1 

## Technical Support Document

Evaluation of the Arizona Infrastructure State Impl ementation Plan for Portions of the 2008 8- hour Ozone and the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS

Jeff Buss and Noah Smith U.S. EPA, Region 9

May 1, 201523



### Introduction

This technical support document (TSD) summarizes EP A’s technical review of revisions to Arizona’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specific ally, this TSD examines rules adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and submitted to EPA on October 29, 2012. Supplemental information was submitted on Sep tember 6, 2013 and July 2, 2014. In this TSD, we examine whether the aforementioned submitta ls meet the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K). Addit ionally, we analyze whether these submittals resolve the infrastructure SIP disapprovals set for th in our action: “Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ar izona; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter,” 77 FR 66398 (No vember 5, 2012).

On October 14, 2011, the Arizona Department of Envi ronmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under C lean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 Lead NAAQS” (2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal) to addre ss all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, which EPA commonly refers to as “infr astructure” except for section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Additionally, on December 27, 2012, ADEQ submitted the “Arizona Stat e Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 8-hou r Ozone NAAQS” (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal) to address all of the CAA section 110(a) (2) requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

On October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Rev iew State Implementation Plan Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Suppleme ntal Information to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission”. These submissions relate to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and minor new sourc e review (NSR) portions of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K).



### Background

CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) requires states to ad dress basic SIP requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Many of the section 110(a)(2) SIP el ements relate to the general information
and authorities that constitute the "infrastructure " of a state's air quality management program and SIP submittals that address these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs” (ISIP).

2008 Pb NAAQS

On October 15, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA) issued a revised NAAQS for Pb. 1 This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110( a)(2) within three years of issuance of the

1 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb stand ard (1.5 μg/m 3 as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 month average not to be exceeded of 0.15 μg/m 3 . EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m 3 and made it identical to the revised primary standa rd. Id.4

revised NAAQS. On October 14, 2011, EPA issued “Gui dance on Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS”, referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance. 2 Depending on the timing of a given submittal, some states relied on the earlier draft version of this guidance,
referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Draft Pb Guidance. 3 EPA issued additional guidance on infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013. 4

On October 14, 2011, ADEQ submitted the 2011 Pb I-S IP which included the SIP revision, completeness checklist, copies of authorizing statu tes, copies of public process documentation, and a commitment to adopt and submit a SIP revision to update Arizona’s New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration prog ram to fully meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

2008 Ozone NAAQS

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8 -hour Ozone. 5 This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the revised NAAQS. EPA did not, however, prepare guidance at this time for states in submitt ing I-SIP revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 6 On September 13, 2013, EPA issued “Guidance of Inf rastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” which provides “advice on the development of infras tructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . .
. as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.” 7

On December 27, 2012, ADEQ submitted the 2012 Ozone I-SIP which included the SIP revision, completeness checklist, copies of authori zing statutes, and copies of public process
documentation.

We have evaluated the 2011 Pb I-SIP and the 2012 Oz one I-SIP submittals in relation to the infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 8 In the following pages we describe

2 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regio nal Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011)

. 3 “DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sec tions 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” June 17, 20 11 version.

4 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, EPA Regio ns 1-10, “ Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 11 0(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (referred to herein as “ 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance”).

5 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

6 Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS w as postponed given EPA’s reconsideration of the sta ndard. See 78 FR 34183 (June 6, 2013).

7 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regio nal Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (September 13, 201 3).

8 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SI P actions because they pertain to plan requirements for nonat tainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the ext ent it refers to permit programs under part D; and (2) section 110(a )(2)(I) in its entirety. Therefore, this TSD does n ot address these requirements.5

the requirements, summarize the State’s submittals, and present our evaluation for each
infrastructure SIP element.

On November 5, 2012, EPA partially approved and par tially disapproved the Arizona I-SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2. 5 NAAQS. As explained in our proposed and final notices and associated TSD, our disapprov als related to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K) resulted from the conclusion that the Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements f or PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act. For these disapprovals, EPA found that both the Maricopa County Air Quality Department and the Pima County Department of Enviro nmental Quality implemented the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulat ed NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. 40 CFR 52.144. Additionally, EPA found that ADEQ implemented a SIP

approved PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutan ts except for PM10, PM2.5 and GHGs (48 FR 19878, May 3, 1983), and the Pinal County Air Qu ality Control District (PCAQCD) implemented a SIP-approved PSD program for all regu lated NSR pollutants except for GHGs (61 FR 15717, April 9, 1996, as amended by 65 FR 79 742, December 20, 2000). In this TSD, we examine whether ADEQ’s October 29, 2012 submittal a s well as the September 6, 2013 and July 2, 2014 supplemental submittals resolve the deficie ncies described in our 2012 I-SIP action 9 for elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K).



