[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66398-66404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26322]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398; FRL-9745-8]


Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation 
Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Arizona 
pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 
and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
    The Clean Air Act requires that each State adopt and submit a SIP 
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS 
promulgated by the EPA. Arizona has met most of the applicable 
requirements. Where EPA is disapproving, in part, Arizona's SIP 
revisions, several of the deficiencies have already been addressed by a 
federal implementation plan (FIP). The remaining deficiencies are 
subject to a two-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA 
approves an adequate SIP revision prior to that time. EPA remains 
committed to working with Arizona to develop such a SIP revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on December 5, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by 
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. The index to the docket for 
this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in 
hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4152, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,'' 
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone \1\ and a 
new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).\2\ EPA 
subsequently revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 
21, 2006.\3\ Each of these actions 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 new or 
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour 
averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).
    \2\ The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on the 3-year average 
of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from 
single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard was set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\, based on the 
3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 
concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area 
(62 FR 38652).
    \3\ The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 
PM2.5 from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ was 
published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239), EPA proposed to approve in part and 
disapprove in part several SIP revisions submitted by the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to address the 
infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Additionally, on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44551), EPA proposed to approve 
the portion of the Arizona Infrastructure SIP pertaining to section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ Also on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44555), EPA 
proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove the portion of 
the Arizona Infrastructure SIP pertaining to the conflict of interest 
provision in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). ADEQ submitted SIP revisions to 
EPA on September 18, 2008 (``2008 Infrastructure Analysis'') and 
October 14, 2009 (``2009 Infrastructure Analysis'') to address all of 
the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, except for section 
110(a)(2)(G),\5\ and a proposed SIP revision submitted on June 1, 
2012.\6\ The proposed SIP served as a supplement to the prior two 
infrastructure SIP revisions and was submitted under the parallel 
processing mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 
2.3. The final version of the June 1, 2012 proposed SIP revision was 
adopted on August 24, 2012 and submitted to EPA on the same day (``2012 
Submittal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA previously approved an earlier interstate transport 
submittal by Arizona for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007).
    \5\ In a separate rulemaking, EPA proposed to fully approve 
Arizona's SIP to address the requirements regarding air pollution 
emergency episodes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 21911 (April 12, 2012). The final rule for this 
action was signed on July 26, 2012. While we are awaiting 
publication in the Federal Register, a prepublication copy of that 
final rule is available in the docket for today's rulemaking.
    \6\ On June 14, 2012 ADEQ submitted a letter requesting 
withdrawal of several statutes included in the June 1, 2012 proposed 
SIP revision. See letter dated June 14, 2012 from Eric C. Massey, 
Air Quality Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are taking final action on all three submittals because they 
collectively address the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for 
the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
We refer to them collectively herein as ``Arizona's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals.''
    The rationale supporting EPA's actions, including the scope of 
infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the Notices of Proposed 
Rulemakings (NPRs) and associated technical support documents (TSDs) 
\7\ and will not be restated here. The TSDs are available online at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Each of our three proposed rules had an associated TSD 
available at www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0398. The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ``Technical Support 
Document: Evaluation of Arizona's Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone, the 1997 PM2.5, and the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS,'' June 15, 2012 (document ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398-
0003); (2) ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Action on 
the State of Arizona's 2009 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(Transport Portion) for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' July 
2012 (document ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398-0033); and (3) 
``Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Arizona Provisions 
for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 Conflict of Interest 
Requirements,'' July 2012 (herein, ``Section 128 TSD'') (document ID 
number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398-0075).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period for our proposal published in the Federal 
Register on June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239) started at publication and 
closed on July 27, 2012. The public comment period for our proposals of 
July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44551, concerning interstate transport

[[Page 66399]]

