, 2015, EPA finalized a limited approval/limited disapproval 

of ADEQ’s minor NSR program as part of its proposed action on ADEQ’s NSR Submittals.

Based on EPA’s limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s minor NSR program, EPA 

proposes to find that ADEQ’s submitted minor NSR program is adequate to address the minor 

NSR component of an infrastructure SIP. We note that the substantive portion of ADEQ’s minor 

NSR program rules are primarily contained in R18-2-302.01 “Source Registration 

 

17 We note that ADEQ’s submitted PSD program also covers PM10 as a regulated NSR pollutant.

18 This action was finalized on November 2, 2015 (80 CFR 67319).
16

Requirements” and R18-2-334 “Minor New Source Review.” These and other and other 

administrative rules included in the minor NSR portion of the SIP submittal satisfy most of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR programs and substantially strengthen the 

SIP overall. 80 FR 67319.

Pima County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in Pima County rules 171, 202, 

231, and 341. See 47 FR 16328 (April 16, 1982) and 53 FR 30220 (August 10, 1988). Maricopa 

County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in Maricopa County Regulation 2, rules 

20 and 220, and in Regulation 1, Rule 3. See 37 FR 15081 (July 27, 1972), 57 FR 354 (January 

6, 1992), and 47 FR 15579 (April 12, 1982). Finally, Pinal County’s SIP-approved minor NSR 

rules are contained in Pinal County rules 3-1-040, 1-3-140, 3-1-060.2.d, and 3-1-070.A.1. See 

65 FR 79742 (December 20, 2000) and 67 FR 68764 (November 13, 2002). The State and EPA 

have relied on these approved minor NSR program to assure that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs with respect to 

the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) that Arizona’s SIP include a program that 

regulates the modification and construction of stationary sources.

We note that for purposes of this I-SIP action, EPA is not closely reviewing, or proposing to 

approve or disapprove, the State and county minor NSR programs based on an analysis of 

whether they fully satisfy EPA’s regulations governing SIP-approved minor NSR programs. In 

addition, the counties may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to current EPA 

regulations for this program. We note that because the three county (Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa) 

minor NSR programs were approved into the Arizona SIP many years ago, they contain outdated 

provisions and appear to have been superseded by new or revised regulations in some respects. 

We strongly encourage all three county permitting agencies to submit current permitting 

regulations to replace these outdated minor NSR SIP provisions as soon as possible.

With respect to ADEQ, EPA has identified a number of specific deficiencies with respect to 

ADEQ’s minor NSR program as compared with Clean Air Act requirements for SIP-approved 

minor NSR programs, which are described in EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval action 

on ADEQ’s NSR SIP Submittals, where EPA generally finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of ADEQ’s minor NSR SIP submittal on this basis. This proposed approval of 

Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs with respect to the minor NSR program addresses whether 

ADEQ has a basic program in the SIP to regulate the construction and modification of stationary 

sources, and is not intended to, nor should it be construed to, evaluate or address whether 

ADEQ’s PSD program meets specific statutory and regulatory requirements for SIP-approved 

NSR programs or to modify in any respect EPA’s determinations or action in the Arizona NSR 

Final Rule.

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(C)

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA is proposing to find that the 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP

submittals for the 2010 SO2 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP 
17

enforcement statewide, based on our conclusions about the State’s general enforcement 

authorities. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for 

regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources, including a PSD program 

under part C of title I, EPA is proposing to find that: (1) the SIP-approved PSD programs lack 

the “structural” PSD program elements identified above for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, and (2) that Maricopa and Pima counties do not have SIP-approved PSD programs

necessary for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We note that although the SIP remains 

deficient with respect to PSD requirements for ADEQ, Pinal, Maricopa, and Pima counties, no 

further action is necessary for these purposes because the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 

addresses the deficiencies in all four areas.

Element D – Interstate Transport [CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)]

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires that each SIP “contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect 

to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or (II) interfere with 

measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under 

part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, and 

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution abatement).”

Section 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new 

or modified sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(i). 

Section 115 of the Act similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Arizona’s 2015 submittal replaced Element D as originally submitted on January 18, 2013 to 

address NO2 transport. This submittal asserts a negative declaration of significant contribution of 

interstate transport to surrounding nonattainment or maintenance areas. It draws on data from 

EPA’s 2013 NO2 design value report that shows 1-hour and annual values below the NAAQS 

and no violations of the standards since 2011. They also state that 2013 NO2 levels were below 

the standard for surrounding states and that it is reasonable to conclude that if there are no 

violating monitors in Arizona, or surrounding states, that there are no significant transport 

impacts from Arizona to those states.

The 2015 submittal also provides details about Arizona’s NO2 monitoring network, including 

near-roadway, Photochemical Assessment Monitoring State (PAMS), and special purpose 

monitoring sites. Arizona has taken steps to comply with the new near-roadway monitoring 

network deadlines set at 78 Fed. Reg. 16184 (March 14, 2013), by activating monitors in 

Maricopa County. 

NOx source control measures, including federal, statewide, and Maricopa County specific rules 
18

are summarized in Appendix B, “2011 NOx Emissions and Non-Exhaustive List of Source 

Controls,” of the submittal. This appendix shows that the largest sources of NOx are subject to 

control measures throughout the state. This is significant because the majority of NO2 emissions 

are not directly emitted, but formed in the atmosphere by NOx emissions.

ADEQ’s SIP approved PSD program requires any major source that could impact an attainment 

or unclassifiable area and cause it to exceed the NAAQS, be subject to specific permitting and 

control requirements. ADEQ’s PSD program applies to state areas where ADEQ has jurisdiction, 

including Pinal County. Maricopa and Pima Counties are not subject to ADEQ’s jurisdiction and 

do not have SIP-approved PSD programs, but instead implement the Federal PSD program 

through a FIP. As explained in Element C, EPA recently approved a partial approval and partial 

disapproval for ADEQ’s NSR SIP. ADEQ continues to work with EPA to strengthen their NSR 

program. ADEQ plans changes in 2016 that will bring ADEQ and Pinal County into compliance 

for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as well as 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but acknowledges that the 

NSR/PSD program continues to be deficient in this area. They also summarize the efforts of 

MCAQD and PDEQ to revise their PSD programs to be approvable as part of the Arizona state 

SIP.

For addressing visibility impairment in Class 1 areas caused by NOx, SOx, and PM emissions, 

Arizona highlights their Regional Haze SIP which is a combination of requirements found in the 

state SIP, Federal Implementation Plans, and planned SIP revisions that encompass the Arizona 

strategy for achieving its 2018 Reasonable Further Progress Goals under EPA’s 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule. Arizona has several NOx emitting sources subject to BART that are detailed in 

Appendix A, “Regional Haze Plan Controls and Cost Effectiveness.” 

Arizona states that the requirements of CAA 115 do not apply to Arizona because there are no 

pending claims that emissions from the state are endangering the public health or welfare of 

another country. 

For compliance with 126(a), notification to nearby states of major proposed new or modified 

sources, Arizona cites the SIP approved rules at R18-2-402 “General,” which requires ADEQ to 

send public notices of new or modified sources to the EPA Administrator and “the officials and 

agencies having cognizance over the location where the proposed major source or major 

alteration would occur.”19 ADEQ also cites the recent July 14, 2015 action for Arizona’s Ozone 

and Pb infrastructure SIPs where EPA found that areas under ADEQ’s jurisdiction, including 

Pinal County, meet the requirements of 126(a).20 Maricopa and Pima Counties do not have SIPapproved PSD programs and are covered by a PSD FIP.

Arizona also states that CAA sections 126(b) and 126(c), which pertain to claims or petitions 

from nearby affected states regarding transport of emissions, do not apply because there are no 

petitions from other states against Arizona.

EPA Evaluation

 

19 See R18-2-402, Subsection I.

20 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure 

Requirements for Lead and Ozone. 80 FR 40905 (July 14, 2015).
19

1. CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prohibiting Significant Contribution to Nonattainment or Interfering 

with Maintenance (a.k.a. significant contribution to nonattainment or prongs 1 and 2)

First, we clarify that EPA is taking no action at this time on the effects of SO2 transport for 

significant contribution to maintenance or nonattainment. The discussion that follows addresses 

only NO2 transport. EPA will take a separate action on prongs 1 and 2 for SO2 transport at a later 

date.

Based on the most recent design value report for NO2

21 all network monitors throughout the state 

show annual and 1-hour levels below the 2010 standard. Historically, some monitor sites have 

exceeded the NAAQS, but there have been no exceedances since 2011. 

No area has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (100 ppb 1-hour average), 

but this standard is intended to show local effects from roadway sources of NO2, which typically 

decrease to ambient concentrations within a few hundred meters downwind of roadways.22

Arizona is in the process of establishing a near-roadway monitoring network as required by EPA. 

If any violations are found of the 1-hour standard through the near-roadway network, Arizona 

has a mobile source control program and can address the need for any additional mobile source 

controls through the SIP process.

2. CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Interference with Measures Preventing Significant Deterioration 

(a.k.a. interference with maintenance or prong 3)

EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance clarified that one method to meet the requirements of CAA

§110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) “is through an air agency’s confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission 

that new major sources and major modifications are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved 

PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and satisfies the 

requirements of the EPA’s PSD implementation rules(s), as discussed above for purposes of 

Element C.”23 Therefore, EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for purposes of the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS is contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), above.

2. CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Interfering with Measures to Protect Interstate Visibility (a.k.a. 

prong 4)

EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance clarifies that a state can rely upon a fully EPA-approved Regional 

Haze SIP to satisfy the requirements of this sub-element.24 Arizona’s Regional Haze SIP is not 

fully approved by EPA. Instead it relies on regulations imposed by a FIP to address visibility 

impairment in Class 1 Areas caused by NOx, SOx, and PM. These regulations include control 

technologies or emission limits on the following facilities: Arizona Public Service Cholla, 25 Salt 

 

21 EPA 2013 Design Values Reports. Air Trends, available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

22 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide; Final Rule. 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 

2010).

23 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2), September 2013 (2013 I-SIP guidance) (see page 31).

24 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2), September 2013 (see pages 32 - 35).

25 FIP promulgated at 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
20

River Project Coronado Generating Station,26 Freeport McMoran Miami Smelter,27 ASARCO 

Hayden Smelter,28 Sundt Station Unit 4,29 and Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and 2.30 Emissions 

limits and control technology requirements have been implemented through the state SIP, or 

initially through a FIP, but then incorporated into the SIP, at AEPCO Apache Station Units 1, 2, 

and 3.31

Because Arizona relies on a FIP to control sources under the Regional Haze Rule, they do not 

meet the requirements of this portion of Element D for NO2 and SO2. However, because a FIP is 

already in place, no additional FIP obligation is triggered by our proposed disapproval of this 

portion of Arizona’s infrastructure SIP, if finalized. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to 

incorporate FIP emission limits and control technologies into the state SIP.

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate pollution abatement (CAA §126)

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the 

requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

do not apply to our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to Arizona. We 

thus evaluate the 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs for purposes of compliance with only section 126(a).

EPA is proposing to find that Arizona should be partially approved and partially disapproved for 

purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, 

nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

Specifically, ADEQ’s SIP-approved PSD rules at section R18-2-402 require the permitting 

agency to send a copy of the required public notice to the Administrator and to “the officials and 

agencies having cognizance over the location where the proposed major source or major 

alteration would occur.” R18-2-402, section I. EPA approved R18-2-402 “General” into the 

Arizona SIP as part of its November 2, 2015 action on Arizona’s NSR Submittals.32 These 

requirements for notice to nearby states are consistent with EPA’s requirements for PSD 

programs in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). As noted in the PSD portion of our analysis on the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(C), ADEQ has recently clarified that it has authority over Pinal 

County’s PSD program and we therefore propose to find that both ADEQ and Pinal County meet 

the requirements of 126(a) to provide notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed 

new or modified sources.

 

26 Id.

27 FIP promulgated at 79 FR 5240 (September 3, 2014).

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 SIP approval promulgated for Unit 1 and FIP promulgated for Units 2 and 3 at 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). 

SIP revision for emissions limits for Unit 1 and SIP approval for Units 2 and 3 promulgated at 80 FR 19220 (April 

10, 2015).

32Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review. 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015).
21

Maricopa County and Pima County do not have SIP-approved PSD programs. Thus, the Arizona 

SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of the Act and with 

respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, nearby states 

of major proposed new or modified sources in these two areas. These deficiencies are, however, 

adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in both areas by the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further action is required. 

For these reasons, we propose to find that the 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs only partially meet the

requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement. Because these 

deficiencies are addressed by the Federal PSD program, this partial disapproval, if finalized, does 

not set up any new FIP obligations.

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Air Pollution (CAA § 115) 

CAA section 115 authorizes the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP, in the case of a 

belief or allegation that any air pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air 

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign 

country. Because there are no such pending actions pursuant to CAA section 115, EPA has no 

reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. EPA 

thus concludes that the existing SIP is sufficient to satisfy the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(D)

With respect to the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), we are 

proposing to find that Arizona meets the requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the reasons 

stated above. We are not making any determination today on the first two prongs for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to find that Arizona does not 

meet the requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS for the reasons discussed above 

regarding PSD requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA 

is proposing to find that Arizona does not meet the requirements for the 2010 NO2 and the SO2

NAAQS. These findings do not set up any new FIP obligations.

Finally, with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to 

find that Arizona’s I-SIP submittals for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS meet the requirement, 

with respect to ADEQ and Pinal County. Both jurisdictions implement SIP-approved PSD 

programs that contain the required notice provisions. EPA is proposing to find that Maricopa 

County and Pima County do not meet the requirements. These jurisdictions do not have SIP 

approved PSD programs but are subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR part 52.21.

Finally, we propose to find that Arizona has adequate authority to revise the SIP to address 

international air pollution for both NO2 and SO2, should EPA make a formal request on that 

matter under CAA §115. 
22

Element E – Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies [CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)]

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to “provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except 

where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or 

governments, or a regional agency designated by the State or general purpose local governments 

for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as 

appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State boards under 

section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State 

has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.”

Section 128 requires SIPs to contain requirements that (1) any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, and (2) any potential conflicts 

of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar 

powers be adequately disclosed.

Related EPA Regulations

Subpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies SIP requirements related to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements 

for all plans”), 51.231 (“Identification of legal authority”), and 51.232 (“Assignment of legal 

authority to local agencies”).

Section 51.280 (“Resources”) of Subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) also 

relates to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies that, with respect to resources, a SIP must 

include a description of the resources available to the State and local agencies at the date of 

submission of the plan and of any additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the 

five-year period following its submission. The description must include projections of the extent 

to which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals.

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “Each State implementation plan must 

identify organizations, by official title that will participate in developing, implementing, and 

enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any 

related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations.”

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Element E is not pollutant specific. Arizona’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 submissions mirror each other, 

so their responses and EPA’s evaluation are summarized together for both pollutants.

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

ADEQ cites many rules in the Arizona applicable SIP that cover personnel, funding, and 

authority to support SIP requirements; CAA §128 requirements; and state responsibility for 

implementing the SIP, which includes:
23

 ARS §49-103—“Department employees, legal counsel, the director “shall employ, determine 

the conditions of employment and specify the duties of administrative, secretarial and clerical 

employees as he deems necessary.” 

 ARS §49-103(B)—“The attorney general shall be the legal advisor of the department and 

shall give legal services as the department requires . . . The attorney general shall prosecute 

and defend in the name of the state all actions necessary to carry out the provisions” of Title 

49, relating to the environment.

 ARS §49-455 (A) and (B)(2)—Permit Administration Fund

 ARS §49-544—Emissions Inspection Fund

 ARS §49-551—Air Quality Fund

 ARS §49-107—Local Delegation of State Authority (for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal 

Counties)

 ARS §49-107(B)—Local delegation of state authority. “Monies appropriated or otherwise 

made available to the department for distribution to local agencies may be allocated or 

reallocated in a manner designed to assure that the recognized local activities and delegated 

functions, powers and duties are accomplished according to the applicable standards of 

performance.”

 ARS §49-112—County Regulation; Standards. “A county may adopt rules that are as 

stringent as state rules and may administer permits provided that the costs of obtaining 

permits or approvals under title 49 or any rule adopted pursuant to title 49, which relates to 

the environment. . .”

In addition, ADEQ, Maricopa County, and Pima County all receive CAA §105 grants from EPA 

that offset the costs of implementing an air quality program. Certain county programs are also 

funded by ADEQ through contractual agreements, while others are funded through fee programs 

and other sources.

ADEQ also states that they, MCAQD, and PDEQ have been administering, implementing, and 

enforcing air programs designed to meet the CAA’s SIP requirements for over 40 years and the 

funding and personnel described above for each of the three agencies is adequate to meet the 

needs of the programs. Over the next five years, current funding and personnel levels are 

expected to remain stable via the funding mechanisms described above and to be sufficient to 

meet the resource needs of the agencies for air pollution control purposes over that period.

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

Any board which approves enforcement orders or permits represents the public interest 

and conflict of interest is adequately disclosed through: ARS Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 

8, Conflict of Interest of Officers and Employees. EPA previously identified conflict of 

interest deficiencies in Maricopa, Pima and Pinal.33

 

33 Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for 

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter. 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012).
24

These deficiencies were corrected when they were incorporated into the state SIP through the 

final action on the I-SIPS for the 2008 Pb and O3 NAAQS34 through the following county rules:

 Maricopa County: Rule 100

 Pima County: Rules 17.04.190, 17.12.040, 17.24.040

 Pinal County: Rule 1-3-140

Permit approval and enforcement orders are provided by the ADEQ Director and county 

control officers. Arizona law, which is applicable to “all public officers and employees of 

incorporated cities or towns, of political subdivisions and of the state and any of its 

departments, commissions, agencies, bodies or boards,” contains provisions for adequate 

disclosure of any conflict of interest. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

The purpose of 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) is to provide necessary assurances that where the State has 

relied on a local or regional government agency, or instrumentality for implementation of any 

plan provision the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan 

provision. The following Arizona Revised Statutes grant ADEQ primary regulatory authority for 

air pollution control and abatement in Arizona as well as responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of SIP provisions:

 49-107. Local delegation of state authority

 49-402(A)(1) through (A)(7), (B), and (C). State and county control

 49-404. State implementation plan

 49-406(C), (D), (E), (I), (J), (K). Nonattainment area plan

EPA Evaluation

110(a)(2)(E)(i) - Legal Authority

Several Arizona statutes in title 49 establish ADEQ’s and the three counties’ authorities to 

provide for enforcement of air pollution control measures. For example, ARS 49-402 (“State 

and county control”) contains general provisions regarding the respective jurisdictions of ADEQ 

and the counties to issue and enforce permits, among other authorities. ARS 49-404(A) (“State 

implementation plan”) requires the director of ADEQ to maintain a SIP that “provides for 

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and 

protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area 

plan”) establishes a process for the designation of responsibilities among State, regional, and 

local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance 

areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires each agency that commits to implement a SIP 

provision to describe its commitment in a resolution, which must specify, among other things, 

the agency’s legal authority for implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the 

enforcement of the limitation or measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 49-

404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353, 36358. ARS 49-479 

authorizes the board of supervisors for each county to adopt rules as it determines are necessary 

to control air pollution, which rules shall contain standards at “least equal to or more restrictive 

 

34 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Lead (Pb) and the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 (August 

10, 2015).
25

than those adopted by the director.” EPA approved ARS 49-479 into the Arizona SIP on 

November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398, 66404. 