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement o f control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a pro gram to provide for enforcement of the measures set forth in Section 110(a)(2)(A), and reg ulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources, within the areas covered by the plan, as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as require d in parts C and D of CAA title I.

EPA evaluated the State’s general enforcement autho rities to determine if they provided an adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewi de 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 evaluat ed only the State’s minor NSR programs and certain “structural” elements of the State’s PSD pr ograms under part C of CAA title I to determine whether these programs are adequate for i nfrastructure SIP purposes. EPA evaluated the Arizona SIP with respect to the following speci fic elements of the PSD program:

1. Provisions identifying NOx as an ozone precursor co nsistent with the requirements of EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-ho ur ozone NAAQS, 70 FR 71612 (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), ( b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i));

9 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012)6

2. Provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions (sulfur dioxide (SO2) in all areas, and NOx and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent with the requirements of EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation ru le for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 73 FR 28321 (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)( 49)(i));

3. Provisions to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) cons istent with EPA’s regulations and a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, as discussed below.

Regarding GHGs, EPA established that beginning on J anuary 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 f inal action, 10 the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,” 11 the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,” 12 and the “Tailoring Rule.” 13 Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions esta blished regulatory requirements for GHGs

emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehic le engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 20 11, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applic ability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.

However, on June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court i ssued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. 14 The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of dete rmining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also sai d 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 applicati on of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its under standing of the Court’s decision, EPA is not currently applying EPA regulations that would requi re that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifi cally, EPA is not requiring that a state’s SIP-approved PSD program require sources to obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the pote ntial to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification ( e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that an in frastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS contain SIP-approved PSD, nonattainme nt New Source Review (NSR), and

10 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009.

11 “Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Poll utants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs .” 75 FR 17004, April 2, 2010.

12 “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standa rds and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; F inal Rule.” 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.

13 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.” 75 F R 31514, June 3, 2010.

14 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Prote ction Agency , 134 S. Ct. 2427.7

minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement these standards. As explained above, however, EPA is not evaluating part D nonattainment area requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action because these SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 172(b). Additionally, EP A is not proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to the NSR R eform requirements. EPA intends to act on SIP submittals that are made for purposes of adopti ng NSR Reform through a separate rulemaking process.

Arizona’s responses to this requirement

Arizona State and local agencies implement control and enforcement programs for permitted
sources of air contaminants and for sources that ar e not regulated through permit programs (such as open uncontrolled burns, construction, and vacan t land). Each agency that commits to implement an emission limitation or other control m easure contained in the SIP is required to specify, in a resolution adopted by the governing b ody of the agency, its authority for implementing the measure and a program for enforcem ent of the limitation or measure. 2012
Ozone I-SIP at 16.

ADEQ and local agencies are authorized to implement preconstruction review and permitting programs under ARS title 49, chapter 3, articles 1, 2, and 3. ADEQ and county regulations implementing these permit program requirements are contained in AAC title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 2 and 4 or relevant county rules. 2012 Oz one I-SIP at 16.

Authority to enforce permit programs and SIPs is co ntained in ARS 49-460 through 463 and 49- 510 through 513, under which the State or county ma y issue orders of abatement, and, through the Attorney General or County Attorney, seek injun ctive relief for any violations of the air quality programs. 2012 Ozone I-SIP at 16.

In ADEQ’s 2011 Pb I-SIP Arizona expressed a commitm ent to adopt and submit a SIP revision to update Arizona’s New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program to fully meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2 )(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. ADEQ provided the same commitment to update Arizona’s Ne w Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program in its 2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal.

On October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Rev iew State Implementation Plan Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Suppleme ntal Information to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission” (“Ariz ona NSR Submittals”) to address and update the state’s NSR program. Accordingly, our re view of element C is based in part on EPA’s proposed rule for the Arizona NSR Submittals “Revis ions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review” 80 FR 14044, March 18, 2015 (“Arizona NSR Proposed Rule”). In the Arizona NSR Proposed Rule, EPA generally pro posed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR Submittals, which address ed ADEQ’s minor NSR program and PSD program, as well as ADEQ’s major nonattainment NSR program.