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and 77 FR 44555, 
concerning conflict of interest requirements) started at publication in 
the Federal Register on July 30, 2012 and closed on August 29, 2012.
    During the respective comment periods we received one comment 
letter from ADEQ (``ADEQ comment letter''), which concerned the 
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.\8\ In our July 
30, 2012 notice on these requirements (77 FR 44555), we proposed to 
partially approve and partially disapprove a SIP revision submitted by 
ADEQ to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 
the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
(77 FR 44555). In particular, we proposed to find that the statutes 
submitted by ADEQ met nearly all the requirements of CAA section 128, 
and therefore proposed to partially approve the submittal with respect 
to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). However, with respect to the air 
quality hearing boards in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties 
[hereinafter ``County Boards''], we proposed to determine that the 
provisions submitted by ADEQ in its 2009 and 2012 SIP revisions did not 
adequately address all of the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). We 
have summarized the ADEQ comment letter in three comments, and have 
responded to each, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a copy of the comment letter, see document number EPA-
R09-OAR-2012-0398-0079 in www.regulations.gov under docket ID EPA-
R09-OAR-2012-0398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #1: ADEQ disagrees with EPA's assessment that the statutes 
and regulations provided in its supplementary submittal of June 1, 2012 
do not apply to enforcement orders and asks EPA to approve the State's 
submittals with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State 
argues that the statutes it submitted, ``in particular ARS [sections] 
38-101 and 38-501 through 39-511, * * * apply to all public agency 
officers and employees, whether at the State, County, or City level'' 
and that ARS 38-503(B) forbids public officers and employees having a 
conflict of interest in any decision of the agency from participating 
in that decision. In other words, ``[u]pon recusal of each person with 
a conflict of interest, all of the members remaining who are authorized 
lawfully to make the decision represent the public interest and do not 
derive any significant income from parties subject to the permits or 
enforcement orders at issue.'' ADEQ notes that ARS 49-478 (``Hearing 
board'') also applies to the counties and that there is ``no gap in 
coverage of these requirements'' between the state statutes and the 
county regulations. The State highlights the disclosure provisions of 
ARS 38-508, including the alternate measures implemented when a 
conflict exists, and notes that ``not all conflicts of interest can be 
identified or even exist at the time of appointment to a board or 
agency.''
    Response #1: As outlined in the TSD for our proposal notice, we 
agree with ADEQ that Arizona's conflict of interest statutes (ARS Title 
38, Chapter 3, Article 8 ) \9\ apply to all public agency officers and 
employees, whether at the State, County, or City level, that approve 
permits or enforcement orders. Furthermore, we agree that the term 
``any decision of a public agency'' in Arizona under ARS 38-503(B) 
encompasses the approval of both permits and enforcement orders. 
However, we do not agree that the board membership requirements of 
section 128(a)(1) are adequately addressed by the recusal requirement 
of ARS 38-503(B). The plain language of section 128(a)(1) establishes 
requirements regarding membership on a board, and not merely a 
requirement regarding a member's action on any particular permit or 
enforcement order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA proposed to approve ARS Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 8 
(``Conflict of Interest of Officers and Employees'') statutes on 
conflict of interest, as well as several statutes related to hearing 
boards and orders of abatement, into the Arizona SIP with respect to 
the requirements of CAA section 128. For the listing of the specific 
statutes, see 77 FR 44555 at 44558. The final rule approving these 
statutes into the SIP is happening concurrent with today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 128(a)(1) of the CAA provides: ``Each applicable plan shall 
contain requirements that * * * any board or body which approves 
permits or enforcement orders under [the Act] 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 
and enforcement orders under [the Act].'' Two elements of this 
provision prevent it from being satisfied by recusal alone.
    First, the ``public interest'' and ``significant income'' 
requirements of section 128(a)(1) apply to a ``majority of members'' of 
a ``board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under 
[the CAA].'' The use of the plural in ``permits'' and ``orders'' tends 
to indicate that the relevant board or body is defined by its authority 
to approve permits and enforcement orders, and not by the particular 
subset of the board acting on a single given permit or enforcement 
order. A board member may recuse himself from a particular permit or 
enforcement order proceeding in order to avoid a conflict of interest 
and yet remain a member of that board. Under these circumstances, his 
conflict of interest must still be considered in determining whether 
the board as a whole meets the majority membership requirement of 
section 128(a)(1).
    Second, the ``significant portion of income'' requirement is 
determined by reference to ``persons subject to permits or enforcement 
orders''. A permit holder is legally bound by a permit and is therefore 
``subject to'' it. Similar reasoning applies to a person legally bound 
by a final enforcement order. Any reasonable interpretation of 
``subject to'' must at a minimum include persons already legally bound 
by a final permit or final enforcement order. Yet a recusal 
requirement, such as that provided by ARS 38-503(B), fails to ensure 
that a majority of members do not derive a significant portion of their 
income from persons who already have permits or are already under a 
final enforcement order.
    Thus, even assuming, for argument's sake, that ARS 38-503(B) could 
meet the ``public interest'' requirement of section 128(a)(1), it 
clearly does not, by itself, fulfill the ``significant income'' 
requirement. This interpretation is consistent with EPA's existing 
guidance on Section 128. In particular, in 1978, EPA issued a guidance 
memorandum \10\ that suggested definitions of certain terms in section 
128. Although the guidance did not specifically mention recusal, it did 
suggest that the term ``persons subject to permits or enforcement 
orders under this Act'' includes, among others, ``any individual, 
corporation, partnership, or association who holds * * * any permit, or 
who is * * * subject to any enforcement order under the [Act]''. In 
other words, EPA's guidance recommended that ``persons subject to 
permits or enforcement orders'' should include those persons legally 
bound to a permit or enforcement order. The guidance also suggested 
that the term ``majority of members'' be defined as ``a majority of all 
members of a board or body having or sharing authority to approve 
permits or enforcement orders under the [CAA], and a majority of 
members making up any panel of fewer than all members (including panels 
of a single member) where individual permits or orders are considered 
by such a panel''. Thus, EPA interprets the statutory language of 
section 128(a)(1) as

