1 

## Technical Support Document

Evaluation of the Arizona Infrastructure SIP for

2010 NO 2 

## and 2010 SO 2

Ev aluation of the Arizona Infrastructure State Implementation Plan the 2010 1

- hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) and the 2010 1

- H our Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS

U.S. EPA, Region 9

April 29, 2016Introduction

...... .................................................................................... .. ... .. ... . 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 S ubmission o f Modeling D ata [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)]

..... 461



### 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 (NO 2 ) and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, this Technical S upport 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 Pi ma County ) , and Pinal County Air Quality Control District ( PCAQCD or Pinal County) to EPA in 2013.

O n January 18, 2013, ADEQ submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)( 1 ) and (2); 20 10 NO 2 NAAQS” (NO 2 I

- SIP Submit t al) to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements

, which EPA commonl y refers to as an “infrastructure” SIP (I

- SIP)

. Additionally, o n July 23, 2013 , ADEQ submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 20 10 SO 2 NAAQS” (SO 2 I

- SIP Submittal) to address the SO 2 NAAQS

. Both submittals became complete by operation of law 6 months after submittal, on July 18, 2013 and January 23, 2014 respectively

. O n December 3, 2015 ADEQ submitted Arizona State Implementation Plan Revi sions 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 NO 2 and CAA § 110(a)(2)(K)

, Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Data, for both the 2010 NO 2 and 2010
SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 d eadline for EPA to promulgate federal implementation plan s (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 )

Elem ent 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 (NO 2 )

No Action (SO 2 )

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 potentia l impacts from new sources) Yes Partial (PSD FIP) Partial (PSD FIP) Yes

I nternational 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 adequa te oversight of local governments and regional agencies Yes n/a n/a n/a3



### 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 submi t 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 contro l measures that
constitute the infrastructure of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submittal addressing these requiremen ts is commonly described as an “ infrastructure ” SIP (I

- SIP).4

EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 1

- hour NO 2 on Februar y 9, 2010, and 1

- hour SO 2 o n June 22,
2010. 2 These actions correspondingly trigge red 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. 3 In the following pages, we describe the requirements, summarize the State’s submittal, and p resent our conclusions for the infrastructure SIP elements.



### Element A

– Emission Limits and Other Control M easures [CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)] Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires I

- SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, mea ns, 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 t o T his Requirement for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS
The 2013 NO 2 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 NO 2 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
“N onattainment 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 R equirement for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS
The 2013 SO 2 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 SO 2 air quality standar ds 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
“N onattainment 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) r espectively.

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 prog rams 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 E valuation 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 NO 2 and SO 2 . 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 perfo rmance 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.

B eyond the Arizona statues that ADEQ specifically cites in their NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 . 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 th e emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from
mobile sources.

Arizona Rules in the SIP S upporting 110(a)(2)(A )

– 2010 NO 2 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. Existin g 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 Equipment6

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

Chap ter 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 S tandard

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 Equipment7

7

- 3

- 5.1 NO 2 Emissions

– Fuel Burning Equipment
7

- 3

- 5.2 NO 2 Emissions

– Nitric Acid Plants

Arizona Rules in the SIP S upporting 110(a)(2)(A )

– 2010 SO 2 NAAQS
ADE Q 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)

Artic le 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 i n 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 Existin g 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 Generators8

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 SO 2 Emissions

– Sulfuric Acid Plants

C onclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(A)
Based on our review of the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP Submittal s , 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 NO 2 and SO 2 standards.9



### Element B

– Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data S ystem [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 R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 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 NO 2 are measured with instruments meeting EPA certification as Federal Reference or Equivalent M ethods. All data collected by
NO 2 monitors are compared to the NAAQS, statistically analyzed for tren ds, and recorded quarterly in EPA’s Air Quality System.

On February 9, 2010, EPA established “requirements for an NO 2 monitoring network that will
include monitors at locations where maximum NO 2 concentrations are expected to occur, including within 50 me ters of major roadways, as well as monitors sited to measure the area

wide NO 2 concentrations that occur more broadly across communities.” 75 FR 6474. Arizona is working, in consultation with EPA, to install t he necessary monitoring system s

.