EPA Evaluation8

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 me asures. For example, ARS 49-402 (“State and county control”) contains general provisions re garding the respective jurisdictions of ADEQ and the counties to issue and enforce permits, amon g 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 nati onal ambient air quality standards and protection of visibility as required by the clean a ir act.” ARS 49-406 (“Nonattainment area plan”) establishes a process for the designation of responsibilities among State, regional, and local agencies to develop, implement, and enforce S IPs for certain nonattainment or maintenance areas (ARS 49-406(A) through (D)), and requires eac h agency that commits to implement a SIP provision to describe its commitment in a resolutio n, which must specify, among other things, the agency’s legal authority for implementing the l imitation or measure and “a program for the enforcement of the limitation or measure” (ARS 49-4 06(G)). EPA approved ARS 49-402, 49- 404, and 49-406 into the Arizona SIP on June 8, 200 0. 65 FR 36353, 36358. ARS 49-479 authorizes the board of supervisors for each county to adopt rules as it determines are necessary to control air pollution, which rules shall contain standards at “least equal to or more restrictive than those adopted by the director.” EPA approved t his provision into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398.

In addition, ARS 49-422(A) (“Powers and Duties”) au thorizes ADEQ to require sources of air contaminants to “monitor, sample or perform other s tudies to quantify emissions of air contaminants or levels of air pollution that may re asonably be attributable to that source” for purposes of determining whether the source is in vi olation of a control requirement or permit condition, among other things. ARS 49-476.01 conta ins similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal counties. These provisions were approved into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012.

77 FR 66398.

Finally, ARS 49-460 through 49-463 broadly authoriz e ADEQ to request compliance-related information from sources, to issue orders of abatem ent upon reasonable cause to believe a source has violated or is violating an air pollution contr ol 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 Ge neral. ARS 49-510 through 49-513 contain similar authorities for Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal c ounties. EPA approved these provisions into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012. 77 FR 66398. W e note that these State and local
enforcement authorities in the Arizona SIP have no effect on EPA’s independent authorities
under sections 113 and 114 of the Act.

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pe rmit program

i. Regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

The entire State of Arizona is subject to the Feder al PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for purposes of regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources of GHGs. Thus, although9

the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to P SD requirements for GHG emission sources, this deficiency is adequately addressed by the inco rporation of the Federal PSD program regulations into the SIP for this purpose. 40 CFR 5 2.144 and 52.37.

ii. Regulation of ozone precursors

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorp oration of the Federal PSD program regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144.

As discussed above, on March 18, 2015, EPA generall y proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD Program as part of its pr oposed action on ADEQ’s NSR Submittals. ADEQ’s submitted PSD program covers al l regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs, as noted above. 80 FR 14044. ADEQ’s PSD program als o identifies NOx as an ozone precursor. Thus, if our proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD program in the Arizona NSR Proposed Rule is finalized, that action will correct a previous deficiency concerning regulation of ozone precursors that was identified by EPA in our 2012 infrastructure SIP action. 77 FR 66398. We are proposing to approv e Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP for areas under ADEQ jurisdiction with respect to regulation of ozone precursors on this basis, provided

that our action on Arizona’s NSR Submittals is fina lized consistent with this analysis with respect to the scope of the PSD program regulating ozone precursors.

As part of its Arizona NSR Submittals, ADEQ clarifi ed that they also have jurisdiction over Pinal County’s PSD program for all regulated NSR po llutants except GHGs. 15 ADEQ has delegated implementation of the major source progra m to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District. 80 FR 14044, 14045. Accordingly, we are a lso proposing to approve Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP as to Pinal County with respect to regulation of ozone precursors, again provided that our action on Arizona’s NSR Submittal s is finalized consistent with this analysis with respect to the scope of the program regulating ozone precursors.

As noted previously, in our Arizona NSR Proposed Ru le, EPA generally proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR Subm ittals, including the PSD portion of those submittals, based on a number of specific def iciencies EPA identified with the programs as compared with specific statutory and regulatory req uirements for NSR SIP submittals. This proposed approval of ADEQ’s Infrastructure SIP 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, eva luate or address whether ADEQ’s PSD program meets specific statutory and regulatory req uirements for SIP-approved NSR programs or to modify in any respect EPA’s proposed determin ations or action in the Arizona NSR Proposed Rule.

15 See email from Steve Burr, Arizona Department of E nvironmental Quality, to Rory Mays, EPA Planning Of fice, April 21, 2014; see also EPA’s proposed rulemaking on Arizona’s NSR Submittals at 80 FR 14044, March 1 8,
2015.10

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

Both the MCAQD and the PDEQ currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to delegation agreements. Thus, all PSD deficiencies are adequately addressed by the incorp oration of the Federal PSD program regulations into both agencies’ respective portions of the Arizona SIP. 40 CFR 52.144.