In addition, ARS 49-422(A) (“Powers and Duties”) authorizes ADEQ to require sources of air 

contaminants to “monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air 

contaminants or levels of air pollution that may reasonably be attributable to that source” for 

purposes of determining whether the source is in violation of a control requirement or permit 

condition, among other things. ARS 49-476.01 contains similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, 

and Pinal counties. EPA approved these provisions into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 

77 FR 66398, 66404. 

Finally, ARS 49-460 through 49-463 broadly authorize ADEQ to request compliance-related 

information from sources, to issue orders of abatement upon reasonable cause to believe a source 

has violated or is violating an air pollution control requirement, to establish injunctive relief, to 

establish civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation, and to conduct criminal 

enforcement, as appropriate through the Attorney General. ARS 49-510 through 49-513 contain 

similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties. EPA approved these provisions into 

the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398, 66404. We note that approval of these 

State and local enforcement authorities into the Arizona SIP would have no effect on EPA’s 

independent authorities under sections 113 and 114 of the Act.

None of the statutory provisions discussed above are limited to specific pollutants and thus 

would apply for the purposes of the 2010 NO2 and SO2s standard. We propose to find that the 

applicable Arizona SIP provides for the necessary legal authority to carry out the SIP and 

thereby meets the related requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.230 

through 40 CFR 51.232. 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) - Personnel and Funding

In its 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP Submittals, ADEQ provided a narrative outlining the resources 

available to the state and counties to carry out the SIP. EPA is not taking action to approve all of 

these provisions into the SIP but is merely referencing them here to show that Arizona and the 

relevant counties have adequate resources to implement the SIP35:

In the State of Arizona, ADEQ is the primary organization responsible for developing, 

implementing, and enforcing the SIP.

Under ARS § 49-103 "Department employees; legal counsel" the director, "shall employ, 

determine the conditions of employment and specify the duties of administrative, secretarial and 

clerical employees as he deems necessary." Under § 49-103(B) "The attorney general shall be the 

legal advisor of the department and shall give legal services as the department requires ... The 

attorney general shall prosecute and defend in the name of this state all actions necessary to carry 

out the provisions" of Title 49, relating to the environment.

 

35 Specifically, Arizona has not submitted for approval and EPA is not acting on ARS §§ 49-112; 49-476; 49-480; 

and 49-480.01.
26

Funding to staff to administer the Arizona air quality control programs consists of fees that are 

collected from regulated emissions sources, including fees collected to administer permitting 

programs. Under ARS § 49-455 "Permit administration fund", a permit administration fund is 

established consisting of fees and interest collected pursuant to article 2 governing state air 

pollution control. Under the statute, the director shall administer the fund subject to annual 

legislative appropriation. On notice from the director, the state treasurer shall invest and divest 

monies in the fund as provided in ARS § 35-313, and monies earned from investment shall be 

credited to the fund.

There is also an emissions inspection fund that consists of monies appropriated to the fund by the 

legislature; monies collected pursuant to ARS § 49-543(A) concerning vehicle emissions 

inspections; monies collected by the director for the issuance of inspection certificates to owners 

of fleet emissions inspection stations; monies received from private grants or donations when so 

designated by the grantor or donor; and monies received from the United States by grant or 

otherwise to assist the state in any emissions inspection program. See ARS § 49-544.

A third source of funding in Arizona is the Air Quality Fund. Under ARS § 49-551 "Air quality 

fee; air quality fund; purpose" every person who is required to register a motor vehicle in the 

state pursuant to ARS § 28-2153 shall pay, in addition to the registration fee, an annual air 

quality fee at the time of vehicle registration. Interest earned on monies in the fund shall be 

credited to the fund. Monies in the air quality fund shall be used, subject to legislative 

appropriation, for air quality research and programs for the purpose of bringing area A or area B 

into or maintaining attainment status, improving air quality in areas outside area A and B, and 

reducing emissions of various pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides 

of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants throughout the state. The 

funds are also used to monitor visible air pollution and reduce emissions of pollutants that 

contribute to visible air pollution in counties with a population of four hundred thousand persons 

or more. See §49-551(C)(1).

A final source of funding for ADEQ’s air programs is CAA section 105 ("Grants for support of 

air pollution planning and control programs") under which EPA is authorized to make grants to 

air pollution control agencies to defray a portion of the costs associated with implementation of 

programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and achievement of the national ambient 

air quality standards. To qualify for such grants in a given year, air pollution control agencies 

must at least maintain the same level of funding from non-Federal funds for air pollution control 

programs as for the preceding year. See CAA section 105(c).

Counties

For Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, ARS § 49-107 "Local delegation of state authority" the 

director "may delegate to a local environmental agency, county health department, public health 

services district or municipality any functions, powers or duties which the director believes can 

be competently, efficiently and properly performed by the local agency if the local agency 

accepts the delegation and agrees to perform the delegated functions, powers and duties 

according to the standards of performance required by law and prescribed by the director." Under 

§ 49-107(B), "Monies appropriated or otherwise made available to the department for 

distribution to local agencies may be allocated or reallocated in a manner designed to assure that 
27

the recognized local activities and the delegated functions, powers and duties are accomplished 

according to the applicable standards of performance." In addition, EPA funds air programs for 

Maricopa and Pima Counties through the CAA §105 funding mechanism described above. These 

delegation and funding mechanisms help ensure that the counties will have adequate personnel 

and funding to implement the delegated portions of the SIP.

The scope of county SIP authority is as follows: under ARS § 49-112 "County regulation; 

standards", a county may adopt rules that are as stringent as state rules and may administer 

permits provided that the cost of obtaining permits will be approximately equal or be less than 

the fee or cost of obtaining similar permits or approvals under title 49 or any rule adopted 

pursuant to title 49, which relates to the environment. The county no-drive days and travel 

reduction programs are funded by contractual agreements with ADEQ. Other county air quality 

programs are funded by county fee programs and other sources. In Arizona, the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) certified to do planning (Maricopa and Pima) do so for ozone, 

carbon monoxide, or particulate nonattainment or maintenance areas. See § 49-406(C). The 

MPOs receive funding as directed in ARS § 49-406(A). Under ARS § 49-402(B) Maricopa 

County Air Quality Control District (MCAQCD) and the Pima Department of Environmental 

Quality (PDEQ) each have a "control officer" whose powers to permit and enforce are set forth 

under the statute. ADEQ's contractor operates the Vehicle Emissions Inspection program in both 

Area A and in Area B. The issuance and administration of permits at the county level is outlined 

in ARS §§ 49-480, 49-480.01, and 49-480.02.

Under ARS § 49-476 "[t]he department of environmental quality, county health departments, or 

boards of supervisors may accept and expend in accordance with the terms of the grant any funds 

granted to it for research of air pollution by the federal government, any political subdivision of 

the state, any agency or branch of the federal or state governments, or any private agency."

ADEQ, MCAQCD, and PDEQ have been administering, implementing, and enforcing air 

programs designed to meet the CAA's SIP requirements for over 40 years, and the funding and 

personnel described above for each of the three agencies is adequate to meet the needs of these 

programs. 

According to their NO2 and SO2 I-SIP Submittals, over the next five years, current funding and 

personnel levels are expected to remain stable via the funding mechanisms described above and 

to be sufficient to meet the resource needs of the agencies for air pollution control purposes over 

that period.

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) State Boards and Conflicts of Interest

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) refers to the requirements of CAA section 128, which addresses 

potential conflicts of interest concerning final decisions by boards or the heads of executive 

agencies on permits and enforcement orders issued under air pollution control programs 

developed to meet CAA requirements. Arizona’s 2009 and 2012 submittals for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS provided an analysis and a number of state statutes 

regarding how the state addresses conflict of interest, as per the requirements of CAA section 

128. As part of our rulemaking on the state’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we included our evaluation of the state’s provisions for 

conflict of interest (2012 Section 128 TSD) and concluded that they mostly meet the 
28

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 for all four jurisdictions in the state (i.e., 

the state level, Pima County, Pinal County, and Maricopa County).36 That rulemaking approved 

a number of state statues into the Arizona SIP, where they remain. 