ADEQ’s Response to This R equirement for the 2010 SO 2 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 poll utant concentrations, such as S O 2 are measured with instruments meeting EPA certification as Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods. All data collected by
S O 2 monitors are compared to the NAAQS, statistically analyzed for tren ds, and recorded quarterly in EPA’s Air Quality System.

On June 22, 2010 EPA established minimum requirements for SO 2 monitoring networks (75 FR 35519). In addition to the information included under Element B in the 2013 SO 2 I

- SIP submittal, Arizona belie ves that the information contained in their SO 2 boundary recommendations, included as an attachment to the I

- SIP, demonstrate that the state’s network

mee ts or exceeds the requirements.

EPA E valuation Authority and Responsibility
For both the NO 2 and SO 2 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
Dut ies 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 monitori ng network for both 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 , which records collec ted data in EPA’s Air Quality System. Additionally, the state and relevant counties annually submit air monitoring network plans to EPA pur suant to 40 CFR Part 58. In
2013 and 2014 , EPA approved the most recent annual ambient air monitoring network plans f or each of the agencies , including the following: ADEQ State of Arizona Air Monitorin g Network
Plan for the Year 2014 4 , Mari copa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) 2013 Ai r Quality
Network Plan 5 , Pinal County Air Qualit y Control District (PCAQCD) 2014 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan and 2013 Data Summary 6 , and Pima County Department of E nvironmental Quality (PDEQ) 2013 Ambient Air Quality Network Plan 7 . There are some limited exceptions explained in our approval letters to ADEQ, MCAQD, PCAQCD and PDEQ w here 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 quali ty data for
NO 2 and SO 2

.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(B) ADEQ a nd Arizona county air pollution control agencies establish and operate applicable monitoring networks required under the Clean Air Act for the 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 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, w e propose to find t hat Arizona ’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for the entire state



### Element C

– Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and Regulation of New and Modified Stationary S o urces [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 co vered 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 f

or 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

cert ain “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, Di rector, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, October 30, 2014.

5 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Air Quality Analys is 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
Mich ael 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 Environme ntal 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 pro gram:

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. Pro visions 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 2 8321 (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, 8 the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,” 9 the “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 purp oses 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 requ irements 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 Secti on 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 74 FR 66496 ( December 15, 2009 )

. 9 Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Cle an 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 Greenhou se 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 ab ove 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 t he 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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 requiremen ts (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 r equire ments. Past and future action on SIP submittals made for purposes of adopting NSR Reform go through a separate rulemaking process.

Arizona’s R esponse to This Requirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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 o r 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 agenci es are authorized to implement preconstruction review and permitting programs under ARS title 49, ch apter 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 At torney, seek injunctive relief for any violations of the air quality pr ograms.

In ADEQ’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 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 secti on 110(a)(2)(C) for both NAAQS.

On October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Sour ce 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, o ur 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’s13

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 respecti ve 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 develo p, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance areas (ARS 49

- 406(A) through (D)), and requires e ach 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, 363 58. 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 approve d 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 t he 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 wi thin 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 li mited by the criteria established in subsection C o f ARS 49

- 422 and ARS 49

- 476.01.14

has violate d 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 throu gh 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 Det erioration (PSD) permit program i. Regula tion 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 inc orporation 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 poll utants 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 N ovember 2, 2015 , EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD Program as part of its proposed ac tion 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 ozon e 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, 140 45. 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 R ule, 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 N SR SIP submittals. The a pproval of ADEQ’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 I

-

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

SIP s 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 modi fy in any respect EPA’s determinations
or action in the A rizona NSR Final Rule

.

iii. Regulation of PM2.5 (includin g 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 pollutants 17 except
GHGs. 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015) ADEQ’s submitted PSD program identifies PM2.5 and its precursors (NOx and SO2) as regulated NSR p ollutants. We are proposing to approve
Arizona’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP s for areas under ADEQ jurisdiction with respect to

r egulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors on this basis. As part of its Arizona NSR Submittals, ADEQ clarifie d 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 NO 2 and

SO 2 I

- SIPs as to Pinal County with respect to regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its prec ursors.