As discussed above, on March 18, 2015, EPA generall y proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s PSD Program as part of its pr oposed action on ADEQ’s NSR Submittals. ADEQ’s submitted PSD program covers al l regulated NSR pollutants 16 except GHGs. 80 FR 14044 (March 18, 2015). ADEQ’s submitte d PSD program identifies PM2.5 and its precursors (NOx and SO2) as regulated NSR pollu tants. We are proposing to approve Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP for areas under ADEQ j urisdiction with respect to regulation of PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors on this basis, provided that our proposed

action on Arizona’s NSR submittals is finalized con sistent with this analysis with respect to the scope of the PSD program regulating PM2.5 (includin g condensable PM) and its precursors. As part of its Arizona NSR Submittals, ADEQ clarified that they also have jurisdiction over Pinal County’s PSD program for all regulated NSR pollutan ts except GHGs. ADEQ has delegated implementation of the major source program to the P inal County Air Quality Control District. 80 CFR 14044, 14045. Accordingly, we are also proposin g to approve Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP as to Pinal County with respect to regulation of PM 2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors, again provided that our action on Arizo na’s NSR Submittals is finalized consistent with this analysis with respect to the scope of the program regulating PM2.5 (including condensable PM) and its precursors.

We reiterate that in our Arizona NSR Proposed Rule, EPA generally proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s NSR Submittals, i ncluding the PSD portion of those submittals, based on a number of specific deficienc ies EPA identified with the programs as compared with specific statutory and regulatory req uirements for NSR SIP submittals. This proposed approval of ADEQ’s Infrastructure SIP 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 no t intended to, nor should it be construed to, evaluate or address whether ADEQ’s PSD program meet s specific statutory and regulatory requirements for SIP-approved NSR programs or to mo dify in any respect EPA’s proposed determinations or action in the Arizona NSR Propose d Rule.

3. Minor New Source Review

As discussed above, on March 18, 2015, EPA generall y proposed 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 proposed limited approva l and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s minor NSR program, EPA proposes to find that ADEQ’s submitted minor NSR program is

16 We note that ADEQ’s submitted PSD program also cov ers PM10 as a regulated NSR pollutant.11

adequate to address the minor NSR component of an i nfrastructure SIP. . We note that the substantive portion of ADEQ’s minor NSR program rul es are primarily contained in R18-2- 302.01 “Source Registration Requirements” and R18-2 -334 “Minor New Source Review.” These
and other and other administrative rules included i n the minor NSR portion of the SIP submittal satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requir ements for minor NSR programs and substantially strengthen the SIP overall. 80 FR 140 44, 14047-14048.

Pima County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are cont ained in Pima County rules 171, 202, 231, and 341. See 47 FR 16328 (April 16, 1982) and 53 FR 30220 (August 10, 1988). Maricopa County’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules are contained in Maricopa County Regulation 2, rules 20 and 220, and in Regulation 1, Rule 3. See 37 FR 15081 (July 27, 1972), 57 FR 354 (January 6, 1992), and 47 FR 15579 (April 12, 1982). Finall y, 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 (No vember 13, 2002). The State and EPA have relied on these approved minor NSR program to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do no t interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Arizona ’s 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012 Ozone I-SIPs with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a )(2)(C) that Arizona’s SIP include a program that regulates the modification and construction of stationary sources. With respect to ADEQ specifically, this proposed approval may be finaliz ed on this basis provided that we take final action to approve the minor NSR portion of Arizona’ s NSR Submittals into the Arizona SIP, which may be in the form of a limited approval/limi ted disapproval as proposed in the Arizona NSR Proposed Rule.

We note that for purposes of this I-SIP action, EPA is not closely reviewing, or proposing to approve or disapprove, the State and county minor N SR programs based on an analysis of whether they fully satisfy EPA’s regulations govern ing SIP-approved minor NSR programs. In addition, the counties may have minor NSR provision s that are contrary to current EPA regulations for this program. We note that because the three county (Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa) minor NSR programs were approved into the Arizona S IP many years ago, they contain outdated provisions and appear to have been superseded by ne w or revised regulations in some respects. We strongly encourage all three county permitting a gencies to submit current permitting regulations to replace these outdated minor NSR SIP provisions as soon as possible.