The 2012 action also outlined very narrow deficiencies within the Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal 

county programs concerning the section 128(a)(1) requirements for any board or body which 

approves enforcement orders. Specifically, EPA noted that ARS 49-478 in conjunction with the 

definitions of “substantial interest” and “remote interest” in ARS 38-502 satisfy the “public 

interest” and “significant income” requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) for Maricopa, Pima, 

and Pinal counties, but only with respect to interests in persons subject to permits.37 EPA 

specifically cited the conflict of interest provisions in Pima County Rule 17.04.190, applicable to 

the Pima County Air Quality Hearing Board, as satisfying the section 128(a)(1) requirements; 

however, that regulation had not been submitted for inclusion in the SIP. Our disapproval of this 

portion of Arizona’s I-SIP for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties triggered a FIP clock under 

CAA section 110(c)(1), which requires EPA to promulgate a FIP if we do not approve provisions 

into the SIP addressing this deficiency within two years from the date of disapproval.

On December 19, 2013, EPA received the 2013 Pima County submittal from Eric Massey, 

Director of ADEQ. This submittal included Pima County Rule 17.04.190 “Composition,” 

adopted September 28, 1993 for inclusion into the Arizona SIP as well as a completeness 

checklist, copies of authorizing statutes, and copies of public process documentation. Pima 

County Rule 17.04.190 was submitted to address the deficiency in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the 

SIP for Pima County concerning conflict of interest requirements for hearing boards. 

On December 6, 2013, EPA received the 2013 Maricopa County submittal from Eric Massey, 

Director of ADEQ. Maricopa County Rule 100 was submitted to address the deficiency in 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for Maricopa County concerning conflict of interest 

requirements for hearing boards and also included a completeness checklist, copies of 

authorizing statutes, and copies of public process documentation.

On September 4, 2014, EPA received the 2014 Pinal County submittal from Eric Massey, 

Director of ADEQ. This submittal included Pinal County Rule 1-3-140 “Definitions,” adopted 

July 23, 2014 for inclusion into the Arizona SIP. Rule 1-3-140 was submitted to address the 

deficiency in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for Pinal County concerning conflict of interest 

requirements for hearing boards and also included a completeness checklist, copies of 

authorizing statutes, and copies of public process documentation.

EPA approved Pima County Rule 17.04.190, Maricopa County Rule 100, and Pinal County rule 

1-3-140 (74) as part of the August 10, 2015 action on the 2008 Pb and O3 NAAQS38.

 

36 See Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements 

for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter. 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012).

37 Id.

38 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Lead (Pb) and the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 (August 

10, 2015).
29

The Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County submittals filled the gap created by our 

partial disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) in 2012.39 Consequently, as in the 2008 Pb and O3

action, we propose to find that the Maricopa, Pima and Pinal County portions of the Arizona SIP 

satisfy the requirements for section 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) as required by section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) - Necessary Assurances

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide “necessary assurances that, where the State has relied 

on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan 

provision.”

Under ARS section 49-402, the department (ADEQ) has original jurisdiction over all major 

sources for new source review and prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) under the 

CAA as well as mobile sources. A county or multi-county air quality control region, however, 

can assert jurisdiction over the aforementioned sources with ADEQ approval. Any delegation of 

jurisdiction can be revoked by the ADEQ director upon notification and after providing an 

opportunity to confer with the affected county or multi-county air quality control region. 

In Arizona, counties with a certified metropolitan planning agency (MPO) carry out and 

implement the SIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas. See ARS 49-406(A). For any ozone, 

carbon monoxide or particulate nonattainment or maintenance area for which no metropolitan 

planning organization exists, ADEQ has primary responsibility for the development of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area plan for that area. See ARS 49-406(B). There are no counties 

in Arizona that are nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 standard so ADEQ is in charge of 

implementing the SIP for that pollutant statewide. For the 2010 SO2 standard there are two

nonattainment areas, one in Miami, AZ and the other in Hayden, AZ. Neither nonattainment area 

is located in a county with a certified MPO, so ADEQ is in charge of implementing the SIP 

statewide for SO2 as well.

40

ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area plan”) establishes a process for the designation of 

responsibilities among State, regional, and local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce 

SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires 

each agency that commits to implement a SIP provision to describe its commitment in a 

resolution, which must specify, among other things, the agency’s legal authority for 

implementing the limitation or measure and “a program for the enforcement of the limitation or 

measure” (ARS 49-406(G)). 

ARS 49-406(I) gives the control officer the authority to issue an injunction through the county 

attorney if it is determined that any person has failed to implement an emission limitation or 

other control measure adopted pursuant to subsection G. If the control officer fails to act, the 

director of ADEQ, through the attorney general, has similar authority to issue an injunction or 

 

39 See Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements 

for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter. 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012).

40 Nonattainment areas for states and counties can be found on EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ (last visited on April 28, 2016).
30

file any other action for relief provided by law. See ARS 49-406(J). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 

49-404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 2000. 65 FR 36353.

In addition to these statutory references, we have previously found that Arizona law includes the 

necessary assurances that where a state has relied on a local or regional government, agency or 

instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for 

ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision. 60 FR 18010, 18019 (April 10, 1995); 

65 FR 19964, 19989 (April 13, 2000). 

We propose to find that these provisions in the Arizona SIP provide “necessary assurances that, 

where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provision.”

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(E)

Based on the above submissions from the State of Arizona we propose to find that Arizona and 

the relevant counties have adequate personnel, funding, and resources to carry out the SIP. We 

also propose to find that Arizona and the relevant counties meet the conflict of interest 

requirements of CAA Section 128. Finally, we propose to find that Arizona has provided 

necessary assurances that where the State has relied on a local agency for the implementation of 

any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such 

plan provision. 

Element F – Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting [CAA §

110(a)(2)(F)]

Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires, “as may be prescribed by the Administrator— (i) the installation, 

maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by 

owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic 

reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, 

and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or 

standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times 

for public inspection.”

This Element is not pollutant specific and ADEQ’s NO2 and SO2 submittals mirror each other for 

this I-SIP requirement so we will summarize Arizona’s response and our evaluation together.

Related EPA Regulations

40 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”) relates to source monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. 

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Arizona Revised Statutes “provide authority to require any sources of air contaminants to 

monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions of air contaminants or levels of 

air pollution that may be reasonably attributable to that source.”
31

Arizona Revised Statutes Tile 49, Chapter 3, Article 2 provides ADEQ with the authority to 

adopt rules or revise operating permits to ensure any source takes reasonable steps to quantify 

released emissions. In order to quantify emissions coming from a source, ADEQ has the 

authority to require the installation, use, and maintenance of continuous emissions monitoring 

systems, requirements for record keeping and reporting, and requirements for violation and 

equipment failure notification.

The relevant ARSs identified by ADEQ are: 49-422, 49-424, ADEQ Rules RI8-2-313 “Existing 

Source Emission Monitoring” and RI8-2-327 “Annual Emission Inventory Questionnaire”; 

Maricopa Rule 100 “General Provisions and Definitions”, section 500 “Monitoring and Records; 

and Pima County Rules 17.12.040 “Reporting Requirements” and 17.24.040 “Reporting for 

compliance evaluations.”

EPA Evaluation

ADEQ’s NO2 and SO2 I-SIP submittals list statutes and rules that provide a range of authorities 

and requirements for the adoption and implementation of State and local programs necessary to 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). The relevant authorities and requirements are described in 

detail later in this section of the TSD. Beyond the ARSs cited by ADEQ, there are additional 

ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County regulations in the SIP that further 

support 110(a)(2)(F). In total, these provisions establish specific requirements related to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, correlation, and public access to reports. 

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARSs) in the SIP and supportive of (F):

i. For ADEQ Programs: 

ARS 49-422 gives the director the authority to require a source to monitor air contaminants, and 

requires the director to adopt rules requiring sources of air contaminants to perform monitoring. 

49-476.01 authorizes the control officer to require any source of air contaminants to monitor,

sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions.

ARS 49-424 requires ADEQ to compile and publish from time to time reports, data and statistics 

with respect to those matters studied and investigated by the department. ARS 49-424 also 

requires ADEQ to conduct investigations, inspections and tests, and it requires ADEQ to compile 

and publish from time to time reports, data and statistics with respect to those matters studied 

and investigated by the department. 

ii. For County Programs:

ARS 49-476.01 authorizes the control officer to require any source of air contaminants to 

monitor, sample or perform other studies to quantify emissions.

ADEQ Rules in the SIP Supportive of (F):

ADEQ 18-2-313 applies to: fossil fuel-fired steam generators; fluid bed catalytic cracking unit 

catalyst regenerators; sulfuric acid plants; and nitric acid plants. The rule requires that these 

sources install, calibrate, operate and maintain operating equipment, and it specifies minimum 

monitoring requirements. 
32

ADEQ R18-2-310.01 requires the owner or operator of any source to report to the Director any 

emissions in excess of the limits established by applicable rule or in an applicable permit. The 

report shall identity each emission point where the excess emissions occurred and the magnitude 

of the excess emissions including the operating data and calculations used in determining the 

magnitude of the excess emissions.