[[Page 66400]]

requiring a majority of members of the entire board to meet the public 
interest and significant income requirements. EPA's guidance reflected 
that reading of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, 
to Regional Air Directors, ``Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict 
of Interest Requirements of Section 128,'' March 2, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we agree that, at the time of appointment to a board or 
agency, it is not possible to identify future conflicts of interest 
that may result from future permits or enforcement orders, we note that 
it is possible to identify a prospective or current board member's 
interest in current permit holders and persons currently under final 
enforcement orders. Thus, this particular part of ADEQ's comment letter 
is not directly relevant to the deficiency in question.
    Arizona's conflict of interest statutes thus leave a gap with 
respect to the CAA section 128(a)(1) requirement that boards that 
approve permits or enforcement orders 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 and 
enforcement orders under [the Act].'' However, Arizona's county hearing 
board statute, ARS 49-478, which we proposed to approve and thus to 
incorporate into the Arizona SIP, requires that, for county air quality 
hearing boards, ``[a]t least three [of five] members shall not have a 
substantial interest, as defined in [ARS] 38-502, in any person 
required to obtain a permit pursuant to this article.'' Thus, ARS 49-
478 partially fills the gap between the Arizona conflict of interest 
statutes and the board membership requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) 
by establishing a majority membership requirement.
    As noted in our proposal, Pima County Code 17.04.190 extends this 
majority membership requirement to interests in persons subject to 
enforcement orders. See 77 FR 44555 at 44557. Such a provision could be 
submitted for incorporation into the Arizona SIP. However, Arizona has 
not submitted this or other provisions for incorporation into the SIP 
that would require that a majority of members of the County Boards 
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to enforcement orders. Therefore, 
we are finalizing our partial approval and narrow, partial disapproval 
as proposed.
    Comment #2: ADEQ states that EPA failed to comply with section 552 
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires publication 
in the Federal Register of amendments and revisions to substantive 
rules of general applicability and statements of general policy or 
interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the 
agency. Specifically, ADEQ asserts that EPA has not issued guidance of 
general applicability on CAA section 128 since 1978 and that the 1978 
guidance memo was ``severely lacking.'' The State references footnote 
5 of our proposal (see 77 FR 44555 at 44556) and states that 
``EPA lacks authority to single out Arizona and create specific 
retroactive guidance applicable to it, after [Arizona] has submitted 
the required SIP and SIP Supplement(s)'' and that EPA bears 
responsibility to be transparent and predictable in the planning 
process. ADEQ states that EPA proposes to change certain 
interpretations of section 128 by proposing interpretations on a 
``case-by-case basis for individual states'' and that such a process 
violates APA section 552. Finally, by reference to EPA's infrastructure 
SIP rulemaking on Hawaii that we cited in our Arizona section 128 
proposal, ADEQ states that EPA did not provide public notice and 
opportunity to comment on proposed amendments or revisions to the 1978 
guidance.
    Response #2: We do not agree that our action violates the APA. 
While EPA understands ADEQ's interest in having EPA issue 
comprehensive, generally applicable guidance on section 128, it is not 
always possible to anticipate all potential issues or questions that 
may arise in reviewing SIP submittals in advance of the deadlines for 
such SIP submittals. Therefore, it is often necessary for EPA to make 