With respect to ADEQ, EPA has identified a number o f 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 pr oposed limited approval/limited disapproval action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP Submittals, wh ere EPA generally proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of ADEQ’s minor NS R SIP submittal on this basis. This proposed approval of ADEQ’s Infrastructure SIP with respect to the minor NSR program addresses whether ADEQ has a basic program in the S IP to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources, and is not inte nded to, nor should it be construed to, evaluate or address whether ADEQ’s PSD program meets specifi c statutory and regulatory requirements12

for SIP-approved NSR programs or to modify in any r espect EPA’s proposed determinations or action in the Arizona NSR Proposed 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 t o approve the 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012

Ozone I-SIP based on our conclusion that the State’ s general enforcement authorities provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewi de.

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2 )(C) to include a program to provide for regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources, including a PSD program under part C of title I, EPA is proposing to: (1) d isapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone I-SIPs for ADEQ and Pinal County because the SIP-approved PSD programs lack the “structural” PSD program elements identified above, and (2) disappro ve the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone I-SIPs for Maricopa and Pima counties, which do not have SIP-a pproved PSD programs. We note that although the SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements for ADEQ, Pinal, Maricopa, and Pima counties, no further action is n ecessary for these purposes because the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 addresses the d eficiencies in all four areas.

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D) – Interstate transport

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 pol lutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere wit h maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient a ir quality standard, or (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, and

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requir ements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).”

Section 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) perta in to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the “interstate transpo rt” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(i). Section 115 of the Act similarly pertains to intern ational transport of air pollution.

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

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

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), EPA previously approved Arizona’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozon e and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). EPA intends to propose action on t he I-SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with13

respect to these first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) in a separate rulemaking, and to

take final action on these SIP elements no later th an June 7, 2016. See Consent Decree entered April 22, 2015 in Sierra Club v. EPA , Case No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR (N. Dist. CA).

For purposes of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Pb I-SI P includes Arizona’s evaluation of the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (reg arding significant contribution to

nonattainment or interference with maintenance in a ny other State). EPA’s 2011 Pb I-SIP Guidance states that while it is possible for a sou rce within a state to emit quantities of Pb in a location and in quantities that may contribute sign ificantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, another state, it would only occur where large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries (i.e. within a few miles of anothe r state). 17 Arizona’s 2011 Pb I-SIP submittal states that the two largest emitters of Pb in Arizo na are the ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan copper smelters in Hayden and Miami, Arizona, respe ctively, and that these sources are hundreds of miles from any state boundaries. Id . EPA also reviewed the 2011 National Emissions Inventory for the State of Arizona and verified tha t there are no sources emitting Pb in amounts greater than 0.5 tpy that are in close proximity to the state’s borders. As a result, Arizona’s 2011 Pb I-SIP submittal provides a reasonable basis to c onclude that sources in Arizona that emit Pb do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, o r interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we propose to find that Arizona meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQ S.

With respect to the third “prong” of CAA section 11 0(a)(D)(i) (regarding interference with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for purposes of the 2008 8-hour ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS is contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), ab ove.

Finally, with respect to the fourth prong of CAA se ction 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA believes that Pb emissions will contribute only negligibly to visibi lity impairment in Class I areas. 2011 I-SIP Guidance at 9. In its 2011 Pb I-SIP submittal, Ariz ona asserted that there are no Class I areas in close enough proximity to be affected by Pb emissio ns from the Hayden and Miami copper

smelters. 2011 Pb I-SIP submittal at 11. EPA believ es this statement, along with our analysis of the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, are a reason able basis for concluding that Arizona meets the requirements of prong four of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) f or the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA intends to propose ac tion on prong four of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) in a separate rulemaking, and to take final action no later than June 7, 2016. See Consent Decree entered April 22, 2015 in Sierra Club v. EPA , Case No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR (N. Dist. CA).

17 See Arizona’s 2011 Pb I-SIP submittal at 10; see a lso Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110( a)(2) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, October 14, 2011 (20 11 Pb I-SIP Guidance) at 8.14

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110( a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which perta in to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the “interstate transpo rt” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to our action because there are no suc h pending petitions relating to Arizona. We

thus evaluate the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs for purposes of compliance with only section 126(a).

EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone ISIPs for purposes of meeting the requirements of CA A section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new or mo dified sources. Specifically, ADEQ’s SIPapproved 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 o r major alteration would occur.” R18-2-402, section I. EPA has proposed to approve R18-2-402 “G eneral” into the Arizona SIP as part of its March 18, 2015 action on Arizona’s NSR Submittals. 80 FR 14044. These requirements for notice to nearby states are consistent with EPA’s r equirements for PSD programs in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). As noted in the PSD portion of ou r analysis on the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C), ADEQ has recently clarified that it h as 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.