We reiterate that in our Arizona NSR Final Rule, EPA finalized a limited a pproval 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. T his proposed approval of
Arizona’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 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 int ended 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 modif y in any respect EPA’s determinations or action in the

A rizona NSR Propose d 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 compone nt of an infrastructure SIP. We note that the substantive portion of ADEQ’s minor NSR program rules ar e primarily contained in R18

- 2

- 302.01 “Source Registration

17 We note that ADEQ’s submitted PSD program also covers PM 10 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 regula tory 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 (A ugust 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 appr oved 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 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP s w ith respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) that Arizona’s SIP include a program that regulates the modification and cons truction of stationary sources.

We note that for purposes of this I

- SIP action, EPA is not closely reviewing, or pr oposing 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 contr ary 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 identif ied 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 Submi ttals, 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 modi fy in any respect EPA’s determinations or action in the A rizona 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 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP
submittals for the 2010 SO 2 and 2010 NO 2 NAAQS provide an adequate inf rastructure for SIP17

enforcement statewide

, b ased 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 construc tion 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 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS , and (2) that Maricopa and Pima counties do not have SIP

- approved PSD programs

necessary for the 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 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.



### E lement D

– Interstate T ransport [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 mainten ance 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 signific ant 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 notificat ion 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 R esponse to This Requirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS Arizona’s 2015 submittal replace d Element D as originally submitted on January 18, 2013 to address NO 2 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 NO 2 design value report that shows 1

- hour and annual values be low the NAAQS and no violations of the standards since 2011. They also state that 2013 NO 2 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 NO 2 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, a nd Maricopa County specific rules18

are summarized in Appendix B, “2011 NOx Emissions and Non

- Exhaustive List of Source Controls,” of the submittal. This appendix shows that the large st sources of NOx are subject to control measures throughout the state

. This is significant because the majority of NO 2 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 i t 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 h ave 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 emis sions 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 SIP

approved 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, S ubsection I.

20 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure
R equirements 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 t ime on the e ffects of SO 2 transport for significant contribution to maintenance or nonattainment. The discussion that follows addresses only NO 2 transport. EPA will take a separate action on prongs 1 and 2 for SO 2 transport at a later
date.

Based on the most recent design value report for NO 2 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 NO 2 NAAQS (100 ppb 1

- hour average), but this standard is intended to show local effects from roadway sources of NO 2 , 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 p rong 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 per mitting 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 NO 2 and

SO 2 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.

p rong 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: A rizona P ublic S ervice Cholla, 25 S alt

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

. 22 Prima ry National Ambient Air Quality Standa rds 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 Infr astructure 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

R iver P roject 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 te chnology requirements have be en im plemented 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

Bec ause Arizona relies on a F IP to control sources under the Regional Haze Rule , they do not

meet the requirements of this portion of Element D for NO 2 and SO 2 . However, because a FIP is already i n 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 abatem ent, 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 ar e no such pending petitions relating to Arizona. We
thus eva luate the 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIPs for purposes of compliance with only section 126(a).

EPA is proposing to find that Arizona should be partially approve d and partially disapprove d 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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. E PA approved R18

- 2

- 402 “General” into the

Arizona S IP 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 th e 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 Un its 2 and 3 promulgated at 80 FR 19220 ( April 10, 2015 )

. 32 Rev isions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationa ry 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 t he 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 regul ated 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 in terstate 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 pollut ant 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 sec tion 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

pr oposing to find that Arizona meets the requirements for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS for the reasons
stated above. We are not making any determination today on the fir st two prongs for the 2010
SO 2 NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to find that Arizona does not

me et the requirements for the 201 0 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS for the reasons discussed above regarding PSD requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is pro posing to find that Arizona does not meet the requirements for the 2010 NO 2 and the SO 2 NAAQS