certain judgments about proper application of the statutory 
requirements of the CAA on a case-by-case basis, as it acts on 
individual SIP submissions. The notice-and-comment rulemaking 
procedures followed by EPA in acting on SIP submissions allow for 
states and other interested parties to weigh in on these case-by-case 
judgments. This process is what naturally follows when EPA issues 
guidance making recommendations concerning how states could correctly 
comply with the statute, but new issues arise in the application of the 
guidance in rulemaking on a SIP submission.
    In this case, the interpretations referred to in our proposal and 
set out in our TSD \11\ were intended to clarify previously issued 
guidance pertaining to section 128 in relation to the Arizona 
infrastructure SIP. In particular, we wished to clarify that the 
requirements of 128(a)(1) apply only to boards or bodies composed of 
multiple individuals and do not apply where a single individual 
approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. As explained in 
the TSD for our proposal, this interpretation derives from the text of 
section 128 itself (see TSD at pages 1-3). However, the 1978 memorandum 
suggests a definition of ``board or body'' that includes ``any 
individual * * * authorized to approve permits or enforcement orders 
under the Clean Air Act.'' In Arizona's case, a strict adherence to the 
recommendations of the guidance would have rendered the Director of 
ADEQ, the state administrative law judges and the county controls 
officers all subject to the ``public interest'' and ``significant 
income'' requirements of 128(a)(1). As explained in the TSD for our 
proposal, this interpretation seems inconsistent with the plain 
language of the statute; we therefore instead proposed and took comment 
on the interpretation that subsection 128(a)(1) should not apply to 
heads of executive agencies who approve permits or enforcement orders. 
Similarly, the other interpretations of the statute set forth in our 
TSD were intended to clarify ambiguities left by the recommendations of 
the 1978 guidance, so that we could properly evaluate Arizona's 
submittal under the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Footnote 3 of ADEQ's comment letter indicates that ADEQ was 
unable to find explanation of EPA's reasoning in the TSD. It appears 
that ADEQ was looking at the more general TSD associated with the 
earlier proposal on other portions of Arizona's infrastructure SIP 
(i.e., 77 FR 38239, June 27, 2012, docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398, 
document number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398-0003) rather than the separate 
Section 128 TSD, which was available at www.regulations.gov (i.e., 
document number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398-0075, under the same docket 
ID). Thus, while this misunderstanding is unfortunate, we disagree 
that our TSD was ``lacking clarity'' or that our explanation did 
``not appear under that specific section in the TSD,'' as asserted 
by ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we do not necessarily agree that these interpretations are 
subject to the requirements of APA section 552, we note that our 
proposal, as published in the Federal Register, specifically referred 
to these interpretations (see 77 FR 44555 at 44556), and that we 
explained these interpretations in detail in the TSD available in the 
docket for our proposal (see TSD at pages 1-3). Moreover, the proposed 
interpretations in our proposal on Arizona are consistent with other 
recent notices that EPA has published in the Federal Register.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ E.g., 77 FR 21913, April 12, 2012 (for Hawaii); and 77 FR 
22540, April 16, 2012 (for North Dakota).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: ADEQ claims that compliance with ``EPA's unauthorized 
amendment or revision to its 1978 guidance is practically infeasible'' 
because EPA's ``revised or amended interpretation has not occurred 
until after the 2012 legislature has adjourned.'' As such, the State 
claims

[[Page 66401]]