Maricopa County and Pima County do not have SIP-app roved PSD programs. Thus, the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requi rements in part C, title I of the Act and with respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a) re garding notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources in these two areas. These deficiencies are, however, adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in both areas by the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further action i s required.

For these reasons, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove the 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012 ozone I-SIP with respect to the requiremen t in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of sect ions 126 relating to interstate pollution

abatement.

CAA section 115 authorizes the Administrator to req uire a state to revise its SIP, in the case of a belief or allegation that any air pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to en danger 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 115.15

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

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

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), we are proposing approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the re asons stated above. We are not proposing any action today on the first two prongs for the 20 08 Ozone NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 2011 Pb a nd 2012 ozone I-SIPs for the reasons discussed above regarding PSD requirements under se ction 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is proposing approval for the 200 8 Pb NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any action on prong four today for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will address this requirement in a subsequent rulemaking. Finally, with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve the 2 011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs with respect to ADEQ and Pinal County, which both implement SIP-app roved PSD programs that contain the required notice provisions, but to disapprove the S IP with respect to Maricopa County and Pima County, which are subject to the Federal PSD progra m in 40 CFR 52.21.

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with govern ment officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation), section 127 (relating t o public notification), and part C (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air qual ity 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 pol lution, or any measure referred to in part D or part C of title I, 18 to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected official of loc al governments and any Federal land manager having authority over Federal land to which the Sta te plan applies. Such process shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA.

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures t o effectively notify the public during any calendar year on a regular basis of instances or ar eas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calend ar year, to advise the public of the health hazards associated with such pollution, and to enha nce public awareness of the measures which can be taken to prevent such standards from being e xceeded and the ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include the posting of warning signs on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or television, radio, or press notices or information.

For a discussion of the CAA title I, part C require ments, see our evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(C) above.

18 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 197 7, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating t o certain enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was signifi cantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990, and a s so amended, no longer relates to state enforcement ord ers.16

Related EPA Regulations

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification ar e set forth in set forth in subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) of 40 C FR part 51, section 51.285 (“Public notification”).

ADEQ’s response to this requirement

Consultation

“Arizona agencies maintain appropriate consultatio n procedures with local governments, CAA Section 174 and metropolitan plann ing agencies, and federal land managers regarding implementation of CAA requi rements. ARS §49-406 requires the State, the metropolitan planning agenc y on behalf of affected local governments, county agencies, and the Department of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of agreement for the purpose of coordi nating the development, implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment an d maintenance plans. Additionally, opportunity for comment is provided t hrough stakeholder meetings and public hearings held to solicit testimony from the public as well as federal and local air quality planning agencies prior to ad option of any revision to the Arizona SIP.”

Public Notification

“ ADEQ and those counties with authority to implement portions of the SIP (Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties) certify to do now and wil l continue to notify the public on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any pr imary NAAQS was exceeded, consistent with the requirements of sections 110(a) (2)(J) and 127 of the Federal Clean

Air Act.”

PSD and Visibility Protection

In ADEQ’s 2011 Pb I-SIP Arizona expressed a commitm ent to adopt and submit a SIP revision to update Arizona’s New Source Review/Prev ention of Significant Deterioration program to fully meet the requirements of CAA secti on 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. ADEQ provided the same commitment to update Arizona’s New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration prog ram in its 2012 Ozone I-SIP
Submittal.

EPA Evaluation

Consultation17

The Arizona SIP contains many authorities that addr ess the Clean Air Act requirements of

section 121.

Under 49-104.A.2., the department shall “[s]timulat e and encourage all local, state, regional and federal governmental agencies and all private perso ns and enterprises that have similar and related objectives and purposes, cooperate with tho se agencies, persons and enterprises and correlate department plans, programs and operations with those of the agencies, persons and enterprises.” The department shall also “provide in formation and advice on request of any local, state or federal agencies” on matters within the sc ope of the department. ARS 49-104.A.4.

Under ARS 49-104.B.3. the department, through the d irector, shall “utilize any medium of communication, publication and exhibition when diss eminating 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, inc luding 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 transpo rtation to coordinate the plans developed pursuant to subsection E of this section with trans portation plans developed by the department of transportation pursuant to any other law.”

