Opinion ID: 3180012
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Simultaneous Disapproval of a SIP and

Text: Promulgation of a FIP Apart from its substantive challenges to the FIP, Arizona contends that EPA procedurally erred in promulgating the FIP in the same rule as its partial disapproval of the SIP. That is not so. Under the Act, EPA shall promulgate a FIP “at any time within 2 years” after EPA disapproves a SIP in whole or in part or finds that a state has not made a required submission. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c) (emphasis added). A state may forestall the promulgation of a FIP if it “corrects the deficiency, and [EPA] approves the plan or plan revision, before [EPA] promulgates such [FIP].” Id. Furthermore, a state may submit a SIP revision to EPA at any time, and EPA must act on it within twelve months of submission. Id. § 7410(k). The Final Rule’s partial disapproval of Arizona’s BART determinations constituted a trigger under the Act for promulgating a FIP replacing those elements. The Act expressly authorizes EPA to promulgate a FIP “at any time” within two years of disapproving a SIP. “At any time,” of course, includes simultaneously with the SIP’s disapproval. See Oklahoma, 723 F.3d at 1223. Arizona ultimately recognizes that EPA had the authority to promulgate the FIP simultaneously with its partial disapproval, but maintains that EPA did not realize that it had discretion to provide Arizona up to two years to correct any deficiencies. EPA, Arizona posits, harbored the erroneous belief that its obligations under the Consent Decree required it to act when it did. 46 ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA Some procedural background is required to understand the thrust of Arizona’s argument. After EPA did not promulgate FIPs within two years of its January 2009 finding that many states, including Arizona, had not submitted required SIPs, it entered into a Consent Decree requiring the federal agency to approve a SIP or promulgate a FIP by November 15, 2012. See supra, p. 13–14. In the Final Rule, EPA stated that the Consent Decree “required [it] to issue a FIP for any portion of the Arizona SIP that we cannot approve.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,569. EPA further explained that “while . . . in the absence of an expired statutory duty and a court-ordered deadline to issue a FIP, it would be preferable for us to give Arizona additional time to revise its Regional Haze SIP prior to promulgation of a FIP, we simply do not have this option under these circumstances.” Id. at 72,571. Arizona contends that the January 2009 finding constituted only a determination that Arizona failed to submit a Section 309 SIP, and that the correct remedy for Arizona’s asserted deficiency “was to impose a FIP supplying the missing Section 309 elements, not to impose a FIP under Section 308, as it did here.” But, as we explained earlier, see supra, p. 11–12, Section 309 provides an alternative mechanism for western states to comply with the CAA’s visibility requirements for certain Class I areas. Such states must include Section 308 components for other Class I areas, and they remain subject to Section 308’s requirements if they do not submit a Section 309 SIP. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.309(a), (e), (g)(2). Arizona expressly acknowledged that its Section 309 SIP submission lacked certain requirements under sections 51.309(d)(4)(viii) and (g). Because the State did not submit an adequate Section 309 SIP, it did not submit an adequate regional haze SIP. EPA was required to promulgate ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA 47 a FIP to fill in the gap. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(c)(1), 7491(b)(2)(A). More practically, it is unlikely that a different outcome would have resulted if EPA had provided Arizona with additional time to correct its Section 308 SIP. EPA had expressed a number of its concerns to Arizona after reviewing its proposed SIP in late 2010. EPA also identified the basis for its proposed partial disapproval in its July 2012 proposed rule. Arizona made no effort to correct its SIP in light of these comments. There is no reason to think it would have done so after the Final Rule disapproving the SIP issued either. In sum, EPA properly promulgated its FIP in the same rule as its partial disapproval of the SIP. Further, as EPA stated in the Final Rule, the State remains free to, at any time, “submit a revised SIP to replace the FIP.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,571. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we deny Arizona’s and SRP’s petitions for review of EPA’s Final Rule as to EPA’s disapproval of Arizona’s SIP. Our ultimate review of EPA’s FIP, however, must await EPA’s final action on its proposal to revise the FIP in specific respects. As noted, EPA has stated that it expects to finalize the revised FIP by March 2016. Accordingly we stay these proceedings as to evaluation of the FIP’s technical feasibility until the administrative process is complete. PETITIONS DENIED. 48 ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AFUDC – Allowance for Funds Utilized During Construction APA – Administrative Procedure Act CAA – Clean Air Act BACT – Best Available Control Technology BART – Best Available Retrofit Technology EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FIP – Federal Implementation Plan IPM – Integrated Planning Model LNB – Low NOX Burner NOX – Nitrogen Oxides OAQPS – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OFA – Overfire Air PSD – Prevention of Significant Deterioration SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction SIP – State Implementation Plan SO2 – Sulfur Dioxide ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA 49 SRP – Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District