that it did not have the opportunity to revise its statutes or amend 
its prior submittal of October 14, 2009 or parallel process submittal 
of June 1, 2012 prior to the submittal deadline.
    Response #3: For the reasons explained in Response 2, we 
disagree with ADEQ's assertion that EPA has made ``unauthorized 
amendment or revision to its 1978 guidance.'' With respect to ADEQ's 
argument regarding timing of the legislative session and opportunity to 
revise statutes or SIP submittals, we disagree that compliance with CAA 
section 128, in light of the 1978 guidance and the clarifying 
interpretations presented in our proposal, is practically infeasible, 
to the extent that ``practical infeasibility'' is even an allowable 
consideration in EPA's action on a SIP submission.
    Our final, partial disapproval triggers a two-year deadline for EPA 
to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the identified 
deficiency. However, the State can remedy the deficiency prior to such 
FIP promulgation. If ADEQ can submit a SIP revision that meets EPA 
approval within the next two years, EPA's obligation to promulgate a 
FIP would be discharged.
    As noted in the TSD, the CAA requires that section 128 must be 
implemented through SIP-approved, federally enforceable provisions. 
However, the Act does not prescribe the exact means of implementation. 
The state and counties now have the opportunity to consider statutory 
or regulatory revisions to submit to EPA as a SIP revision to remedy 
this narrow deficiency. We stand ready to work with ADEQ and Maricopa, 
Pima, and Pinal counties to develop this revision.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving the 
Arizona Infrastructure SIP with respect to the following requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of 
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate transport (for 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).13 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA previously approved an earlier SIP submission from 
Arizona as fully satisfying the interstate transport SIP 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007).
    \14\ With respect to Arizona's section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
interstate transport SIP submission for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the recent opinion vacating the Transport 
Rule, EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir., 
August 21, 2012), does not alter our conclusion that the existing 
Arizona SIP adequately addresses this requirement. Nothing in the 
Homer City opinion disturbs or calls into question that conclusion 
or the validity of the technical information on which our July 30, 
2012 proposal (77 FR 44551) relied--e.g., ambient PM2.5 
levels at monitoring sites representative of regional background in 
nearby states and relevant meteorological and topographical 
information. In addition, nothing in that opinion undermines our 
proposed conclusion, based on our review of the available technical 
information, that emissions from Arizona do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate resources and legal 
authority.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): Conflict of interest.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State oversight of local or 
regional government agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source 
monitoring and reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes (for 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5).
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with 
government officials and public notification.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.
    In addition, we are approving into the SIP certain statutory and 
regulatory provisions included in the 2009 Infrastructure SIP. These 
are discussed further in our proposal notices, accompanying TSDs, and 
in Arizona's August 24, 2012 submittal, all available in the docket for 
today's action.
    Simultaneously, EPA is disapproving Arizona's Infrastructure SIP 
submittals for 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the following infrastructure SIP 
requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Permit program for 
regulation of new and modified stationary sources under part C of title 
I of the Act (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): Provision to prohibit 
interference with other states' PSD measures (for 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA previously approved an earlier SIP submission from 
Arizona as fully satisfying the interstate transport SIP 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): Conflict of interest.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source 
monitoring and reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD.
     Section 110 (a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission 
of monitoring data.
    On June 1, 2012 ADEQ submitted the ``Proposed Supplement to the 
Arizona State Implementation Plan under Clean Air act Section 110(a)(1) 
and (2): Implementation of [1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS], Parallel Processing Version'' 
(``2012 Supplement''). The 2012 Supplement included a number of 
statutes and regulations that were effective under state law but had 
not been adopted specifically for submittal to EPA as a SIP revision 
under CAA section 110. On August 24, 2012, ADEQ provided EPA with 
evidence that the laws and regulations in the 2012 Supplement have been 
adopted specifically for submittal to EPA as a SIP revision with the 
exception of two Pima County regulations (rules 17.12.040 and 
17.24.040). As explained in our notice of proposed rulemaking, our 
proposed approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) was contingent upon 
receipt of fully adopted versions of the two Pima County regulations 
discussed above. We proposed in the alternative to disapprove the 2009 
Infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(F) in Pima County, if ADEQ did not submit the two Pima County 
regulations as SIP revisions following all required state and local 
procedures.\16\ Consequently, in the absence of the aforementioned Pima 
County regulations, we are disapproving Arizona's infrastructure SIP 
for section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to Pima County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 77 FR 38239, 38244 (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the NPRs and TSD, our disapprovals related to 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K) result from 
the conclusion that the Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the 
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under 
part C of title I of the Act. For these disapprovals, both the Maricopa 
County Air Quality Department and the Pima County Department of 
Environmental Quality currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 
CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation 
agreements with EPA. 40

[[Page 66402]]