ARS § 49-406.E requires the State, the planning age ncy on behalf of affected local governments, the county air pollution control department or dist rict, and the Department of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of agreement for the purpos e of coordinating the development, implementation, and enforcement of nonattainment an d maintenance plans. 49-406(F) cites to

minimum information that the memorandum must contai n, including the responsibilities and authorities of each organization, assurances for ad equate plan implementation, and procedures and responsibilities for adoption of control measur es and emissions limitations.

More broadly, ARS 49-424.3 requires the department to establish substantive policy statements for identifying air quality exceptional events. The se substantive policy statements “shall be developed with the planning agency certified pursua nt 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 th e 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 cons ult with “persons or affected groups or other states to achieve the purposes of this chapter, inc luding 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 assistan ce therefor.” See ARS 49-424.18

At the county level, under ARS 49-474 the board of supervisors of each county may authorize the board of health or health department of their r espective counties in cooperation with the department of environmental quality to: “1. Study t he problem of air pollution in the county; 2. Study possible effects on adjoining counties; 3. Co operate with chambers of commerce, industry, agriculture, public officials and all other interes ted persons or organizations; 4. Hold public hearings if in their discretion such action is nece ssary; 5. The board of supervisors by resolution may establish an air pollution control district.”

Public Notification

As stated in its 2012 ozone I-SIP submittal, ADEQ c ertifies that it does now and will continue to notify the public on a regular basis of instances o f areas in which any primary NAAQS is exceeded, consistent with the requirements of secti ons 110(a)(2)(J) and 127 of the Federal Clean Air Act. As noted by ADEQ: “Such notifications are and will be available on the state and county air quality websites, which are updated dail y 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 pub lic 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 .” 2012 Ozone I-SIP submittal at 25.

Links to state and county websites that provide cur rent air data and previous NAAQS exceedances, as well as other educational informati on, are available at: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/

.

PSD and Visibility Protection

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2 )(J) to meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I relating to prevention of signifi cant deterioration of air quality and visibility, EPA’s evaluation of the Arizona SIP for purposes of the 2008 8-hour ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS is contained in our evaluation of PSD SIP req uirements 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 an d regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act, but these program requirements do not change upon establishment of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, there are no applicable visibi lity requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new or revised NAAQS becomes effective.

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

Based on our review of the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I -SIP submittals and for the reasons given above, we propose to find that Arizona meets the re quirements of sections 121 and 127 of the Clean Air Act but to disapprove it for failure to f ully satisfy the requirements of part C relating to

PSD.19



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air quality modeling and submission of modeling
data

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 f or which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.”

To meet section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA recommends that, at a minimum, states identify the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide state and loc al air agencies with the authority to perform the following actions, along with a narrative explanati on of how the provisions meet the 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 NAAQ S has been promulgated, and (2) provide such modeling data to the EPA Administrator upon re quest. 19

Arizona’s response to this requirement:

The 2012 ozone I-SIP states that Arizona retains au thority to perform air quality modeling for predicting the effect of emissions on ambient a ir quality and that, “[w]here applicable, all modeling analyses for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS meet EPA’s most recent guidance on air quality models.” The 2012 ozone I-SIP also states that “[a]ll information and data are made available to E PA as required.”

EPA Analysis:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality regulat ions

The provisions addressing air quality models in ADE Q’s SIP-approved PSD program do not satisfy EPA’s current requirements for air quality modeling under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance recommends that, at a min imum, states and counties identify the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide air agencies with the authority to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient a ir quality of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such mo deling data to the EPA upon request.

Arizona’s 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs contain a c onclusory statement that ADEQ meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). The submi ttals then identify broad authority in the Arizona Revised Statutes, but do not explain how th is broad authority meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). Arizona also pointed to i ts NSR submittals and stated that these would bring the state into compliance with the mode ling requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) and 40 CFR Part 51, subpart I. Arizona’s 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs do not provide information adequate to demonstrate that with respect to ADEQ, the Arizona SIP provides for (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Adm inistrator may prescribe for the purpose of

19 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 55.20

predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the

Administrator has established a national ambient ai r quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality m odeling to the Administrator.

We also note that while the requirements for modeli ng in the I-SIP context are not as detailed or comprehensive as they are in the context of a revie w for consistency with specific NSR requirements, EPA did find certain deficiencies und er Part 51 with ADEQ’s modeling regulations in the context of EPA’s proposed limite d approval/limited disapproval action on
Arizona’s NSR Submittals. 20

ADEQ should provide a narrative explaining how exis ting Arizona statutes and regulations give ADEQ the requisite authority under 110(a)(2)(K) to address this deficiency in the I-SIP context. For the reasons stated above, we propose to disappr ove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs for section 110(a)(2)(K) in areas under ADEQ jurisdicti on.