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

Finally, w ith 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 201 0 NO 2 and SO 2 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

in ternational air pollution for both NO 2 and SO 2 , 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 A gencies [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 wh ich 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 C AA, 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 requirem ents 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 51.2 80 (“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 agenc ies 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 R esponse to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS Element E is not pollutant specific. Arizona’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 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 cou nsel, 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

 A RS §49

- 544

— Emissions Inspection Fund

 A RS §49

- 551

— Air Quality Fund

 ARS §49

- 107

— Local Delegation of State Authority (for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal
Counties )

 ARS §49

- 107(B)

— Loca l 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 t he appli cable 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 obtain ing permits or approvals under title 49 or any rul e adopted pursuant to title 49, which r elates 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. C ertain 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 , MCAQ D, 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 represen ts 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 Partic ulate Matter. 77 FR 66 398 ( 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 O 3 NAAQS 34 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 su bdivisions 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 a ssurances that where the State has relied on a local or regional government agency, or instrumentality for implementation of any plan provision the state has respon sibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision. The following Arizona Revis ed Statutes grant ADEQ primary regulatory authority for air pollution control and a batement in Arizona as well as responsibility for ensuring adequate
i mplementation 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 E valuation
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 respecti ve 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 develo p, implement, and enforce SIPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance areas (ARS 49

- 406(A) through (D)), and requires e ach 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, 363 58. 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 a pproved 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 simila r 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 sou rces, 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 cond uct 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, 6640 4. 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 spe cific pollutants and thus would apply for the purposes of the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2s 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 CA A 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 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP Submittal s , 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 SIP 35 :

In the State of Arizona, ADEQ is the primary or ganization 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 b e 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

con tribute to visible air pollution in counties with a population of four hundred thousand persons or more. See §49

- 551(C)(1).

A fi nal source of funding for ADEQ’s air programs is CAA section 105 ("Grants for support of air pollution planning and control pro grams") 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 q uality 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).

Coun ties 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 d uties 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 performan ce 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 that27

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 abov e. 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;
stand ards", 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 othe r 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 c ontractor 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 enviro nmental 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, an y 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

pers onnel described above for each of the three agencies is adequate to meet the needs of these

programs.

According to their NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP Submittals, over the next five years, current funding and personnel levels are expected to remain stable via the fu nding 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 req uirements. Arizona’s 2009 and 2012 submittals for the 1997 ozone,
1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 pa rt of our rulemaking on the state’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone,
1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, we included our evaluation of the state’s provisions for conflict of interest (2012 Section 128 TSD) and concluded that they mostly meet the28

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 4 9

- 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 respe ct 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, th at 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 defici ency 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 inte rest 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 conflic t 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 (7 4) as part of the August 10, 2015 action on the 2008 Pb and O 3 NAAQS 38

.

36 See Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements
for Ozo ne 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 Quali ty Stan dards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 ( August 10, 2015 ).29

The Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County su bmittals 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 O 3 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 adequ ate 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 opportuni ty 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 a re nonattainment for the 2010 NO 2 standard so ADEQ is in charge of implementing the SIP for that pollutant statewide . For the 2010 SO 2 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 SO 2 as well

. 40

ARS 49

- 406 (“Nonattainment area plan”) es tablishes 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

e ach 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 4 9

- 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 subsectio n 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 Ozo ne 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 i nto 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 11 0(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 counti es meet the conflict of interest requirem ents 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 respo nsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.



### Element F

– Stationary Source Monitoring and R eporting [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

- rela ted 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 NO 2 and SO 2 submittals mirror each other for
this I

- SIP requirement so we will summarize Arizona’s response and our evaluation together.

Related EPA Regulations
4 0 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”) relates t o source monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Arizona’s R esponse to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS
Arizona Revised Statute s “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 operat ing 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 identi fied 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
A DEQ’s NO 2 and SO 2 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 requ irements 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 S upportive of (F): ADEQ 18

- 2

- 313 applies to: fossil fuel

- fired steam generators; fluid bed c atalytic 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

- 3 10.01 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 t he 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 on e ton or any combination of regulated air pollutants in a quantity greater than 21⁄2 tons.