CFR 52.144.\17\ Accordingly, although the Arizona SIP remains deficient 
with respect to PSD requirements in both Maricopa and Pima counties, 
these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the 
Federal PSD program. ADEQ implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all 
regulated NSR pollutants except for PM-10 and GHGs \18\ (48 FR 19878, 
May 3, 1983), and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District 
(PCAQCD) implements a SIP-approved PSD program for all regulated NSR 
pollutants except for GHGs \19\ (61 FR 15717, April 9, 1996, as amended 
by 65 FR 79742, December 20, 2000). EPA understands that both ADEQ and 
the PCAQCD intend to submit, in the near future, PSD SIP revisions 
addressing the deficiencies identified in our TSD.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 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 [Maricopa County],'' executed November 22, 1993; ``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 Pima County Air Quality Control District,'' executed April 
14, 1994.
    \18\ For PM-10 and GHGs, ADEQ implements the Federal PSD program 
in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to delegation agreements executed in 1999 
and 2011, respectively. 40 CFR 52.37; ``Agreement for Delegation of 
Authority of the PM-10 Regulations for Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between EPA and Arizona 
DEQ,'' executed March 12, 1999; ``U.S. EPA--Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality Agreement for Delegation of Authority to Issue 
and Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,'' executed March 30, 2011.
    \19\ For GHGs, Pinal County implements the Federal PSD program 
in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to a delegation agreement executed in 2011. 
40 CFR 52.37; ``U.S. EPA--Pinal County Air Quality Control District 
Agreement for Delegation of Authority to Issue and Modify Greenhouse 
Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Subject to 40 
CFR 52.21,'' executed August 10, 2011.
    \20\ On April 10, 2012, ADEQ submitted draft PSD program 
regulations to EPA with a request for ``parallel processing'' under 
40 CFR part 51, appendix V. We intend to act on this PSD submittal 
expeditiously upon receipt of an official SIP revision containing 
ADEQ's fully adopted PSD regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously. Rather than 
implement a FIP, we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act, for states to implement the CAA 
requirements through state provisions that are developed and adopted by 
the state and approved into the SIP by EPA. A state plan need not 
contain exactly the same provisions that EPA might require, but EPA 
must be able to find that the state plan is consistent with the 
requirements of the Act, in accordance with its obligations under 
section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role requires that it assure 
consistent implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states 
across the country, even while acknowledging that individual decisions 
from source to source or state to state may not have identical 
outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path that is 
consistent with the Act at this time.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal 
that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA 
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of 
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) 
starts a sanctions clock. The Arizona Infrastructure SIP was not 
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our partial 
disapproval of Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals does not trigger 
mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a State has failed 
to make a required submission or disapproving a State implementation 
plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision 
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. For the 
reasons provided in our proposed rules and associated TSDs, and in our 
responses to comments above, EPA is partially disapproving Arizona's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals based on our conclusion that it does not 
fully satisfy the following CAA section 110(a) requirements: (1) With 
respect to those areas under ADEQ and Pinal County jurisdiction, the 
PSD program requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) 
regarding regulation of nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone 
precursor, regulation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 
interstate pollution abatement, and air quality models and modeling 
data; (2) with respect to the air quality hearing boards in Maricopa, 
Pima, and Pinal counties, the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting board composition requirements under CAA 
section 128(a)(1); and (3) with respect to Pima County, the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) regarding stationary source 
monitoring and reporting. Our partial disapproval of Arizona's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals based on these deficiencies triggers an 
obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c), unless 
Arizona submits and EPA approves SIP revisions correcting the 
identified deficiencies within two years of the effective date of this 
final rule. We encourage the state to submit a SIP revision to address 
the deficiencies identified in this final rule and we stand ready to 
work with the state to develop a revised plan.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions 
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new 
information collection burdens but simply approves certain State 
requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for 
inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose 
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP 
approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-
and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain 
State requirements, and

[[Page 66403]]

disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for 
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial 
disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result 
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This 
action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves 
certain other pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves certain 
State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, 
for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
on which EPA is taking action would not apply in Indian country located 
in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval 
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new 
regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and 
disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would 
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2). This rule will be effective on December 5, 2012.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