ADEQ R18-2-327, requires sources subject to a permit requirement to complete and submit an 

annual emissions inventory questionnaire. The questionnaire includes reporting of the actual 

annual quantity of emissions, including documentation of the method of measurement, 

calculation or estimation for any single regulated air pollutant in a quantity greater than one ton 

or any combination of regulated air pollutants in a quantity greater than 21⁄2 tons.

Maricopa County Rules in the SIP Supportive of (F):

The following category-specific rules include requirements for monitoring and record keeping:

Rule 322 Power Plant Operations

Rule 323 Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources

Rule 324 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

In addition, Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500, which was approved into the SIP on November 5, 

2012 (77 FR 66405) requires that the owner and/or operator of any air pollution source maintain 

and furnish records of all emissions testing and monitoring, and any other records relating to the 

emission of air contaminants requested by the Control Officer. The owner and/or operator of a 

source requested to submit information rule may subsequently be required to submit annual 

reports if specified by the Control Officer. The owner and/or operator of any source which emits 

or may emit oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) shall provide the 

Control Officer with an emission statement showing measured actual emissions or estimated 

actual emissions of NOx and VOC. If requested or directed by the Control Officer, the owner 

and/or operator of a business shall complete and submit an annual emissions inventory report. 

Rule 140, which was approved into the SIP on August 27, 2002 (67 FR 54957), requires the 

owner or operator of any source shall report to the Director any emissions in excess of the limits 

established by applicable rule or in an applicable permit. The report shall identity each emission 

point where the excess emissions occurred and the magnitude of the excess emissions including 

the operating data and calculations. 

Pima County Rules in the SIP Supportive of (F):

EPA previously proposed approval of Arizona’s I-SIP for section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for Pima County, pending the submittal of Pima 

County Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040. EPA proposed in the alternative to disapprove for 

section 110(a)(2)(F) if Pima County did not submit Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040.41 We 

finalized this disapproval on October 15, 2012 after the Pima county rules were not submitted for 

inclusion in the SIP, which triggered a two-year FIP clock for Arizona in conjunction with Pima 

County to submit a SIP revision addressing this deficiency.

 

41 See Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements 

for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter. 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012).
33

On December 19, 2013, EPA received the 2013 Pima County I-SIP submittal from ADEQ. This 

submittal included the rules identified in our 2012 proposal as satisfying the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) requirement for stationary source monitoring: Pima County Rules 17.12.040 

“Reporting for Compliance Evaluations,” adopted September 28, 1993; and 17.24.040 

“Reporting Requirements,” adopted April 19, 2005.

Pima County Rule 17.12.040, requires the owner or operator of any source report to the Control 

Officer any emissions in excess of the limits established by applicable rule or in an applicable 

permit. The report shall identity each emission point where the excess emissions occurred, the 

magnitude of the excess emissions including the operating data and calculations used, the time 

and duration or expected duration of the excess emissions, and the nature and cause of the 

emissions. 

Pima County Rule 17.24.040 authorizes the Control Officer to require a person produce all 

existing books, records, or other documents which might reasonably contain evidence needed to 

determine compliance or noncompliance. 

Pima County Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040 were approved into the SIP by EPA on August 10, 

2015 (80 FR 47859).

Pinal County Rules in the SIP Supportive of (F):

Pinal County 3-1-081, requires that each permit include emissions monitoring and analysis 

procedures or test methods required under the applicable requirements, including any procedures 

and methods promulgated pursuant to §114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Clean Air Act (1990). With 

respect to reporting, the permit shall incorporate all applicable reporting requirements and 

require submittal of reports of any required monitoring at least every 6 months. All instances of 

deviations from permit requirements shall be clearly identified in such reports.

Pinal County 3-1-083, requires that each permit contain monitoring requirements sufficient for 

compliance and all emissions monitoring and analysis procedures or test methods required under 

the applicable requirements, including any procedures and methods promulgated pursuant to 

§114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Clean Air Act (1990). With respect to reporting, 3-1-083 requires 

that permits incorporate all applicable reporting requirements and submittal of reports of any 

required monitoring at least every 6 months and prompt reporting of deviations from permit 

requirements. 

Pinal County 3-1-083 also requires that permits contain requirements for compliance 

certification with terms and conditions contained in the permit, and the compliance certifications 

must be submitted no less than annually. Permits must also include the means to monitor the 

compliance of the source with its emissions limitations, standards, and work practices and a 

requirement that the compliance certification include the following: (1) identification of each 

term or condition of the permit that is the basis of the certification; (2) compliance status; (3) 

whether compliance was continuous or intermittent; (3) method(s) used for determining the 

compliance status of the source, currently and over the reporting period; and (4) other facts as the 

Control Officer may require to determine the compliance status of the source. The compliance 

certifications are submitted to the Control Officer, and for Class A permits, to EPA as well.
34

Pinal County, 3-1-103 requires every source subject to a permit requirement or who obtains an 

authorization to operate shall complete and submit an annual emissions inventory questionnaire. 

The questionnaire shall include the actual annual quantity of emissions, including documentation 

of the method of measurement, calculation or estimation of any single regulated air pollutant in a 

quantity greater than one ton or any combination of regulated air pollutants in a quantity greater 

than 21⁄2 tons.

Pinal County 3-1-107, describes the public availability of permitting information. Pinal County 

3-1-120, Confidentiality of records, clarifies records available to the public. These rules were all 

approved into the Arizona SIP on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79742). 

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(F)

EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and compared them to the 2013 

NO2 and SO2 submittals and other supporting information in the SIP. Based on this review, we 

propose to find that Arizona requirements adequately address CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), 

and (iii). 

Element G – Emergency Episodes, [CAA § 110(a)(2)(G)]

CAA § 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 

and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.” EPA promulgated rules for 

emergency episodes in 1971 and revised those rules in 1986 to clarify state requirements related 

to emergency episodes found in CAA § 110(a)(2)(G). These rules are found at 40 CFR 51.150 

through 153, inclusive. 

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Arizona’s 2010 NO2 and SO2 submissions are similar for this element, except as described below 

for SO2, so Arizona’s responses for each pollutant are summarized together.

Arizona Revised Statutes §49-465 (approved into the SIP at 77 FR 66398; November 5, 2012) 

authorizes State actions to alleviate or prevent an emergency health risk to the public due to air 

pollution or likely exceedance of the NAAQS. The Governor "may, by proclamation, declare 

that an emergency exists and may prohibit, restrict, or condition" any and all activity that 

contributes to the emergency. Arizona Administrative Code RI8-2-220, "Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes" (approved into the SIP as AAC R9-3-219 at 47 FR 42572; September 28, 

1982), prescribes the procedures the ADEQ Director shall implement in order to prevent the 

occurrence of ambient air pollution concentrations which would cause significant harm to public 

health. Procedures include governmental and public notification of the nature of the episode and, 

at the directive of the Governor's office, possible curtailment of industrial and commercial 

activities.

Similar provisions for determining air pollution emergency episodes, advisory procedures, and 

control actions are contained in the following county codes:

 Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation VI – Emergency Episodes, 

Rule 600, Emergency Episodes; 

 Pima County Municipal Code, Title 17. Air Quality Control, Chapter 17.32, Emergency 

Episodes and Public Awareness, Article 1. Emergency Episodes; and
35

 Pinal County Air Quality Control District Code of Regulations, Chapter 2. Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, Article 7. Air Pollution Emergency Episodes.

On October 15, 2012 EPA approved the Arizona Emergency Episode Plan into the Arizona SIP. 

EPA found the plan to be substantively identical to CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).42 The rulemaking 

included the rule currently approved into Arizona’s SIP (R9-3-219 “Air pollution emergency 

episodes”), which EPA approved in 1982 (47 FR 42572, September 28, 1982), and revisions 

submitted on August 15, 1994. These revisions included: 1) Rule 18-2-220, “Air pollution 

emergency episodes”, amended effective September 26, 1990, 2) a letter from Eric C. Massey, 

Director of Air Quality, Arizona, and ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, US 

EPA dated August 30, 2012, certifying that the attached copy of a document titled “Procedures 

for Prevention of Emergency Episodes: 1988 Edition” is a true and correct copy of the original 

and is an official publication of ADEQ and 3) the document titled “Procedures for Prevention of 

Emergency Episodes,” 1988 Edition, ADEQ.

In addition to what is summarized above, the SO2 submittal states, “The significant harm 

level for SO2 at 40 CFR 51.151 is unchanged and ADEQ’s emergency episode rules and 

procedures approved into the SIP on October 15, 2012, meet the minimum requirements 

for SO2 (77 FR 62452).”

EPA Evaluation

EPA’s implementing regulations for “contingency plans” (also known as emergency episode 

plans) are set forth at 40 CFR §§ 51.150-153. Section 51.150 provides criteria for the 

classification of areas for emergency episode planning purposes, based on previously measured 

concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, particulates matter, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. Areas, also known as Air Quality Control Regions 

(AQCR), are classified as Priority I, IA, II, or III, with Priority I regions being those with the 

highest measured ambient air levels and Priority III regions as those with the lowest. Priority I, 

IA, and II regions are required to develop emergency episode plans, while Priority III regions

need only provide for authority comparable to that in CAA section 303. 