Maricopa County regulations

EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance recommends that, at a min imum, states and counties should identify the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide air agencies with the authority to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambie nt air quality of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such mo deling data to the EPA upon request.

The 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs contain a conclus ory statement that Arizona and its respective counties meet the requirements of CAA se ction 110(a)(2)(K). The submittals identify broad authority in the Arizona Revised Statutes, bu t do not explain how this broad authority meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). Arizona’s 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs do not provide information adequate to demonstrate that with respect to Maricopa County, the Arizona SIP provides for (i) the performance of suc h air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the eff ect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has e stablished a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the

Administrator.

Maricopa County should provide a narrative explaini ng how existing statutes and regulations provide the requisite authority under 110(a)(2)(K) to address this deficiency in the I-SIP context. For the reasons stated above, we propose to disappr ove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs for section 110(a)(2)(K) in Maricopa County.

While we are proposing to disapprove the 2011 Pb an d 2012 ozone I-SIPs for Maricopa County, we note that it currently implements the Federal PS D program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)), pursuant to a delegation agreement
executed in 1993. See 40 CFR 52.144; see also 59 FR 1730 (January 12, 1994) and “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and MC,” ex ecuted November 22, 1993.

20 80 FR 14044 (March 18, 2015).21

Accordingly, although the Maricopa County portion o f the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements of part C, title I of the Act, including the requirements related to air quality models under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K), these deficiencies are adequately addressed by the Federal PSD program.

Pima County regulations

EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance recommends that, at a min imum, states and counties should identify the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide air agencies with the authority to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambie nt air quality of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such mo deling data to the EPA upon request.

The 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs contain a conclus ory statement that Arizona and its respective counties meet the requirements of 110(a) (2)(K). The submittals identify broad authority in the Arizona Revised Statutes, but do n ot explain how this broad authority meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). Arizona’s 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs do not provide information adequate to demonstrate that wi th respect to Pima County, the Arizona SIP provides for (i) the performance of such air qualit y 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 establish ed a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the

Administrator.

Pima County should provide a narrative explaining h ow existing statutes and regulations provide the requisite authority under 110(a)(2)(K) to addre ss this deficiency in the I-SIP context. For the reasons stated above, we propose to disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs for section 110(a)(2)(K) in Pima County.

While we are proposing to disapprove the 2011 Pb an d 2012 ozone I-SIPs for Pima County, we note that it currently implements the Federal PSD p rogram in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)), pursuant to a delegation agreement
executed in 1994. See 40 CFR 52.144; see also “Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deteriora tion of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and Pima County Air Quality Control Distri ct,” executed April 14, 1994. Accordingly, although the Pima County portion of th e Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements of part C, title I of the Act, including the requirements related to air quality models under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K), these deficiencies are adequately addressed by the Federal PSD program.

Pinal County regulations

EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance recommends that, at a min imum, states and counties should identify the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide air agencies with the authority to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambie nt air quality of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such mo deling data to the EPA upon request.

The 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs contain a conclus ory statement that Arizona and the22

respective counties meet the requirements of CAA se ction 110(a)(2)(K). The submittals then identify broad authority in the Arizona Revised Sta tutes, but do not explain how this broad authority meets the requirements of CAA section 110 (a)(2)(K). Arizona’s 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs do not provide information adequate to demonstrate that with respect to Pinal County, the Arizona SIP provides for (i) the perfor mance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of pred icting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Ad ministrator 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.

Arizona should provide a narrative explaining how e xisting Arizona statutes and regulations give Pinal County the requisite authority under 110(a)(2 )(K) to address this deficiency in the I-SIP context. For the reasons stated above, we propose t o disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone ISIPs for section 110(a)(2)(K) in Pinal County.

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

Based on our review of the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I -SIPs and the applicable Arizona SIP, and for the reasons given above, we propose to conclude that the Arizona SIP does not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 20 08 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We therefore propose to disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone I-SIPs with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). If fi nalized, this disapproval would not create any new FIP clocks as EPA previously disapproved AD EQ’s and Pinal County’s I-SIPs for CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). 21 For sources under the jurisdiction of Maricopa and Pima counties, the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 addresses this deficiency and therefore no further action is necessary.

21 See 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012).