[[Page 66404]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 28, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(152)(ii) and 
(c)(153) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (152) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) ``Final Supplement to the Arizona State Implementation Plan 
under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of 2006 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1997 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 1997 8-
Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' August 2012, 
adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on August 
24, 2012, excluding the appendices.
    (2) Arizona Revised Statutes (West's, 2011-2012 Compact Edition):
    (i) Title 28 (transportation), chapter 7 (certification of title 
and registration), article 5 (registration requirements generally), 
section 28-2153 (``Registration requirement; exceptions; assessment; 
violation; classification'');
    (ii) Title 35 (public finances), chapter 2 (handling of public 
funds), article 2 (state management of public monies), section 35-313 
(``Investment of trust and treasury monies; loan of securities'');
    (iii) Title 38 (public officers and employees), chapter 1 (general 
provisions), article 1 (definitions), section 38-101 (``Definitions'') 
and article 8 (conflict of interest of officers and employees), 
sections 38-501 (``Application of article''), 38-502 (``Definitions''), 
38-503 (``Conflict of interest; exemptions; employment prohibition''), 
38-504 (``Prohibited acts''), 38-505 (``Additional income prohibited 
for services'') 38-506 (``Remedies''), 38-507 (``Opinions of the 
attorney general, county attorneys, city or town attorneys and house 
and senate ethics committee''), 38-508 (``Authority of public officers 
and employees to act''), 38-509 (Filing of disclosures''), 38-510 
(``Penalties''), and 38-511 (``Cancellation of political subdivision 
and state contracts; definition'');
    (iv) Title 49 (the environment), chapter 1 (general provisions), 
article 1 (department of environmental quality), section 49-103 
(``Department employees; legal counsel''), subsections (A)(2), (A)(4), 
(B)(3), and (B)(5) of section 49-104 (``Powers and duties of the 
department and director''), and sections 49-106 (``Statewide 
application of rules'') and 49-107 (``Local delegation of state 
authority'');
    (v) Title 49 (the environment), chapter 3 (air quality), article 1 
(general provisions), section 49-405 (``Attainment area 
designations''); article 2 (state air pollution control), sections 49-
421 (``Definitions''), 49-422 (``Powers and duties''), 49-424 (``Duties 
of department''), 49-425 (``Rules; hearing''), 49-433 (``Special 
inspection warrant''), 49-435 (``Hearings on orders of abatement''), 
and 49-441 (``Suspension and revocation of conditional order''), 
subsections (A) and (B)(2) of section 49-455 (``Permit administration 
fund''), and sections 49-460 (``Violations; production of records''), 
49-461 (``Violations; order of abatement''), 49-462 (``Violations; 
injunctive relief''), 49-463 (``Violations; civil penalties''), and 49-
465 (``Air pollution emergency''); and article 3 (county air pollution 
control), sections 49-471 (``Definitions''), 49-473 (``Board of 
supervisors''), 49-474 (``County control boards''), 49-476.01 
(``Monitoring''), 49-478 (``Hearing board''), 49-479 (``Rules; 
hearing''), 49-480.02 (``Appeals of permit actions''), 49-482 
(``Appeals to hearing board''), 49-488 (``Special inspection 
warrant''), 49-490 (``Hearings on orders of abatement''), 49-495 
(``Suspension and revocation of conditional order''), 49-502 
(``Violation; classification''), 49-510 (``Violations; production of 
records''), 49-511 (``Violations; order of abatement''), 49-512 
(``Violations; injunctive relief''), and 49-513 (``Violations; civil 
penalties'').
    (153) The following plan was submitted on October 14, 2009, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air 
Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of 2006 PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1997 PM2.5 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards,'' September 2009, adopted by the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality on October 14, 2009, excluding the 
appendices.

0
3. Section 52.123 is amended by adding paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.123  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (l) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 
and August 24, 2012 are fully or partially disapproved for Clean Air 
Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for all portions 
of the Arizona SIP; for CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the Maricopa 
County, Pima County, and Pinal County portions of the Arizona SIP; and 
for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Pima County portion of the Arizona 
SIP.
    (m) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 and 
August 24, 2012 are fully or partially disapproved for Clean Air Act 
(CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for all portions of 
the Arizona SIP; for CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the Maricopa 
County, Pima County, and Pinal County portions of the Arizona SIP; and 
for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Pima County portion of the Arizona 
SIP.
    (n) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 and 
August 24, 2012 are fully or partially disapproved for Clean Air Act 
(CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any 
other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), 
(D)(ii), (J) and (K) for all portions of the Arizona SIP; for CAA 
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the Maricopa County, Pima County, and 
Pinal County portions of the Arizona SIP; and for CAA element 
110(a)(2)(F) for the Pima County portion of the Arizona SIP.
[FR Doc. 2012-26322 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P