In Arizona, all AQCRs are Priority III for NO2, meaning they need only general section 303 

authority for Element G, which is already in place and discussed in EPA’s October 15, 2012 

Emergency Episode Plan SIP Approval for Arizona.

43

For SO2, the Pima Intrastate region is Priority II while the Central Arizona and Southeast 

Arizona Intrastate regions are Priority IA for SO2. All other areas of the state are Priority III. 

Thus, three AQCRs in Arizona are required to have emergency episode plans for SO2, per EPA

regulations at 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. 

We have reviewed Arizona’s 2013-2015 air quality data for the Pima Interstate region to 

determine if it could be reclassified. The classification thresholds for SO2 are unique in that 

thresholds are prescribed for three different averaging periods. The thresholds and ranges for 

Priority II classification are as follows:

 

42 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes. 77 FR 62452 (October 15, 2012).

43 Id.
36

 3-hour: greater than 0.5 ppm,

 24-hour: 0.10 – 0.17 ppm, and

 Annual arithmetic mean: 0.02 – 0.04 ppm.

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

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

operated and maintained by Pima County. The highest SO2 levels at the Tucson monitor were 1.1 

ppb (.0011 ppm) for the 24-hour average and .24 ppb (.00024 ppm) for the annual arithmetic 

mean. Both occurred in 2013. In addition, the highest 1-hour SO2 concentration at the Tucson 

monitor during this period was 9.6 ppb (.0096 ppm), which occurred in 2014. Monitored levels 

in 2015 were even lower than the previous two years. The highest 1 hour level was 5.1 ppb 

(.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic mean was .16 ppb (.00016 ppm)44 While there are no 1-

hour SO2 classification thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by definition these concentrations 

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

classification thresholds because they are lower than such thresholds.

Thus, we are proposing to find that the Pima Intrastate region meets the requirements to be 

reclassified from Priority II to priority III for SO2, thus relieving the AQCR of the emergency 

episode plan requirement. Should we finalize this reclassification, the Pima Intrastate region 

would no longer be required to have an emergency episode contingency plan for SO2.

We are not proposing any change in classification for the Central Arizona and SE Arizona 

AQCRs. These areas are classified priority 1A due to large sources of SO2 that are still operating 

in the Central Arizona and SE Arizona AQCRs. We agree with ADEQ that the significant harm 

level for SO2 at 40 CFR 51.151 is unchanged from when ADEQ’s emergency episode rules and 

procedures were approved into the SIP on October 15, 2012.45 We believe that the state meets the 

minimum requirements for priority 1A SO2 areas and propose to find that ADEQ’s Emergency 

Episode Plan as approved in October 15, 2012, meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 2010 SO2 standard. 

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(G)

We propose to find that Arizona’s SIP meets the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

both the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. We propose to reclassify the Pima Intrastate region from 

Priority II to Priority III for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Element H – SIP Revisions [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H)]

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to “provide for revision of such plan—(i) from time to time 

as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to 

 

44 EPA AQS Quick Look Report for SO2, April 11, 2016.

45 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes. 77 FR 62452 (October 15, 2012).
37

attain the national ambient air quality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with 

any additional requirements established under this Act.”

ADEQ’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Arizona states that their statutes contain authority to revise the Arizona SIP to comply with the 

requirements of the CAA including changes in the NAAQS. Under ARS §49-404, ADEQ is 

required to “maintain a state implementation plan that provides for implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of national ambient air quality standards and protection of visibility as required 

by the clean air act.’” ADEQ also identified ARS §49-406 as relevant to meeting the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(H).

EPA Evaluation

Under ARS 49-404.A. the director of ADEQ “shall maintain a state implementation plan that 

provides for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of national ambient air quality 

standards and protection of visibility as required by the clean air act.” 65 FR 36353 (June 8, 

2000). EPA interprets this statute as requiring the state to revise the SIP as necessary whenever a 

new NAAQS is promulgated and/or whenever the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

national ambient air quality standard or comply with any other requirements under the Clean Air 

Act.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(H)

For the purposes of both the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, we propose to find that Arizona 

statutes provide for revision of the SIP in the following circumstances: (1) as necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard and, (2) 

whenever the Administrator finds that Arizona’s plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or does not comply with requirements established under the Act.

Element I – Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas [CAA § 110(a)(2)(I)]

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires SIPs to “in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area 

designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas).”

While this section requires States to meet nonattainment area requirements, pursuant to CAA 

title I, part D, when submitting plans or plan revisions for nonattainment areas, EPA has 

concluded that the submission of, and subsequent EPA action on, nonattainment SIP revisions by 

States is not governed by the three-year submission deadline identified in CAA section 

110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions for nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the 

requirements for nonattainment areas described in part D.

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

Arizona refers to EPA’s October 2, 2007 guidance to note that EPA does not expect 

infrastructure SIP submissions to include regulations or emissions limits developed specifically 

for attaining the NAAQS. ADEQ recognizes that the guidance was written for the 1997 PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but assumes that since additional guidance was not available at the 
38

time of the development of the I-SIP, that the requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS under 

110(a)(2)(I) are the same. 

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS

ADEQ states, “The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are 

subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1).

EPA Evaluation

As noted above, EPA agrees that the specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of 

section 110(a)(I). This position was reiterated in our 2013 Infrastructure SIP guidance. This 

element is therefore not applicable to this action. Any evaluations of Arizona’s SIP in relation to 

the requirements of CAA title I, part D will be completed in relation to the relevant 

nonattainment area plans. 

Element J – Consultation with Government Officials; Public Notification; and 

PSD and Visibility Protection [CAA § 110(a)(2)(J)]

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 

(relating to consultation), section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).”

CAA section 121 requires SIPs, in carrying out the requirements under the CAA requiring SIPs 

to contain any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, or any measure referred to in part D or 

part C of title I,46 to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected official of local governments and any Federal land manager 

having authority over Federal land to which the State plan applies. Such process shall be in 

accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA.

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effectively notify the public during any 

calendar year on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was 

exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year, to advise the public of the health 

hazards associated with such pollution, and to enhance public awareness of the measures which 

can be taken to prevent such standards from being exceeded and the ways in which the public 

can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include 

the posting of warning signs on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or 

television, radio, or press notices or information.

For a discussion of the CAA title I, part C requirements, see our evaluation of section 

110(a)(2)(C) above.

Related EPA Regulations

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification are set forth in set forth in subpart O 

 

46 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 1977, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating to certain 

enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990, and as so 

amended, no longer relates to state enforcement orders.
39

(“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) of 40 CFR part 51, section 51.285 (“Public 

notification”). 

ADEQ’s Response to This Requirement for 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

Consultation

Both I-SIPs state the following, “Arizona agencies maintain appropriate consultation procedures 

with local governments, CAA Section 174 and metropolitan planning agencies, and federal land 

managers regarding implementation of CAA requirements. ARS §49-406 requires the State, the 

metropolitan planning agency on behalf of affected local governments, county agencies, and the 

Department of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of agreement for the purpose of 

coordinating the development, implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment and 

maintenance plans. Additionally, opportunity for comment is provided through stakeholder

meetings and public hearings held to solicit testimony from the public as well as federal and 

local air quality planning agencies prior to adoption of any revision to the Arizona SIP.” 

In addition the NO2 I-SIP cites the following statutes for ADEQ programs:

49-104(A)(2), (A)(4), (B)(3), and (B)(5). Powers and duties of the department and director

49-405. Attainment area designations

49-406. Nonattainment area plan

49-424. Duties of department

49-425. Rules; hearing

The NO2 I-SIP also cites the following statutes for County Programs:

49-473. Board of supervisors

49-474. County control boards

49-479. Rules; hearing

Public Notification

Both I-SIPs state, “ADEQ and those counties with authority to implement portions of the SIP 

(Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties) certify to do now and will continue to notify the public on 

a regular basis of instances or areas in which any primary NAAQS was exceeded, consistent with 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 127 of the Federal Clean Air Act.”

They also summarize procedures for posting air quality data to state and county websites to 

increase public awareness of how to prevent air quality exceedances and how they can 

participate in efforts to improve air quality.

PSD and Visibility Protection

In ADEQ’s 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs Arizona referenced the revision to the NSR SIP submitted 

on October 29, 2012. It was ADEQ’s hope that this would update Arizona’s New Source 

Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program to fully meet the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA Evaluation

Consultation

The Arizona SIP contains many authorities that address the Clean Air Act requirements of 
40

section 121.

Under 49-104.A.2., the department shall “[s]timulate and encourage all local, state, regional and 

federal governmental agencies and all private persons and enterprises that have similar and 

related objectives and purposes, cooperate with those agencies, persons and enterprises and 

correlate department plans, programs and operations with those of the agencies, persons and 

enterprises.” The department shall also “provide information and advice on request of any local, 

state or federal agencies” on matters within the scope of the department. ARS 49-104.A.4. 

Under ARS 49-104.B.3. the department, through the director, shall “utilize any medium of 

communication, publication and exhibition when disseminating information, advertising and 

publicity in any field of its purposes, objectives or duties.” Under ARS 49-104.B.5 the 

department shall “Contract with other agencies, including laboratories, in furthering any 

department program.” 