Maricopa County Rules in the SIP S upportive of (F): The following category

- specific rules include r equirements fo r 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 Offic er. 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 t he mag nitude of the excess emissions including the operating data and calculations.

Pima County Rules in the SIP S upportive of (F): EPA previously proposed approval of Arizona’s I

- SIP for section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQ S 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 deficienc y.

41 See Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements
for Ozo ne 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 Rul es 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 emi ssions 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 wh ich 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 S upportive 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 b e clearly identified in such reports.

Pinal County 3

- 1

- 083, requires that each permit contain monitoring requirements sufficient for compliance and a ll 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

req uired 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, an d 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 conditi on 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 subj ect 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 co mpared them to the 2013
NO 2 and SO 2 submittal s 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).



### E lement G

– Emergency E pisodes, [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 auth ority.” 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.

Ariz ona’s Response to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS Arizona’s 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 submissions are s i milar for this element , except as described below
for SO 2 , so Arizona’s response s 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

- 21 9 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 government al and public notification of the nature of the episode and, at the directive of the Governor's office, possible curtailment of indust rial and commercial
activities.

Similar provisions for determining air pollution emergency episodes, advisory procedures, and
control actions are contained in the following county code s:

 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; and35

 Pinal County Air Quality Control District Code of Regulations, Chapter 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards, A rticle 7. Ai r 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
include d 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 include d : 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 additio n to what is summarized above, the SO 2 submittal states, “The significant harm
level for SO 2 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 SO 2 (7 7 FR 62452). ”

EPA E valuation 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 plann ing 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 plan s, while Priority III regions need only provide for authority comparable to that in CAA section 303

.

In Arizona, all AQCRs are Priority III for NO 2 , meaning they need only gen eral section 303 authority for E lement G, which is already in place and discussed in EPA’s October 15, 2012 Emergency Episode Plan SIP Approval for Arizona

. 43

For SO 2 , the Pima Intrastate region is Priority II while the Central Arizona and Southeast Arizona Intrastate regions are Priority IA for SO 2 . A ll other areas of the sta te are Priority III. Thus, three AQCRs in Arizona are required to have emergency episode plans for SO 2 , per EPA regulations at 4 0 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 SO 2 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 Episode s. 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 SO 2 monitor within the Pima Intrastate region, located in Tucson and operated and maintained by Pima County

. The highest SO 2 levels at t he 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 SO 2 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 lev el was 5.1 ppb (.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic mean was .16 ppb (.00016 ppm) 44 While there are no 1

- hour SO 2 classification thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by definition these concentrations
reinforce the fact that 3

- hour and 24

- hour levels have not e xceeded 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 SO 2 , 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 episo de contingency plan for SO 2

. We are not proposing any change in c lassification for the Central Arizona and SE Arizona AQCRs . These areas are classified priority 1A due to large sources of SO 2 that are still operating
in the Central Arizona and SE Arizona AQCRs

. We agree with ADEQ that t he significant harm
level for SO 2 at 40 CFR 51.151 is unchanged from when ADEQ’s emergency episode rules and procedures were approved in to the SIP on October 15, 2012. 45 We believe that the state meet s the minimum requirements for priority 1A SO 2 areas and propose to find that ADEQ’s Emerg ency Episode Plan as approved in October 15, 2012, meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 2010 SO 2 standard.

Conclusion as to 110(a)(2)(G) We propose to find that Arizona’s SIP meets the requirements of CAA Sectio n 110(a)(2)(G) for
both the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS. We propose to reclassify the Pima Intrastate region from Priority II to Priority III for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.



### Element H

– SIP R evisions [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 provid ed 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 SO 2 , 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 wit h any additional requirements established under this Act.”

ADEQ’s R espon se to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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 AR S §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 E valuation
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

n ew 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 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS, w e 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
availab ility 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 N onatta inment A reas [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

nonatt ainment 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 act ion 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 des cribed in part D.

Arizona’s R esponse to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 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 specifi cally for attaining the NAAQS. ADEQ recognizes that the guidance was written for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, but assumes that since additional guidance was not available at the38

time of the development of the I

- SIP , that the requirements for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(I) are the same.