For transportation plans under 121(1), ARS 49-402.F. states that “[e]ach regional planning 

agency shall consult with the department of transportation to coordinate the plans developed 

pursuant to subsection E of this section with transportation plans developed by the department of 

transportation pursuant to any other law.”

ARS 49-406.E requires the State, the planning agency on behalf of affected local governments, 

the county air pollution control department or district, and the Department of Transportation to 

enter into a memorandum of agreement for the purpose of coordinating the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment and maintenance plans. 49-406(F) cites to 

minimum information that the memorandum must contain, including the responsibilities and 

authorities of each organization, assurances for adequate plan implementation, and procedures 

and responsibilities for adoption of control measures and emissions limitations.

More broadly, ARS 49-424.3 requires the department to establish substantive policy statements 

for identifying air quality exceptional events. These substantive policy statements “shall be 

developed with the planning agency certified pursuant to section 49-406, subsection A and the 

county air pollution control department or district.” The department shall also determine the 

standards for the quality of the ambient air and the limits of air contaminants necessary to protect 

the public health “and develop and transmit to the county boards of supervisors minimum state 

standards for air pollution control.” ARS 49-424.4. The department is required to hold hearings 

relating to any matter within their duties and consult with “persons or affected groups or other 

states to achieve the purposes of this chapter, including voluntary testing of actual or suspected 

sources of air pollution.” The department shall also “[e]ncourage political subdivisions of the 

state to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions, and provide as it 

deems necessary technical and consultative assistance therefor.” See ARS 49-424. 

At the county level, under ARS 49-474 the board of supervisors of each county may authorize 

the board of health or health department of their respective counties in cooperation with the 

department of environmental quality to: “1. Study the problem of air pollution in the county; 2. 

Study possible effects on adjoining counties; 3. Cooperate with chambers of commerce, industry, 

agriculture, public officials and all other interested persons or organizations; 4. Hold public 
41

hearings if in their discretion such action is necessary; 5. The board of supervisors by resolution 

may establish an air pollution control district.” 

Public Notification

As stated in its 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP submittals, ADEQ certifies that it does now and will 

continue to notify the public on a regular basis of instances of areas in which any primary 

NAAQS is exceeded, consistent with the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 127 of the 

Federal Clean Air Act. As noted by ADEQ: “Such notifications are and will be available on the 

state and county air quality websites, which are updated daily to identify exceedances of the 

NAAQS that occurred during the previous day or any portion of the preceding calendar year. We 

commit to continue, through these websites, to advise the public of the health hazards associated 

with such exceedances and to increase public awareness of: (1) measures which can be taken to 

prevent a primary standard from being exceeded, and (2) ways in which the public can 

participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.”

Links to state and county websites that provide current air data and previous NAAQS 

exceedances, as well as other educational information, are available at: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/.

PSD and Visibility Protection

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to meet the applicable requirements of 

part C of title I relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility, 

EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for purposes of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS is 

contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), above. 

With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states 

are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act, but 

these program requirements do not change upon establishment of a new or revised NAAQS. 

Thus, there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new or 

revised NAAQS becomes effective.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(J)

Based on our review of the 2013 NO2 and SO2 submittals and for the reasons given above, we 

propose to find that Arizona meets the requirements of sections 121 and 127 of the Clean Air Act 

but to disapprove it for failure to fully satisfy the requirements of part C relating to PSD. 

Element K – Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data [CAA §

110(a)(2)(K)]

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to “provide for—(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient 

air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a 

national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to 

such air quality modeling to the Administrator.”

To meet section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA recommends that, at a minimum, states identify the statutory 

or regulatory provisions that provide state and local air agencies with the authority to perform the 

following actions, along with a narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the 
42

requirements to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of 

any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide 

such modeling data to the EPA Administrator upon request.47

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

The 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP submittals state that Arizona retains authority to perform air 

quality modeling for predicting the effect of emissions on ambient air quality and that, “[w]here 

applicable, all modeling analyses for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS 

meet EPA’s most recent guidance on air quality models.” The submittals also state that “[a]ll 

information and data are made available to EPA as required.” However, this language is similar 

to that found in previous I-SIP submittals that were disapproved for Element K. ADEQ provided

a supplemental submittal on December 3, 2015 meant to correct these prior disapprovals. In this 

December 2015 submittal, ADEQ goes into greater detail about how existing state and county 

laws satisfy the requirements and they also request approval of several statutes related to air 

quality modeling. ADEQ explains that the 2015 submittal contains statutory authority to comply

“with CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) as it applies to these infrastructure SIPs [for the 2008 Pb, 2008

O3, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 NAAQS], as well as any infrastructure SIPs ADEQ may submit in the 

future.”48

In this 2015 submittal, ADEQ explains that the state legislature has assigned responsibility for 

the development of SIPs, and authority to conduct modeling associated with plan development, 

to ADEQ and metropolitan planning associations (MPOs). The state legislature has authorized 

ADEQ and the MPOs to delegate this responsibility to the counties. 

ADEQ has the authority to conduct or require air quality modeling when issuing preconstruction 

permits for minor and major sources and for modifications. Pinal County, Pima County, and 

Maricopa County all have authority to conduct air quality modeling when issuing 

preconstruction permits for major sources and for modifications. Arizona lists the following 

regulations in support of this statement:

 R18-2-334 (authority to establish a minor NSR program satisfying section 110(a)(2)(C) 

of the CAA)

 R18-2-334 (the authority to require modeling from, or perform air quality modeling on 

behalf of, a new or modified minor source)

 R18-2-334(I) (sets requirements for air quality modeling) “All modeling required 

pursuant to this Section shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix W.”

For modeling to meet PSD requirements, ADEQ cites R18-2-406(A)(5) and (6). In addition, 

Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal County are developing minor NSR programs. Each of the counties 

already have regulations, similar to ADEQs, which establish the authority to require modeling 

for PSD purposes. These rules include Maricopa Rule 240, § 308.1(e)-(f); Pima County Code of 

Regulations § 17.16.590(A)(5)-(6); Pinal County Air Quality Control District Code of 

Regulations § 3-3-250(A)(5)-(6).

 

47 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 55.

48

“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for All Previous and Future NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K).” 

December 3, 2015.
43

In addition to the provisions related to modeling for plan development and permits, ADEQ also 

cites broad general authority to conduct air quality modeling and submit data to the EPA 

Administrator found at Arizona Revised Statutes: 49-104(A)(3)-(4), 49-104(B)(1), (B)(3), and 

(B)(5). Of these, ADEQ requests that §49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) be approved into the state SIP.

EPA Evaluation

In the 2015 action on Arizona’s 2008 Pb and the 2008 8-Hour O3 I-SIP, EPA disapproved this 

Element for ADEQ and Pinal Counties because the Pb and O3 submittals cited broad authority in 

the Arizona Revised Statutes but did not explain how this authority met the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). EPA also disapproved this Element with respect to Maricopa and 

Pima Counties for the same reason but found that both deficiencies were addressed by the 

Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)), pursuant to delegation agreements. 

In the December 2015 submittal ADEQ cites a number of regulations related to conducting air

quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant

for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, including NO2 and SO2. 

ADEQ specifically references Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 49-406(A) and (B); and 49-

404. These provisions explain that in O3, CO, and PM nonattainment and maintenance areas with 

MPOs, the MPOs have the responsibility for developing the plans, and associated modeling, 

because as Arizona asserts: “The authority to develop a SIP necessarily encompasses the 

authority to conduct modeling and to submit modeling to EPA.” The submittal also explains the 

mechanism for delegation of modeling authority to the counties. Under ARS section 49-406(C)-

(F), ADEQ, MPOs, air pollution control departments (APCDs), and the state Department of 

Transportation must enter into a memorandum of agreement that addresses the division of 

responsibilities, including the responsibility to conduct air quality modeling. An APCD may be 

delegated the authority to conduct modeling for plan development. If the authority has not been 

delegated, the authority rests with ADEQ and the MPOs. Thus, ADEQ and MPOs have the 

authority to conduct modeling and submit the results to EPA. The joint authority of ADEQ and 

MPOs extends to all areas of the state, including Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties.

In addition, ADEQ has the authority to conduct or require air quality modeling when issuing 

preconstruction permits for minor and major sources and for modifications. Pinal County, Pima 

County, and Maricopa County also have this authority. ADEQ has adopted the following 

regulations that include authority to require modeling from or to perform modeling for a new or 

modified source:

 R18-2-334 (authority to establish a minor NSR program satisfying section 110(a)(2)(C) 

of the CAA)

 R18-2-334 (the authority to require modeling from, or perform air quality modeling on 

behalf of, a new or modified minor source)

 R18-2-334(I) (sets requirements for air quality modeling) “All modeling required 

pursuant to this Section shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix W.”
44

For modeling to meet PSD requirements, ADEQ cites R18-2-406(A)(5) and (6). These 

regulations are not SIP approved, but show that ADEQ has modeling authority for these 

purposes.

Each of the counties already have regulations, similar to ADEQ’s, which establish the authority 

to require modeling for PSD purposes. These rules include Maricopa Rule 240, § 308.1(e)-(f); 

Pima County Code of Regulations § 17.16.590(A)(5)-(6); and Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District Code of Regulations § 3-3-250(A)(5)-(6).