Arizona’s R esponse to This R equirement for the 2010 SO 2 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 E valuation 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 b e completed in relation to the relevant nonattainment area plans.



### Element J

– Consultation with Government Officials; Public Notification; and PSD and Visibility P rotection [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 ti tle 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 pro cess 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

exc eeded 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 way s 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 informa tion.

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 e nforcement orders.39

(“Miscellaneous Plan Conten t Requirements”) of 40 CFR p art 51, section 51.285 (“Public notification”).

ADEQ’s Response to This R equirement for 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS
Consultation
Both I

- SIP s 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 plan ning 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
mainten ance 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 N O 2 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 N O 2 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

- SIP s 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

t he 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 ca n participate in efforts to improve air quality.

PSD and Visibility Protection In ADEQ’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP s 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 20 10 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS

.

EPA Evaluation
Consultation The Arizona SIP contains many authorities that addr ess the Clean Air Act requirements of40

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, pe rsons 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 wit hin 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 4 9

- 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 dev elopment, 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 imp lementation, 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. Thes e 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 als o “[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 4 9

- 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 public41

hearings if in their discretion such action is necessary; 5. The boar d of supervisors by resolution may establish an air pollution control district.”

Public Notification
As stated in its 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 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 w ebsites, 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 t o 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 P rotection 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 o f the 20 10 NO 2 and SO 2 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 region al 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 be comes effective.

Conclusion as to CAA 110(a)(2)(J)
Based on our review of the 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 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 me et 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 the42

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 R esponse to This Requirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS
The 201 3 NO 2 and SO 2 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 mos t recent guidance on air quality models.” The submittals also state that “[a]ll
information and data are made av ailable to EPA as required.” However, this language is similar to that found in previous I

- SIP submittals that were disapproved for Element K. A DEQ provided

a supplemental submittal on December 3, 2015 meant to correct the se 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 appr oval 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
O 3 , 2010 NO 2 , 2010 SO 2 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 de velopment, 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 preco nstruction 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 li sts the following regulatio ns 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 requiremen ts 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 Mar icopa 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 Revi sions 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 model ing and submit data to the EPA
A dministrator 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 O 3 I

- SIP, EPA disapproved this Element for ADEQ and Pinal Counties because the Pb and O 3 submittal s 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 NO 2 and SO 2

.

ADEQ specifically references A rizona Revised Statutes Section s 49

- 406(A) and (B) ; and 49

- 404. These provisions explain that in O 3 , CO, and PM nonattainment and maintenance areas with MPOs, the MPOs have the responsibility for developing the plans, and associated modeling,
because as Ar izona 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

- 4 06(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 mode ling. 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 al so 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:

 R1 8

- 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 t o the EPA
A dministrator 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 q uality 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 ar e 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 AR S §§ 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 NA AQS for ADEQ , Pima County, Maricopa County, and Pinal County

. We als o 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 au thority.



### Element L

– Permitting F ees 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 c onditions 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 R esponse to This R equirement for the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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

W ith 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. E PA 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 no tice 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
Coun ty 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 E valuation Arizona runs a combined title V and NSR/PSD progr am. As summarized in Arizona’s 2013 NO 2 and SO 2 submittal s, Arizona permitting agencies are responsible f or assessing fees in order to
cover the costs of the permitting p rograms. The fees are for permit actions, administrative and
emission based fees for Title V sources, inspection fees for non

- Title V source s 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 t erms 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 (Decem ber 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 secti on 110(a)(2)(L) for
the 2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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 R esponse to This R equirement for the 2012 NO 2 and SO 2 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 submittal s 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); 4 9

- 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 E valuation
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 a ny 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 main tenance 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

ag reement 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 departmen t 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 substantiv e 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 hea rings 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

- 4 74 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 co ntrol 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 201 2 NO 2 and SO 2 I

- SIP submittals and for the reasons given above, we propose to find that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA Secti on 110(a)(2)(M) for NO 2 and SO 2

.48