ADEQ also cites general authority to conduct modeling and submit data to the EPA 

Administrator found at Arizona Revised Statutes: § 49-104(A)(3)-(4), § 49-104(B)(1), (B)(3), 

and (B)(5). These provisions give ADEQ the broad authority to conduct air quality modeling and 

provide air quality modeling information as part of its general research or at the request of EPA.

ADEQ can also contract for the services of outside consultants or other agencies if certain types 

of air quality modeling are outside of ADEQ’s expertise. Finally, ARS 49-422(A)(3), which is in 

the applicable SIP, gives ADEQ the ability to require any source to assess its impact on levels of 

air pollution by monitoring, sampling, or other studies. EPA is proposing to approve ARS §§ 49-

104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the SIP as part of today’s action.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(K)

Based on our review of the 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs, the 2015 supplemental submittal, and the 

applicable Arizona SIP, and for the reasons given above, we propose to conclude that the 

Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS for ADEQ, Pima County, Maricopa County, and Pinal County. We also propose to find

A.R.S. § 49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) sufficient for approval into the Arizona state SIP. We therefore 

propose to find that the 2013 NO2 and SO2 I-SIPs are approvable with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for ADEQ, Pima County, Maricopa County, and 

Pinal County. If finalized, this proposed finding of approvability would fix previous I-SIP 

disapprovals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) and thus relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate 

a FIP in place of adequate state authority.

Element L –Permitting Fees CAA § 110(a)(2)(L) 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP require the owner or owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under 

the Act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, 

the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such 

fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a 

fee program under title V of the Act.

Arizona’s Response to This Requirement for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

As stated in the 2013 SO2 and NO2 submittals, “Arizona permitting agencies are responsible for 

assessing fees sufficient to recover the costs of administering the permitting program. 

Assessments include fees for permit actions, administrative and emission based fees for Title V 

sources, inspection fees for non-Title V sources, and fees for general permits.”
45

With regards to its title V program, the 2013 SO2 and NO2 submittals state: “Arizona received 

interim approval for the federal Title V permit program, established by the 1990 Federal Clean 

Air Act Amendment. 61 FR 55915 (October 30, 1996). The interim approval of the ADEQ Title 

V program became effective on Nov. 29, 1996. EPA fully approved the Title V operating permits 

programs for ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County effective November 30, 

2001. 66 FR 63175 (December 5, 2001) and 66 FR 63166 (December 5, 2001). Subsequently, on 

May 17, 2005, EPA issued a notice of deficiency with respect to certain elements of Maricopa 

County’s Title V operating permits program, including the permit fee requirements. 70 FR 32243 

(June 2, 2005). Following EPA’s performance of a Title V program evaluation and the Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department’s (MCAQD) subsequent submittal of corrections to address the 

identified deficiencies, EPA issued a notice of resolution explaining EPA’s bases for concluding 

that the MCAQD had resolved all of the issues identified in EPA’s May 17, 2005 notice of 

deficiency. 71 FR 67061 (November 20, 2006). Thus, all of the Arizona permitting agencies 

currently implement fully approved fee programs under Title V of the CAA.”

EPA’s Evaluation

Arizona runs a combined title V and NSR/PSD program. As summarized in Arizona’s 2013 NO2 

and SO2 submittals, Arizona permitting agencies are responsible for assessing fees in order to 

cover the costs of the permitting programs. The fees are for permit actions, administrative and 

emission based fees for Title V sources, inspection fees for non-Title V sources and fees for 

general permits. EPA understands that Arizona’s permit fee program covers the costs of 

reviewing and acting upon applications for PSD and NSR permits for major sources, along with 

the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of PSD and NSR 

permits.

In addition, all areas in Arizona are currently subject to EPA-approved title V permit programs 

that satisfy the permit fee requirements of 40 CFR part 70. 40 CFR part 70, Appendix A 

(“Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs”). EPA fully approved the 

title V operating permits programs for ADEQ, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County 

effective November 30, 2001. 66 FR 63175 (December 5, 2001) and 66 FR 63166 (December 5, 

2001). Subsequently, on May 17, 2005, EPA issued a notice of deficiency with respect to certain 

elements of Maricopa County’s title V operating permits program, including the permit fee 

requirements. 70 FR 32243 (June 2, 2005). Following EPA’s performance of a title V program 

evaluation and the MCAQD’s subsequent submittal of corrections to address the identified 

deficiencies, EPA issued a notice of resolution explaining EPA’s bases for concluding that the 

MCAQD had resolved all of the issues identified in EPA’s May 17, 2005 notice of deficiency. 

71 FR 67061 (November 20, 2006). 

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(L)

We propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS because each portion of the State is covered by an EPA 

approved Title V program, and the approved programs provide for the collection of the necessary 

fees for major sources and the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of PSD and NNSR permits.
46

Element M – Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities [CAA §

110(a)(2)(M)]

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultation and participation by local 

political subdivisions affected by the plan.” 

ADEQ’s Response to This Requirement for the 2012 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS

In both submittals ADEQ states, “Arizona air quality agencies consult with and maintain 

frequent and regular communication with all local and political subdivisions affected by plan 

revisions. Local entities participate in plan development and the review process and often 

provide needed data and information for analyses contained in the plan as well as 

implementation assistance. Opportunity for comment is also provided through stakeholder 

meetings and public hearings conducted to solicit testimony from the public, local planning 

agencies, and other local political entities prior to adoption of any plan revisions.”

In support, the submittals reference the following Arizona statutes governing ADEQ programs: 

ARS 49-104 A(2), A(4), B(3) and B(5) (Powers and duties of the department and director); ARS 

49-405 B(2)(6) (Attainment area designation); 49-406 (C), (D), (E), and (F) (Nonattainment area 

plan); 49-424 (8) and (10) (Duties of department); and 49-425 (B) and (D) (Rules, hearing). 

In addition to these provisions, EPA also considered ARS 49-402 (State and County Control) 

and ARS 49-474 (County Control Boards).

EPA Evaluation

ARS 49-406 directs ADEQ, the metropolitan planning agency (if applicable), the county air 

control department or district, and the department of transportation to develop nonattainment 

plans. ARS 49-406(A) states that for any ozone, carbon monoxide or particulate nonattainment 

or maintenance area the governor shall certify the metropolitan planning organization designated 

to conduct the planning process as the agency responsible for the development of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area plan for that area. ARS § 49-406(E) requires the State, the 

planning agency on behalf of affected local governments, the county air pollution control 

department or district, and the Department of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of 

agreement for the purpose of coordinating the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

nonattainment and maintenance plans. 49-406(F) cites to minimum information that the 

memorandum must contain, including the responsibilities and authorities of each organization, 

assurances for adequate plan implementation, and procedures and responsibilities for adoption of 

control measures and emissions limitations.

More broadly, ARS 49-104A.2. states that the department shall “[s]timulate and encourage all 

local, state, regional and federal governmental agencies and all private persons and enterprises 

that have similar and related objectives and purposes, cooperate with those agencies, persons and 

enterprises and correlate department plans, programs and operations with those of the agencies, 

persons and enterprises.” The department shall also “provide information and advice on request 

of any local, state or federal agencies” on matters within the scope of the department. ARS 49-

104.A.4. 
47

Under ARS 49-104.B.3, the department, through the director, shall “utilize any medium of 

communication, publication and exhibition when disseminating information, advertising and 

publicity in any field of its purposes, objectives or duties.” ARS 49-104.B.5 states that the 

department shall contract with other agencies, including laboratories, in furthering any 

department program. EPA is proposing to approve this provision into the Arizona SIP as part of 

today’s proposed action.

For transportation plans under 121(1), ARS 49-402.F. states that “[e]ach regional planning 

agency shall consult with the department of transportation to coordinate the plans developed 

pursuant to subsection E of this section with transportation plans developed by the department of 

transportation pursuant to any other law.”

ARS 49-405(C) requires a public notice and comment process for attainment area designations. 

ARS 49-424.3 requires the department to establish substantive policy statements for identifying 

air quality exceptional events. These substantive policy statements “shall be developed with the 

planning agency certified pursuant to section 49-406, subsection A and the county air pollution 

control department or district.” The department also is required to determine the standards for the 

quality of the ambient air and the limits of air contaminants necessary to protect the public health 

“and develop and transmit to the county boards of supervisors minimum state standards for air 

pollution control.” ARS 49-424.4. The department is required to hold hearings relating to any 

matter within their duties and consult with “persons or affected groups or other states to achieve 

the purposes of this chapter, including voluntary testing of actual or suspected sources of air 

pollution.” The department shall also “[e]ncourage political subdivisions of the state to handle air 

pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions, and provide as it deems necessary 

technical and consultative assistance therefor.” See ARS 49-424. 

At the county level, under ARS 49-474 the board of supervisors of each county may authorize 

the board of health or health department of their respective counties in cooperation with the 

department of environmental quality to study the problem of air pollution in the county and any 

possible effects on adjoining counties; cooperate with chambers of commerce, industry, 

agriculture, public officials and all other interested persons or organizations; hold public hearings 

if such action is necessary; and establish by resolution an air pollution control district. 

We propose to find that Arizona has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in place to 

provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having 

authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(M).

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(M)

Based on our review of Arizona’s 2012 NO2 and SO2 I-SIP submittals and for the reasons given 

above, we propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for NO2 and SO2. 
48